5.  The applicant, Mr Adam Kauczor, is a Polish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Siemianowice Śląskie. 6.  On 9 February 2000 the applicant was arrested. On 10 February 2000 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody on suspicion of murder. That decision was upheld by the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 1 March 2000. 7.  The applicant’s pre‑trial detention was subsequently extended by the Katowice Regional Court’s decisions of 25 April 2000, 3 July 2000 (upheld by the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 2 August 2000), and 23 April 2001. 8.  Meanwhile, on 21 June 2000 the applicant was indicted for murder and illegal possession of weapons. The Prosecutor requested that thirty-four witnesses be heard by the trial court and the testimonies of a further one hundred and four witnesses be read out at the trial. 9.  The first hearing was scheduled on 28 December 2000. It was adjourned, however, due to the absence of a key witness.
Subsequently the court held sixty hearings. Approximately twenty hearings were cancelled or adjourned either because of the absence of the applicant’s counsel or summoned witnesses, or because of the illness of a judge. 10.  On 26 November 2001 the Katowice Regional Court decided to extend the applicant’s detention until 30 April 2002. However that decision was changed by the Katowice Court of Appeal’s decision of 19 December 2001. The Katowice Court of Appeal agreed to continue the applicant’s detention, but only until 9 February 2002. It was held that the first‑instance court was no longer competent to extend the preventive measure, since the length of the applicant’s detention was about to reach the statutory two-year time‑limit laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego). 11.  Between 2001 and 2003 the court held a hearing every two or three months. 12.  During this time, the applicant’s detention was extended by the Katowice Court of Appeal’s decisions of 6 February 2002 (confirmed by the same court on 13 March 2002), 15 May 2002 (upheld on 23 October 2002), 23 October 2002 (upheld on 12 March 2003), 12 March 2003 (upheld on 23 April 2003). 13.  On 21 May 2003 the applicant’s trial commenced de novo because the judge rapporteur had retired. 14.  The first hearing scheduled on 5 July 2003 was adjourned due to the absence of a key witness and one of the lay judges. 15.  From the beginning of 2004 until mid‑2005 the court held on average one hearing per month. 16.  On 16 September 2005 the President of the Criminal Section (przewodniczący wydziału) ordered that hearings be scheduled more often than once a month. 17.  In 2006 the court scheduled twenty-three hearings, of which eleven did not take place. It appears that between January and October 2007 the court scheduled nine hearings. 18.  Meanwhile, the applicant’s detention was extended by the Katowice Court of Appeal decisions of 23 July 2003 (upheld on 27 August 2003), 26 November 2003 (upheld on 17 December 2003), 18 February 2004 (upheld on 17 March 2004), 11 August 2004 (upheld on 25 August 2004), 24 November 2004 (upheld on 5 January 2005), 16 March 2005 (upheld on 20 April 2005), 27 July 2005 (upheld on 10 August 2005), 19 October 2005 (upheld on 23 November 2005), 25 January 2006 (upheld on 22 February 2006), 19 April 2006 (upheld on 19 May 2006), 19 July 2006 (upheld on 23 August 2006), 25 October 2006 (upheld on 15 November 2006), and 24 January 2007. 19.  The domestic courts justified the applicant’s pre‑trial detention in its initial phase by the existence of strong evidence against the applicant and the likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed, as well as by the need to secure the proper course of the proceedings. The latter was derived from the fact that there was a suspicion that the applicant had been aided in committing the offence charged and that the alleged accomplices were being sought by the authorities. During that time numerous witnesses were heard and an identification parade was held. 20.  At the later stage of the applicant’s detention, the authorities relied on the complexity of the case as the reason for extending the measure. It was also emphasised that many of the scheduled court hearings did not take place for various objective reasons, such as the illness of a judge, the applicant’s request for the withdrawal of a judge, the absence of witnesses or of the applicant himself, as well as difficulties in obtaining the report of ballistic‑forensic experts as requested by the applicant at an advanced stage of the proceedings. 21.  On 11 December 2007 the Katowice Regional Court decided to lift the preventive measure and to release the applicant. On an unspecified date that decision was upheld by the Katowice Court of Appeal. 22.  The case is currently pending before the Katowice Regional Court as the court of first instance. 23.  On an unspecified date in 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint about unreasonable length of proceedings under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). 24.  On 25 October 2006 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint. Although the court examined the entire length of the proceedings, it held that there had been no inactivity or undue delay on the part of the relevant court. It was observed that until April 2003 the court had been dealing with the case speedily and there had been no periods of inactivity. It was acknowledged that the proceedings had been obstructed when the case had had to be opened de novo and a new judge rapporteur had had to be assigned. The court emphasised that from the end of 2003 until the end of 2006 over fifty hearings had been scheduled. The fact that some of them were cancelled was attributable to objective factors such as the absence of a lay judge, illness of a presiding judge or absence of the applicant’s lawyer. Finally, it was pointed out that the case was of a complex nature and, moreover, that the applicant himself had contributed to the delay because of his multiple requests for new evidence to be admitted.