5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Nadarzyn. 6. On 8 March 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of numerous counts of forgery of identity documents (including passports) committed in an organised criminal group. 7.  On 10 March 2006 the applicant was remanded in custody by a decision of the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). The court based its detention order on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences and on the severity of the likely penalty. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he could go into hiding, particularly as he had had at his disposal a number of forged identity documents. 8.  The applicant's appeal against the detention order, likewise his further appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and his subsequent applications for release were unsuccessful. 9.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was prolonged by decisions of the Warsaw District Court delivered on 1 June, 30 August and 24 November 2006, 21 February and 10 July 2007. In the decision of 1 June the court stressed that an expertise on several documents, due at the end of May, had not yet been submitted.
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 fact that they had been committed in an organised criminal group. They further stressed that the applicant, if released, could cross the Polish border with ease, having established contacts with criminal groups abroad. In that respect they stressed that the applicant had access to forged identity documents which could help him flee Poland and establish a new identity abroad. Lastly, the courts found no special grounds, as specified in Article 259 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that would justify lifting the detention and imposing a more lenient measure. 10.  In the meantime, on 3 July 2007, the bill of indictment against the applicant and four other defendants was lodged with the Warsaw District Court. It appears that three defendants, including the applicant, were charged with offences committed in an organised criminal group. 11.  On 9 January 2008 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) further extended the applicant's detention. 12.  On 15 February 2008 the trial court held the first hearing. It subsequently held, until 24 October 2008, some seventeen hearings in the case. 13.  During the court proceedings the applicant's detention was further prolonged by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 4 March 2008. The court repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant's continued detention. 14.  On 3 July 2008 the Warsaw Court of Appeal lifted the applicant's detention. The court decided that the applicant could be released under police supervision and a prohibition on his leaving the country. 15.  Following the introduction of additional charges of organising illegal border crossings, the applicant was again arrested in the same set of criminal proceedings. It appears that he was arrested on 5 February 2009 and on 7 February 2009 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) remanded him in custody. 16.  The applicant's detention was further extended by decisions of the Warsaw Regional Court delivered on 27 April and 27 July 2009. The applicant's lawyer appealed against the latter decision. 17.  On 24 July 2009 the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Prokuratury Okręgowej) refused the applicant's request to have the detention lifted. The prosecutor stressed that the applicant had previously been convicted of similar offences. 18.  On 7 September 2009 the Warsaw Court of Appeal decided to lift the applicant's detention. The court held that his detention after 5 February 2009 lacked a legal basis and was therefore in breach of criminal procedure, as ordered and subsequently extended by courts that had not been competent to deal with the case. It stressed that having regard to the fact that the applicant had already been detained in the same set of proceedings for over two years, his re-arrest should have been ordered and extended by the Appellate Court. 19.  The proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court.