6.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Budapest. 7.  On 31 March 2003 the applicant was arrested on charges of drug trafficking. The case involved eight further suspects including a foreigner and concerned a criminal organisation suspected of trafficking in drugs on an important scale. 8.  On 3 April 2003 the Buda Central District Court ordered the applicant's pre-trial detention. Observing his dual nationality, the court held that there was a risk of absconding. This decision was reviewed and upheld on appeal by the Budapest Regional Court. On 29 April 2003 the District Court prolonged the pre-trial detention as the underlying grounds continued to exist. On 26 June 2003 the Regional Court extended the pre-trial detention of all suspects. On appeal, on 25 July 2003 the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the suspects' pre-trial detention until 1 October 2003, holding that there was a danger of absconding, in view of the severity of the charges, and of collusion. 9.  On 25 September 2003 the District Court released the applicant on bail. However, on 2 October 2003 the Regional Court reversed the decision and upheld his detention with the following reasoning:
“... Tibor Szepesi [is] prosecuted for very serious offences and the proceedings are still pending. The foreign source of drug supply and the presumed accomplices in Hungary are still to be identified; the circle of domestic buyers and the scope of drug distribution are still to be revealed. Having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that the suspects' accomplices are still unknown, the risk that the suspects would obstruct or jeopardise the taking of evidence by influencing the witnesses or by destroying or hiding physical evidence continues to exist.” 10.  On 22 December 2003 the District Court prolonged the pre-trial detention by referring to the continued existence of the underlying grounds. On 7 January 2004 the Regional Court upheld this decision with the following reasoning:
“[I]n respect of Tibor Szepesi ... a well-founded suspicion of cross border crime has arisen. The investigation authority is carrying on with procedural acts whose success would, if [Mr Szepesi is] left at liberty, be frustrated by the suspects through collusion or otherwise.” 11.  On 30 March 2004 the Regional Court prolonged the applicant's pre-trial detention by referring to the continued existence of the underlying grounds. 12.  On 26 May 2004 the Regional Court maintained the detention on remand on the following ground:
“[... I]t can be established that the general condition for employing the strictest coercive measure is fully met and that in the present stage of the proceedings, a well-founded risk of absconding exists in respect of all suspects, in view of the extremely severe punishment imposable for the offence. This risk is especially significant in respect of [... Mr Szepesi], who has dual nationality.” 13.  On 5 July 2004 the Budapest Public Prosecutor's Office preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant and the other suspects. They were charged with aggravated drug trafficking committed in the framework of a criminal organisation. 14.  On 15 July 2004 the Regional Court upheld the applicant's pre-trial detention, holding that, in view of the weight of the offences at hand, there was a risk of his absconding. On 30 July 2004 the Court of Appeal upheld this decision, endorsing its reasons. 15.  On 19 January 2005 the Regional Court extended the applicant's pre-trial detention, making reference to the risk of his absconding. On 28 February 2005 it dismissed the applicant's request for release. 16.  The trial began on 9 May 2005. On 2 June and 12 July 2005 the Budapest Regional Court held hearings.
On 26 July 2005 the applicant's pre-trial detention was reviewed and upheld by the Court of Appeal. It held that because he was facing a very severe sentence, had dual nationality and a domicile in Germany, there was a risk that the applicant might abscond. On 2 September 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the order of the Court of Appeal, observing that the applicant was charged with a very serious felony which was punishable with up to life imprisonment in the circumstances. 17.  On 8, 10 and 15 November 2005, 10 and 12 January and 16 March 2006 further hearings took place. The applicant's pre-trial detention was meanwhile reviewed and upheld by the Court of Appeal on 28 February 2006. It observed that the suspects were prosecuted for a very serious felony to the detriment of public health, and that the severity of the sanction they were risking posed the threat of their absconding. 18.  On 31 March 2006 the Budapest Regional Court terminated the applicant's pre-trial detention and ordered his house arrest, because the detention had exceeded the statutory maximum of three years. On 31 May 2006 the Court of Appeal terminated the house arrest and ordered the applicant not to leave town. This latter measure was terminated on 10 April 2008. 19.  After several further hearings, on 4 September 2008 the Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to six years of strict-regime imprisonment, and banned him from participating in public affairs for seven years. In imposing the punishment, the Regional Court took into account the period spent in pre-trial detention and in house arrest. It appears that the appeal proceedings are still pending.