5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Tychy. He is currently serving a prison sentence. 6.  On 10 November 1998 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision to hold the applicant in pre-trial detention for seven days from the day of arrest. He was suspected of being a member of an organised criminal group and of having committed several offences of battery and extortion. The court relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he was charged and on the fact that he was not living in his permanent place of residence and had gone into hiding. The court also held that the decision on pre-trial detention was indispensable in order to enforce the arrest warrants which had been issued against the applicant. 7.  On 20 November 1998 the applicant was arrested in Oldenburg, Germany. 8.  On 21 January 1999 the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, applying the “rule of speciality” set forth in Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition, consented to the applicant’s extradition. 9.  On 3 February 1999 the applicant was extradited to Poland. 10.  On 5 February 1999 the Katowice District Court decided to hold the applicant in pre-trial detention for three months. In its eight-line reasoning, the court relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he was charged. The court also found that the fact that the applicant had been charged with participation in an organised criminal group created the risk that the applicant would unlawfully obstruct the investigation. 11.  The applicant’s detention was repeatedly extended by several decisions of the Gliwice District Court and subsequently the Katowice Court of Appeal. In those decisions, the courts relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he was charged and on the reasonable suspicion that he would obstruct the proceedings. 12.  In its decision of 27 April 1999 extending the applicant’s detention the Gliwice District Court also relied on the fact that “the applicant had gone into hiding and thus he might try to abscond”. 13.  On 19 May 1999 the Gliwice District Court again extended the applicant’s detention, finding that the grounds previously given for his detention were still valid. 14.  On 19 October 1999 the applicant was indicted. The bill of indictment concerned six co-accused who were charged with a total of forty-one offences. Five co-accused were remanded in custody. The applicant was charged with several counts of extortion, several counts of attempted extortion, issuing threats and participation in an organised criminal group. 15.  On 16 December 1999 the proceedings were joined with another set of proceedings and it was decided that the case be examined by a panel of three professional judges, without the participation of lay judges. 16.  On 2 February 2001 the length of the applicant’s detention reached the statutory two‑year time‑limit laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego) and the first‑instance court was no longer competent to extend it. Consequently, it was further extended by decisions of the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) of, inter alia, 11 October 2000, 27 June and 30 October 2001 and 26 June 2002. 17.  The applicant’s appeals against decisions extending his detention were unsuccessful. In one of his appeals, on 7 November 2001, the applicant’s lawyer raised the question of a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, arguing that the excessive length of criminal proceedings did not justify the continued detention of the applicant. 18.  On 28 November 2001 the Katowice Court of Appeal upheld the challenged decision. The court held that the reasons for the applicant’s detention had not changed and that, considering the serious nature of the offences, the applicant should be treated as a “particularly dangerous criminal”. Referring to the alleged violation of the Convention, the court found that this objection was ill-founded because “in the legal systems of the Council of Europe’s member States the perpetrators of serious crimes are also treated severely”. 19.  On an unspecified date the applicant requested the court to release him from detention. 20.  On 13 March 2002 the Tychy District Court dismissed his request. 21.  On 19 February 2003 the Tychy District Court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. 22.  After his conviction by the first-instance court the applicant continued to be held in detention. 23.  On 30 June 2003 the applicant again requested the court to release him from detention. 24.  On 28 July 2003 the Tychy District Court dismissed his request. 25.  On 26 September 2003 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal against the District Court’s judgment arguing, inter alia, that the first-instance court had violated provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, because the applicant had been convicted of offences which had not originally been listed in the applicant’s extradition documents issued by the German authorities. 26.  On 5 March 2004 the Katowice Regional Court heard the appeal, partly amended the first-instance judgment and reduced the applicant’s sentence to seven years. Referring to the arguments raised in the applicant’s appeal the Regional Court declared them ill-founded because during the proceedings the prosecutor had produced documents containing the German authorities’ consent to extend the scope of the charges against the applicant. 27.  On 22 March 2004 the applicant requested the court to appoint a lawyer in order to lodge a cassation appeal on his behalf. 28.  On 10 August 2004 the Katowice Regional Court informed the applicant that, on 2 August 2004, his court-appointed lawyer had found no grounds to lodge a cassation appeal on his behalf. 29.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a cassation appeal himself. 30.  On 10 August 2004 the Katowice Regional Court requested the applicant to rectify the procedural shortcomings of his cassation appeal within seven days (the cassation appeal should have been lodged by a lawyer of the applicant’s choice). 31.  The applicant failed to rectify the shortcomings. Consequently, on 30 September 2004, the Katowice Regional Court refused to hear the applicant’s cassation appeal. 32.  On 18 October 2004 the applicant appealed against that decision. 33.  On 15 February 2005 the Katowice Regional Court requested the applicant to rectify, within seven days, the procedural shortcomings of his appeal, either by having a lawyer of his choice sign it or by lodging a request with the court to appoint a lawyer for him. 34.  It appears that the applicant failed to rectify the shortcomings of his appeal and that the decision refusing to hear his cassation appeal became enforceable. 35.  On 17 July 2002 and on 24 July 2002 the Court received the applicant’s letters. The envelopes bear the following stamps: “Tychy District Court. Censored” (Sąd Rejonowy w Tychach. Cenzurowano).