4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Zgierz. 5.  On 22 January 2004 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed extortion, car insurance fraud and bribery while acting in an organised criminal group. On 24 January 2004 the Zgierz District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered his detention on remand. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question, the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on him, the complexity of the case and the risk that he might tamper with evidence. 6.  On 27 January 2004 the Zgierz District Prosecutor ordered that the applicant’s assets be attached by way of an interim measure. 7.  On 15 April 2004 the Zgierz District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 22 July 2004. It repeated the grounds previously given for his detention. 8.  On 16 July 2004 the Zgierz District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 31 December 2004. On 20 December 2004 that court ordered his continued detention until 21 January 2005. The court emphasised that the grounds originally given for his detention were still valid. 9.  On 11 January 2005 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) extended the applicant’s detention until 30 June 2005. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged, which was corroborated by evidence from witnesses and co-accused. It referred to the seriousness of the charges against him and the complexity of the case. The court made reference to the measures already taken in the investigation and indicated, in a detailed manner, the evidence that still had to be obtained. 10.  On 17 June 2005 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Zgierz District Court. The applicant was charged with one count of car insurance fraud committed in an organised criminal group. The bill of indictment was brought against 46 defendants. 11.  On 23 June 2005 the court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 December 2005. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged, the severity of the anticipated penalty and the volume of evidence obtained in the investigation. 12.  On 21 December 2005 the Łódź Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 30 June 2006. On 21 June 2006 it extended his detention until 30 October 2006. All the decisions reiterated the grounds previously given for the applicant’s detention, most notably the reasonable suspicion of his having committed the offences in question and the severity of the anticipated penalty which, in the courts’ opinion, justified keeping him in custody so as to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. 13. The applicant’s appeal against the detention order, likewise his further appeals against decisions extending his detention and all his subsequent, numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were unsuccessful. In his applications and appeals, he argued that the charge against him was based on unreliable and contradictory evidence and he relied on his personal circumstances, in particular the need to provide care to his wife and their new-born child, his poor health and the fact that he did not have a previous criminal record. 14.  On 25 October 2006 the Łódź Court of Appeal refused the trial court’s application for the applicant’s detention to be extended further. The court held that the trial court had not proceeded speedily with the case, holding only two hearings per month. Moreover, the applicant was charged with one count of car insurance fraud; therefore, he could not be treated in the same manner as the other defendants. 15.  On 30 October 2006 the applicant was released. 16.  Between 17 June 2005 and 10 October 2006 the court held twenty-four hearings. 17.  The proceedings are apparently still pending. 18.  On 28 January 2004 the applicant’s wife asked the District Prosecution to allow her to visit him in prison. The application was dismissed on the same day without any reasons being given. 19.  Following applications of 4 and 29 March, 22 April, 25 May and 23 June 2004 she was allowed to visit the applicant in prison. On one occasion she was allowed to visit him with their child. 20.  On 29 April and 3 June 2004 the applicant’s mother asked the Regional Prosecution to allow her to visit him in prison. Her requests were dismissed on the ground that the applicant’s wife had already visited him and only one visit per month by a member of the family was allowed. 21.  On 30 July 2004 the applicant’s wife asked the District Prosecution to allow her to visit the applicant in prison. The application was dismissed on 2 August 2004 without any reasons being given. 22.  Following applications of 11 January, 2 February, 3 March, 5 April and 5 May 2005 she was allowed to visit the applicant in prison. On two occasions she was allowed to visit him with their child. 23.  The applicant failed to submit any information enabling the Court to establish whether his wife and child were allowed to visit him in 2006.