5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Warsaw. 6.  On 7 July 2006 the applicant was charged with drug trafficking, committed in an organised and armed criminal group. 7.  On 22 September 2006 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision, ordering the applicant's detention on remand for a period of fourteen days. The applicant submitted that this decision has not been served on him and that he had been unaware of the charges introduced against him.
The Government contested that fact, submitting that the applicant had been in hiding. 8.  On 12 October 2006 a wanted notice (list gończy) was issued by the Warsaw District Court with a view to locating the applicant. 9.  On 24 October 2006 the applicant was arrested. In the applicant's record of arrest (protokół zatrzymania), the reasons for his arrest read as follows: 'wanted notice; transport to the closest remand centre or prison (...)' (“list gończy, doprowadzenie do najbliższego AŚ lub ZK”). 10.  On 3 November 2006 the Warsaw District Court remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might go into hiding and induce witnesses to give false testimony, particularly given that a wanted notice had been issued in the course of the investigation with a view to locating the applicant. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence and the fact that the applicant was charged with an offence committed in an organised and armed criminal group. 11.  Later, several other members of the same criminal group were detained and charged in connection with the investigation against the applicant. 12.  The applicant's appeal against the detention order, likewise his further appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his subsequent, numerous applications for release were unsuccessful. In his applications and appeals he argued that the charges against him were based on unreliable evidence. He also relied on his personal circumstances, in particular the need to ensure care for his elderly mother. 13.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was prolonged by decisions of the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okregowy) delivered on 28 December 2006 and 21 May 2007.
In all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported by evidence from witnesses. They underlined the grave nature of those offences and the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. The courts attached great importance to the complexity of the case, the significant number of persons involved (around 100 persons) and the voluminous documentation gathered in the proceedings. They further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings justified holding the applicant in custody, as he could otherwise induce the witnesses to change their testimonies or go into hiding, regard being had in particular to the fact that a wanted notice had been issued in the course of the investigation with a view to locating the applicant. The courts stressed, on several occasions, that a number of experts' opinions had to be requested and legal help had to be sought from Sweden. 14.  On 11 April 2007 the Warsaw District Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against the detention order of 24 October 2006, holding that the arrest had been legitimate and lawful and that the applicant had been instructed about his rights, in particular about a right to appeal against the order. It further noted that the applicant was informed by the police authorities that a wanted notice had been issued in the proceedings, which justified his arrest. 15.  On 26 September 2007 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court. The bill of indictment comprised numerous charges of drug trafficking and extortion committed in an organised criminal group brought against twenty-nine defendants. 16.  During the court proceedings the authorities further prolonged the applicant's detention pending trial. The applicant's detention was extended by decisions of the Warsaw Regional Court delivered on 8 October 2007 and 11 February 2008 and by decisions of the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) delivered on 26 June and 4 December 2008 and 18 June 2009. The courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant's continued detention.
Furthermore, in its decision of 11 February 2008 the court noted that a special room had to be reserved for hearings in the present case, as it concerned a dangerous criminal group.
In its decision of 4 December 2008 the court stressed the need to have the proceedings completed within a reasonable time. 17.  On 25 March 2008 the trial court held the first hearing. 18.  On 21 May 2009 the Warsaw Regional Court decided that he could be released on payment of bail in the amount of 40,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 10,000 euros (EUR)). The applicant did not pay the bail. 19.  On 20 November 2009 the Warsaw Regional Court lifted the applicant's detention. 20.  The proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court. 21. From 24 October 2006 to 19 November 2009 the applicant was detained in Warszawa-Białołęka Remand Centre. He was released on 20 November 2009. 22.  According to the applicant's submissions, all of the cells where he was held were dark and overcrowded and the detention facility had poor sanitary conditions. In that respect he complained about insufficient supply of basic hygiene products (one toilet paper roll, one soap bar, one tube of toothpaste and some shaving gel per month). He further complained that a hot, ten-minute long shower has been offered to prisoners once a week only. 23. The applicant submitted that initially he had been placed in a six‑person cell, which measured 15 m².
Later, approximately in June 2008, he was held in a two-person cell, which measured 7.6 m².
Subsequently, he was held together with five other prisoners in a cell measuring 12 m². The cell was equipped with bunk-beds and a table. There was also a sanitary corner in the cell. 24. The applicant further claimed that there was mould on the ceiling and the walls of the cell. There was no ventilation in the cell, which made breathing difficult, particularly since the cells were opened only when meals were served and when the prisoners took a one-hour long daily walk in the outside yard. The electricity in the cells was cut off between 9 and 12 a.m. and 1 and 3 p.m.
Lastly, the applicant submitted that when a hearing had been held before the trial court, no hot meals have been served at the remand centre. 25. The Government submitted that between 25 October 2006 and 14 October 2008 and on 10 December 2008 the applicant was detained in cells in which the statutory minimum requirement of 3 m² per person was not respected. 26.  They supplied the following details concerning the conditions of the applicant's detention:
- from 24 to 26 October 2006 the applicant was placed in a cell with a surface area of 12.69 m², which he shared with four other inmates;
 - from 27 October to 20 November 2006 he remained, together with four other inmates, in a cell measuring 12.67 m²;
- from 21 November 2006 to 8 March 2007 he was detained in a cell of 12.32 m², together with four other persons;
- from 9 to 29 March 2007 the applicant was held in a cell of 12.33 m², together with five other inmates;
- from 30 March 2007 to 31 March 2008 he remained in a cell measuring 12.70 m², together with four persons;
- from 1 April to 19 August 2008 he was placed in a cell of 5.16 m² that he shared with another person;
- from 20 August to 7 October 2008 he shared a cell measuring 12.68 m² with four persons;
- from 8 to 13 October 2008 he was detained with another person in a cell of 5.22 m²;
- from 14 October to 9 December 2008 he shared a cell of 12.68 m² with three other inmates;
- on 10 December 2008 he was held together with another person in a cell measuring 5.15 m²;
- from 11 December 2008 to 20 November 2009 he remained in a cell with a surface area of 12.58 m², which he shared with four other inmates. 27.  Lastly, the Government submitted that personal hygiene products were always issued at the request of a detainee and that the applicant had access to radio and television in the remand centre. He also had a right to a sixty‑minute walk every day. 28.  The applicant did not lodge any formal complaints with the penitentiary authorities regarding specifically the conditions of his detention. Nor did he bring a civil action in tort to seek an improvement of his detention conditions or compensation for the infringement of his personal rights.