4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Olsztyn. 5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows: 6.  On 30 June 2000 a wanted notice with a detention order was issued in respect of the applicant. 7.  On 28 August 2000 the applicant was arrested on the strength of the above-mentioned order and on 1 September 2000 the decision as to his detention was given by the Olsztyn District Court. He was charged with numerous counts of major financial fraud (several counts of massive-scale bank fraud, deceiving private companies and other financial offences) committed while acting in an organised criminal group. 8.  The applicant's detention was subsequently extended by the following decisions: the Olsztyn District Court decisions of 7 November 2001, 7 February 2002, 21 February and 20 May 2003; and the Olsztyn Regional Court's decision of 9 February 2001. 9.  The courts repeatedly relied on the strong probability that the applicant had committed the offences that he had been charged with and that there was a real risk that he would receive a severe sentence, thereby giving rise to a presumption that he would obstruct the proper conduct of proceedings. They also referred to the risk of absconding, deriving from the fact that the applicant had been sought pursuant to a wanted notice. 10.  The applicant challenged his detention. He lodged appeals against the Olsztyn District Court decisions of 20 May and 24 July 2003, which were dismissed by the Olsztyn Regional Court on 6 June and 8 August 2003 respectively. 11.  He also lodged numerous requests for release from detention, which were dismissed by the Olsztyn District Court decisions of 19 December 2001, 11 January and 13 February 2002, 10 January, 21 February, 27 March and 16 May 2003. 12.  Furthermore, the applicant requested the application of a more lenient preventive measure to replace his detention. That request was refused by the Olsztyn District Court decision of 28 April 2003. 13.  Until March 2002 the trial court effectively held eight hearings. The court conducted extensive evidentiary proceedings; a considerable number of witnesses was heard, evidence was obtained from documents, searches and other sources. 14.  On 5 March 2002 the Olsztyn District Court found the applicant guilty of fraud. It acquitted him of the charge of membership of a criminal organisation, and imposed a sentence of five years' imprisonment. The applicant appealed. Seven hearings were subsequently held by the second-instance court. 15.  On 1 October 2002 the Olsztyn Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for re-examination. 16.  On 24 July 2003 the Olsztyn District Court again found the applicant guilty of financial fraud and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment. 17.  On 20 July 2004 the Olsztyn Regional Court conditionally released the applicant from serving the remaining part of the sentence, which was due to end on 28 August 2005. 18.  On several occasions between 2003 and 2004 the applicant requested information as to whether a confirmation that the detention order of 30 June 2000 had been served on him was kept in the case file. On 6 June and 10 August 2004 he was informed by the Vice-President of the Regional Court that no such confirmation had been found. 19.  While the applicant was detained, his correspondence was censored on several occasions. 20.  A letter dated 23 November 2001, which was sent to the applicant by his lawyer, bears a “censored” stamp dated 29 November 2001, a handwritten note “on the judge's behalf” and an illegible signature. 21.  Two Olsztyn Tax Office decisions, one dated 30 November 2001, informing the applicant of the institution of tax proceedings against him, and the other dated 3 December 2001, informing the applicant of his right to be heard in the course of the tax proceedings, were also censored. Both decisions bear a “censored” stamp with the date 10 December 2002 and an illegible signature of a judge. They also bear another stamp of the same kind which is almost illegible, bearing the date 11 December 2001 and an illegible signature. 22.  The applicant further submitted an envelope in which the correspondence with the tax office was sent to him. It bears a “censored” stamp with the date 11 December 2001 and an illegible signature of a judge. There are also further notes on it: “it is not subject to censorship” (nie podlega cenzurze) and “I annul subjection to censorship” (uchylam) and “submit to censorship” (poddać cenzurze), followed by an illegible signature. 23.  Finally, the applicant provided two envelopes from letters sent by him to his family and bearing “censored” stamps dated 14 December 2000 and 31 May 2001. 24.  On 16 December 2001, in reply to a complaint by the applicant, the judge admitted that he had stamped the letter of 30 November 2001 sent by the tax office as “censored”, had written a date on it and had signed it. 25.  On 17 March 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint to a higher authority, namely with the Vice-President of the Olsztyn Regional Court, about the censorship of his correspondence by the President of the Criminal Division. 26.  On 17 April 2003 he sent a letter to the Vice-President of the Olsztyn Regional Court requiring just satisfaction for the breach of his right to unrestricted correspondence with his lawyer. 27.  On 7 May 2003 the applicant was informed by the Vice-President of the Olsztyn Regional Court that the letter sent by his lawyer had been censored by mistake and thus the applicant did not have any right to just satisfaction. 28.  On 26 March 2003 he was informed by the Vice-President of the Olsztyn Regional Court that the judge should not have subjected the applicant's correspondence with the tax authorities to censorship, as it was covered by the notion of “official correspondence”, and that he had done so by mistake.