4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Gdynia. 5.  On 28 October 1996 he was arrested on suspicion of having committed armed robbery while acting in an organised criminal gang. 6.  On 29 October 1996 the Gdańsk District Court remanded the applicant in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. It noted that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated penalty. 7.  Later, several other persons were detained and charged in connection with the same investigation conducted by the Department of Organised Crime of the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor's Office. 8.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was prolonged on several occasions. On 16 January 1997 the Gdańsk Regional Court prolonged his detention until 28 April 1997. On 16 April 1997 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal extended the applicant's detention until 29 July 1997. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question and the gravity of the charges. It also had regard to the number of suspects and the need to obtain further evidence. 9.  On 16 July 1997 the Court of Appeal prolonged his detention until 27 October 1997. It considered that there was a risk that the applicant might go into hiding or obstruct the proceedings. It also relied on the severity of the anticipated penalty. Lastly, it held that further prolongation of the investigation was not attributable to the prosecuting authorities, but resulted from the fact that further suspects had been identified and arrested. Furthermore, the prolongation was due to a delay in the preparation of some expert reports and the need to request legal assistance from the German authorities. 10.  On 17 September 1997 the Supreme Court extended the detention of the applicant and his 5 co-suspects until 31 December 1997. It found that there was a reasonable risk that the suspects might intimidate witnesses, given the nature of the charges against them. It further observed that the investigation could not be terminated on account of the prolonged preparation of an expert report and the need to hear a witness, W.B., who was serving his prison sentence in Germany. 11.  On 28 November 1997 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant was charged with kidnapping, armed robbery, extortion and inflicting grievous bodily harm while being a member of an organised armed criminal group. There were 16 defendants in the case, all charged with numerous counts of armed robbery and extortion. 12.  On 7 January 1998 the Regional Court prolonged his detention until 21 September 1998. In addition to the grounds previously invoked, it relied on the complexity of the case and the number of defendants. 13.  On 24 February 1998 the trial court held the first hearing. It subsequently held some 56 hearings in the case. 14.  On 17 September 1998 the Regional Court extended his detention on remand until 21 October 1998. 15.  On 21 September 1998 the Supreme Court ordered that the applicant be kept in custody until 30 January 1999. It found that the fact that the trial had not been terminated could not be attributed to the authorities, given the volume of evidence and the fact that some hearings had to be cancelled as the defendants' counsel or witnesses had not appeared. It further noted that the applicant had been charged with the commission of the crimes for which he was liable to a sentence of imprisonment exceeding 8 years, and that the circumstances of the case indicated that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant might obstruct the proceedings. 16.  On 19 January 1999 the Supreme Court ordered that the applicant be kept in custody until 30 June 1999. It relied on the fact that witnesses had informed the trial court about having been threatened by the defendants. It also had regard to the severity of the anticipated penalty and the presumption established by Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, the Supreme Court considered that the prolongation of the detention beyond the statutory time-limit of two years was justified by the complexity of the case and the volume of evidence to be heard. In that respect, it also observed that in December 1998 the trial court had been prevented from hearing evidence on account of the absence of two defence counsel. 17.  On 2 June 1999 the Supreme Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 31 December 1999. It noted that the trial was being efficiently conducted and that it had not been terminated for reasons which were attributable to the defendants and their counsel. It noted in particular that the defendants had attempted to intimidate witnesses and protract the trial. Further, it had regard to the nature of the charges and the severity of the likely penalty. 18.  On 14 December 1999 the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of armed robbery, kidnapping and extortion and sentenced him to 7 years' and 6 months' imprisonment and a fine. The applicant appealed. 19.  The applicant's detention pending appeal was prolonged on several occasions. The last decision extending the applicant's detention until 31 March 2001 was given by the Court of Appeal on 17 January 2001. 20.  On 7 March 2001 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment in respect of the applicant and remitted the case. 21.  On 14 March 2001 the Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant be kept in custody until 30 June 2001. Having regard to Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it observed that the applicant might attempt to obstruct the proceedings given the likelihood of a severe penalty being imposed on him. It also relied on the nature of the charges. 22.  On 19 June 2001 the Court of Appeal prolonged his detention until 30 September 2001, finding that continuation of that measure was necessary in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, having regard to the severity of the anticipated penalty. 23.  On 28 September 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court ordered that the applicant be kept in custody until 30 December 2001. It found that the applicant's continued detention was necessary in order to prevent the applicant from interfering with witnesses. On 10 October 2001 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against that prolongation. Referring to Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, it observed that the applicant's detention, although undeniably long, was justified by the particular circumstances of the case. In this respect, it emphasised that the applicant had been charged with particularly serious and violent crimes, and thus his continued detention was justified on public interest grounds. 24.  On 28 December 2001 the Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 30 March 2002. It observed that following the Court of Appeal's instructions most of the witnesses who had given evidence at the original trial had to be heard again. In that case there was a reasonable risk that the defendants might interfere with the witnesses. In addition, the court found that given the gravity of the charges and the likelihood that severe penalties would be imposed on them, the defendants might obstruct the proceedings by going into hiding. On 23 January 2002 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal upheld that decision. It considered, inter alia, that the Regional Court had attempted to examine the case within a reasonable time, but there had been significant delays at the trial which were attributable to the defendants or their counsel. In this respect, it pointed to the obstructive conduct of all the defendants on 18 December 2001 which had prevented the Regional Court from holding a hearing on that day. On the other hand, the Court of Appeal instructed the Regional Court to assess the length of detention of each defendant separately. It pointed out that the further prolongation of the detention of those defendants who were not simultaneously serving prison sentences could not be accepted in the long term. 25.  Further decisions prolonging the applicant's detention were taken by the Gdańsk Regional Court on 15 March 2002 (until 30 June 2002) and on 21 June 2002 (until 30 September 2002). The applicant appealed against the latter decision. 26.  On 31 July 2002 the Court of Appeal altered the Regional Court's decision and ordered that the applicant be released under police supervision. It underlined that the applicant's detention on remand had been exceptionally long and had thus lost its provisional nature. Having regard to the current progress of the trial, the court observed that it was not possible to predict when the proceedings would be terminated. Furthermore, it noted that 7 out of 10 co-defendants were serving long-term prison sentences. 27.  Prior to his release under police supervision, the applicant filed numerous but unsuccessful applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against the decisions prolonging his detention. 28.  It appears that the criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending.