4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Gdańsk. 5.  On 7 March 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking. 6.  On 9 March 2006 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. It also considered 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 sentence. 7.  The applicant's appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his subsequent, numerous applications for release, were unsuccessful. 8.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was prolonged on several occasions by the Gdańsk Regional Court's (Sąd Okręgowy) decisions delivered on 25 May, 24 August, 16 November and 12 December 2006.
In all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported by evidence from witnesses. They attached importance to the complexity of the case, the significant number of persons involved and the voluminous documentation. They stressed the grave nature of those offences and the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. They further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation, especially the need to collect and verify evidence from suspects and witnesses justified holding him in custody. 9.  On 4 December 2006 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant was charged with drug trafficking. The bill of indictment comprised numerous charges of, inter alia, drug trafficking, brought against twenty-one defendants. Three defendants were additionally charged with having committed the offences while acting as members of an organised criminal group. 10.   The trial started on 29 March 2007. 11.  During the court proceedings the authorities further prolonged the applicant's detention pending trial. The applicant's detention was extended by the Gdańsk Regional Court on 17 May, 25 October 2007 and 29 January 2008 and by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 20 February and 19 March 2008. The courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant's continued detention.
In the relevant part of its decision of 19 March 2008 the Court of Appeal stated that:
“The need for further applying the isolation-type of preventive measure is additionally justified by the fact that the defendants had committed the offences with which they had been charged while acting in an organised criminal group or cooperating with that group. The group aimed at committing crimes of distribution of substantial amounts of intoxicants and psychotropic drugs.” 12.  The applicant appealed against that decision. He alleged, in particular, that the grounds for the court's decision containing a suggestion that he had committed the offences in question violated the principle of the presumption of innocence.
On 8 April 2008 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal, sitting in a different panel of three judges, upheld the contested decision. It stressed that the impugned statement read in the context of the whole decision described a state of suspicion rather than a finding of the applicant's guilt. 13.  On 26 June 2008 the applicant's detention was lifted. 14.  The proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court. 15.  From 7 March until 13 December 2006 the applicant was detained in Sztum prison. Subsequently, he was placed in Gdańsk Remand Centre, where he remained until 26 June 2008.
The applicant submitted that he had been held in dark and overcrowded cells. He further maintained that the poor living conditions deprived him of any privacy. 16.  The applicant submitted that in Sztum prison he had been placed with two other persons in a cell measuring 5 m².
Later, from 14 December 2006 until 18 June 2007, he was held in Gdańsk Remand Centre in a cell measuring 8 m².
Subsequently, he was assigned to cells measuring 5 m² and 12 m² respectively.
From 22 December until the day of his release the applicant was detained in a cell measuring 5 m². 17.  The Government submitted that while detained in Sztum prison, the applicant was, at times, detained in cells in which the statutory minimum requirement of 3 m² per person was not respected.
They further submitted that during his stay in Gdańsk Remand Centre the applicant was placed in cells that met the required standards.
Lastly, they noted that throughout his stay in the detention facilities, the applicant was provided with all the necessary hygienic products. He also had a right to a sixty-minute walk every day. 18.  On 21 November 2007 the applicant requested the Gdańsk District Prosecutor (Prokurator Prokuratury Rejonowej) to institute an investigation against the Director of Gdańsk Remand Centre. The applicant alleged that the Governor had neglected his duties (niedopełnienie obowiązków) in that he had not, inter alia, provided the detained persons with adequate sanitary and living conditions in that establishment.
On 17 December 2007 the prosecutor refused to institute an investigation into the applicant's allegations due to the lack of statutory features of a criminal offence (brak znamion czynu zabronionego).
The applicant's complaints were forwarded to the Regional Inspectorate of the Prison Service (Okręgowy Inspektorat Służby Więziennej). 19.   By a letter of 19 June 2008 the Director of the Gdańsk Regional Inspectorate of the Prison Service informed the applicant that his allegations about the conditions of his detention had been found ill-founded. It was considered that the sanitary and living conditions were adequate. The Director acknowledged, however, that Gdańsk Remand Centre had faced the problem of overcrowding and, indeed, the statutory minimum standard of three square metres per person had been reduced on occasions. 20.  After his release, the applicant did not bring a civil action in tort to seek compensation for the infringement of his personal rights.