5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Gliwice. 6.  On 20 April 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of producing drugs and other related offences. On his arrest the applicant informed the authorities about his health condition. On the same day the applicant underwent a medical examination. On the following day he was placed under hospital observation. 7.  On 22 April 2006 the Gliwice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) remanded him in custody. The court decided that in view of the applicant’s health he should be committed to the medical wing of the detention centre. The court stressed that the evidence gathered so far demonstrated a high likelihood that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged. The court further referred to the fact that the applicant had not pleaded guilty to the offences in question and therefore if released he could obstruct the proceedings. The preventive measure in question was also justified by the gravity of the offences with which he had been charged and the likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed if convicted. The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed on 24 May 2006. 8.  Subsequently, the applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended by decisions of the Gliwice Regional Court of 10 July and 9 October 2006 and 15 January and 16 April 2007.The court found that the original grounds for the applicant’s pre-trial detention were still valid and, in addition, relied on the risk that the applicant could obstruct the proceedings if released. In particular, the court stressed that he could influence the testimonies of witnesses. The court was further of the view that the applicant’s state of health was not an obstacle to his continued detention on remand. 9.  The applicant’s appeals against the decisions were dismissed by the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 9 August and 20 December 2006 and 21 February 2007. The court referred to the reasons given by the Regional Court. It further stressed that the applicant’s health was not an obstacle to his detention on remand. 10.  Meanwhile, on 6 April 2007 the bill of indictment against the applicant and his alleged accomplice was lodged with the Gliwice Regional Court. The applicant was charged with manufacturing amphetamine and trafficking in drugs. The case file consisted of twelve volumes; in addition, seven witnesses were to be heard. 11.  On 16 April 2007 the Regional Court extended the applicant’s pre‑trial detention. The court referred to the original grounds for keeping the applicant in detention. On 4 May 2007 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant’s lawyer against this decision. The court considered that the reasoning of the first-instance court was accurate. Moreover, it found that the applicant’s health was not an obstacle to his further detention. 12.  The first hearing was held on 10 July 2007. During that hearing the applicant pleaded guilty to the offences in question. Throughout the trial the court held hearings on average once a month. In total, the court held seven hearings. 13.  On 10 July 2007 the Regional Court again extended the applicant’s detention. The court relied on the original grounds for keeping the applicant in detention. Before taking the decision, the Regional Court obtained information about the applicant’s health from the Director of the Hospital Ward of the Bytom Detention Centre. The director confirmed that the applicant had undergone a series of medical examinations, including: an electrocardiogram, a heart ultrasound, and an exercise test in the Zabrze Cardiological Clinic. He further stressed that the applicant could be treated in the detention centre. 14.  The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed on 8 August 2007. 15.  On 5 October 2007 the Regional Court again extended the applicant’s detention. The court referred to a medical certificate issued by the Director of the Hospital Ward of the Bytom Detention Centre on 27 September 2007, according to which the applicant’s life or health would not be put at risk on account of his continued detention. The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed on 31 October 2007. 16.  On 14 January 2008 the Gliwice Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. The applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended on the same date. 17.  On 28 January 2008 the Gliwice Regional Court refused to release the applicant from pre-trial detention. The applicant’s interlocutory appeal was dismissed on 6 February 2008. 18.  On 21 April 2008 the Regional Court ordered an expert to prepare an opinion on the applicant’s state of health. On 25 April 2008 the expert submitted his opinion to the court. Having examined the relevant medical documentation and the applicant, the expert considered that the applicant should have been treated outside the detention facility. He stressed that further detention would put the applicant’s life in danger. 19.  On 28 April 2008 the Gliwice Regional Court released the applicant from pre-trial detention. 20.  On 5 June 2008 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the first-instance judgment. 21.  His subsequent cassation appeal was likewise dismissed by the Supreme Court on 8 January 2009. 22.  The applicant suffers from blood circulation and cardiological ailments. 23.  On 15 November 2002 he was classified by the relevant authorities as a person with a “mild degree of disability” of a permanent character. It was noted in the disability certificate that the applicant required aid in attending to his needs. 24.  Prior to his detention, the applicant was hospitalised on several occasions, either because he had required surgery or due to the occasional deterioration of his health. 25.  On 14 March 2002 the applicant had an ileocaecal valve implanted and post-surgery rehabilitation therapy. In the subsequent months, he remained under close medical supervision in the hospital in Chorzów and then in Gliwice. The applicant was considered to be in good health when he finished his therapy in May 2002 and was released home. In June 2003 he was hospitalised again. In March 2004 he had a heart attack. He was in hospital from 12 until 18 March 2004. He was released home in overall good health with a recommendation to take medication and monitor his health. 26.  From 10 until 13 December 2004 the applicant was again hospitalised. He was released home in good condition upon his own request. It was recommended that he continue the pharmacological treatment prescribed and monitor his condition. 27.  From 15 until 23 March 2005 and from 12 until 22 September the applicant was again in hospital. It appears that in 2005 he had another heart attack. 28.  Between 24 April 2006 and 20 February 2008 and between 19 March 2008 and 28 April 2008 the applicant was detained in the Bytom Remand Centre. 29.  Between 24 April and 17 May 2006 the applicant was detained in the Hospital Ward of the Bytom Remand Centre (“the hospital ward”). During his stay he was diagnosed with ischemia of the heart, a post-inferior myocardial infarction condition, post-transcutaneous coronary angioplasty condition with a stent implant, post-aortic valve implantation condition, post-myocarditis endomyocarditis and pleuropericarditis, paroxysmal atrial filbrillation and ventricular rhythm disturbance. 30.  Subsequently, his health stabilised. On 17 May 2006, he was released from the hospital ward and assigned to cell no. 68 together with other detainees. On his release from the hospital ward, the doctors recommended that the applicant be put on a diet and continue the pharmacological treatment prescribed. It was also stressed that the applicant should undergo weekly blood tests. 31.  On 19 December 2006 the applicant fainted in his cell and, when falling down, hit his head against the floor. He was examined by a prison doctor immediately after the accident. A series of cardiological and general tests was performed, including an X-ray of his skull. 32.  On 27 December 2006 the applicant was examined by a specialist neurologist and a neurosurgeon. Both doctors considered that there was no need to conduct additional tests. The applicant wished to have an MRI scan of his head. However, the doctor in charge refused to prescribe one. Since then the applicant has not suffered from any after effects of the accident. 33.  On 7 February 2007 the Katowice Regional Agent for Professional Responsibility (Okręgowy Rzecznik Odpowiedzialności Zawodowej) refused to open an inquiry into the applicant’s allegations that from 19 December 2006 onwards his life had been put at risk by the staff of the hospital of Bytom Remand Centre. It was noted that medical doctors were free to choose the diagnostic methods which they considered appropriate in a particular case. 34.  On 28 February 2007 the Bytom Police refused to open an inquiry into the same allegations made by the applicant. Based on the testimonies of the applicant and the doctor concerned, it was found that the applicant had received sufficient medical attention after the accident of 19 December 2006 and that his health was not at risk. 35.  On 30 August 2007 the Bytom District Court upheld that decision. 36. On 22 August 2007 the applicant was placed in the hospital ward. 37.  Between 27 August until 3 September 2007 the applicant was hospitalised in the Zabrze Cardiological Hospital where he underwent a coronary angioplasty and had a pacemaker implanted. Subsequently, he was transported to the hospital ward where he remained until 18 October 2007. 38.  On 30 June 2008 the applicant was classified by the relevant authorities as a person with a “considerable degree of disability” of a temporary character (until 30 June 2010). 39.  On 12 July 2010 the relevant authorities reclassified the applicant as a person with a “mild degree of disability” of a permanent character.