5.  The applicant was born in 1946. Currently, he is serving a sentence at Tököl Prison. 6.  In late 1999 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant, a multiple recidivist, on charges of fraud and other offences. On 19 January 2000 a bill of indictment was preferred. The applicant was detained on remand until 16 May 2003. 7.  On 27 February 2004 a hearing was held and the applicant was convicted on nineteen counts of fraud and forgery of documents. This judgment was adopted in absentia, since the applicant had absconded. 8.  Meanwhile, in another case, the applicant was additionally indicted for aggravated fraud and other offences in late 2003. On 15 September 2004 he was convicted in absentia, since he had absconded. 9.  On 28 November 2006 the Szolnok District Court imposed on the applicant a cumulative sentence of five years and six months of strict regime imprisonment. This decision was upheld by the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, on 8 February 2008. 10.  In autumn 2006 the applicant filed a request for retrial against the conviction of 15 September 2004. Given the conviction in absentia, this request was granted on 29 November 2006 by the Regional Court. After several hearings, on 29 November 2007 the applicant was partly acquitted of the charges and his sentence was mitigated in respect of the remainder by the District Court. The amended sentence was included in another cumulative sentence. 11.  The applicant did not appeal against this conviction but filed a petition for review. On 27 February 2008 the Supreme Court rejected his petition for review, since it only concerned the findings of fact and the assessment of evidence. 12.  Meanwhile, some time later in 2006, the applicant filed a request for retrial against the conviction of 27 February 2004. Given the conviction in absentia, this request was granted on 30 November 2006 by the Regional Court. On 8 January 2008 he was partly acquitted of the charges, and his sentence was mitigated in respect of the remainder by the District Court. On appeal, his sentence was further mitigated on 4 November 2008 by the Regional Court. 13.  The applicant’s further complaints raised before the District Court about the manner in which the cumulative sentence had been calculated appear to have been to no avail. 14.  The applicant is presently serving a previous sentence of twelve years, whose probation has been cancelled on account of his intervening new convictions.