4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Sztum. 5.  On 20 October 2000 the Otwock District Court remanded the applicant in custody, relying on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed aggravated murder and robbery. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence and the fact that the applicant was a recidivist offender. Finally, the court found that there were no special grounds, as specified in Article 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which would justify lifting the detention and imposing a less severe preventive measure. 6.  The applicant’s appeal against the detention order and his further appeals against some of the decisions extending his detention as well as his subsequent, numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were unsuccessful. 7.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was extended by the Warsaw Regional Court on 4 January, 9 April and 5 July 2001. In all their detention decisions the courts repeatedly relied on the original grounds given for the applicant’s detention. It also noted that certain items of evidence and a psychiatric report on the other co-accused had not yet been obtained. 8.  On 31 July 2001 the prosecution lodged a bill of indictment with the Warsaw Regional Court. The applicant was charged with robbery and murder. 9.  The Warsaw Regional Court held hearings on 12 April and 20 August 2002. 10.  During the court proceedings the authorities further extended the applicant’s detention pending trial on 16 August 2001, 25 March 2002, 27 August 2002, 13 November 2002 and on an unknown subsequent date. The courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant’s continued detention. The court found that his continued detention was necessary in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. 11.  On 27 August 2002 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. He was also deprived of his civic rights for a period of five years. The court further ordered that the period spent by the applicant in pre–trial detention from 20 October 2000 up to the date of his conviction was to be deducted from the sentence imposed. 12.  The applicant appealed. He was kept in detention pending the outcome of his appeal for three months. 13.  On 26 November 2002 the Warsaw Court of Appeal heard the applicant’s appeal. It quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for retrial. It ordered that the applicant’s detention should continue. 14.  In the retrial proceedings the Regional Court held hearings on 7 and 22 May, 14 and 29 July, 8 August, 25 September, 23 October and 1 December 2003, 2 February, 4 June, 19 July, 8 October, 22 October and 16 November 2004. 15.  In the retrial proceedings the applicant made numerous, unsuccessful applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against decisions extending his detention. The relevant decisions on the extension of his detention were given by the Warsaw Regional Court on 17 February, 22 May, an unknown subsequent date, 23 October and 1 December 2003, 8 March, an unknown subsequent date and 22 July 2004. On 22 October 2004 the applicant was released and placed under police supervision. 16.  On 25 October 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court acquitted the applicant of all the charges. 17.   On 22 February 2006, upon the prosecution’s appeal, the Warsaw Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Regional Court for reconsideration. 18.  On 26 March 2007 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment and deprived of his civic rights for a period of 5 years. The court further ordered the applicant’s detention on remand. 19.  The applicant appealed against this judgment. 20.  On 4 September 2007 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 21.  Between 27 June 1999 and 3 February 2004 the applicant served a prison sentence which had been imposed on him in two other sets of criminal proceedings. 22.  On 6 October 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint under section 5 of 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”). 23.  On 23 November 2004 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court observed that the length of the proceedings could not be considered unreasonable. It examined the course of the impugned proceedings and held that there were no delays for which the Regional Court or Court of Appeal could be held responsible. The hearings had been held on a regular basis and evidence from numerous witnesses had been obtained.