5.  The applicant was born in 1973. He is currently detained in Ustka Prison. 6.  On 22 October 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion that he had committed a series of criminal offences against different banks, such as fraud, perjury and attempted unlawful disposal of property. 7.  On 25 October 2004 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody. On 7 February 2005 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) upheld that decision. 8.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was subsequently extended by decisions of the Gdańsk District Court of: 13 January and 22 April 2005 (the latter upheld by the Gdańsk Regional Court on 23 May 2005) and 15 July 2005 (upheld by the Gdańsk Regional Court on 16 August 2005). Later, the preventive measure in question was extended by decisions of the Gdańsk Regional Court of 20 October 2005 (upheld by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal on 3 November 2005), 2 January, 23 March, 31 May and 3 July 2006 (upheld by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal on 19 July 2006), and 23 August 2006. 9.  The domestic courts justified the applicant’s pre‑trial detention in its initial phase by the existence of strong evidence against the applicant and a likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed. Moreover, the authorities invoked the need to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings in the light of the risk that the applicant might go into hiding. He did not have a permanent residence and had been already sought by the police under a wanted notice. Finally, the domestic courts indicated that it had been necessary to examine new witnesses, to obtain psychiatric reports on the applicant and to run the necessary graphology tests, all of which had contributed to the delays in the pre‑trial proceedings. 10.  At the later stage of the applicant’s pre‑trial detention, the authorities emphasised that the applicant had been charged with seventeen serious criminal offences and that holding him in detention was the only possible way to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings, since the applicant had already gone into hiding in the past. 11.  Meanwhile, from 19 November 2004 to 27 February 2005, from 27 February to 13 May 2005 and from 20 July 2005 to 20 April 2006 the applicant was concurrently serving prison sentences which had been imposed by domestic courts in three unrelated criminal proceedings against him. 12.  It appears that on 18 February 2005 the applicant, who beforehand had resided in Germany, became registered at a permanent address in Poland. 13.  On 30 September 2005 the applicant was indicted on numerous charges of fraud, perjury and attempted unlawful disposal of property. It was asserted in the indictment that he had tried to enter into financial transactions with different banks under false pretences and using false documents. The prosecutor asked the trial court to examine sixty-one witnesses, including nine expert witnesses. 14.  The first hearing took place on 7 November 2005. Subsequently, between 2005 and the end of 2007 the trial court held twenty-four hearings. 15.  When the length of the applicant’s pre‑trial detention appeared to reach the statutory two‑year time‑limit laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego), the Gdańsk Regional Court asked the superior court to assume jurisdiction to take a decision on the measure. On 17 October 2006, however, the Gdańsk Court of Appeal decided not to hear the case, noting that the applicant’s actual pre‑trial detention had not lasted two years because it had been interrupted by the prison sentences which he had been serving at the same time, for approximately one year and three months. 16.  Consequently, the applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended again by decision of the Gdańsk Regional Court of 19 October and 30 November 2006 and 10 January, 7 February, 12 April and 28 June 2007. Those decisions were upheld by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal on 7 November and 13 December 2006, an unspecified date, and 20 February, 24 April and 18 July 2007, respectively. 17.  In the meantime, on 27 February 2007 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed a request by the applicant to lift the preventive measure in question. 18.  At that stage, the domestic courts justified the applicant’s protracted pre‑trial detention by the complexity of the case, the need to examine two more witnesses and the fact that the investigation could not be completed for reasons beyond the prosecutor’s control, namely delays in obtaining the testimony of a witness who was to be heard by the court in a different administrative region under the courts’ mutual aid system. 19.   On 28 December 2007 the court convicted the applicant of several offences and sentenced him to five and a half years’ imprisonment. 20.  It appears that the applicant appealed and that the proceedings are currently pending before the second‑instance court. The applicant remains in detention. 21.  The applicant did not use, in connection with his criminal trial, any of the domestic legal means designed to counteract and redress the undue length of judicial proceedings, such as those regulated in the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) or by Article 417 of the Civil Code (Kodeks Cywilny).