4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Dąbrowa Górnicza. 5.  On 22 February 2000 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 23 February 2000 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that he be detained on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed two burglaries. 6.  On 28 April 2000 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) prolonged the applicant’s detention until 9 July 2000. It held that there was a strong suspicion that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged and that keeping him in custody was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. The Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) upheld that decision on 24 May 2000. It found, invoking Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the applicant had been charged with two burglaries committed as a recidivist offender and thus he was liable to a statutory maximum sentence of at least 8 years’ imprisonment. 7.  On 3 July 2000 the Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 22 August 2000. In addition to the grounds previously invoked, it also relied on the severity of the anticipated penalty. That decision was upheld on appeal on 2 August 2000. 8.  On 9 August 2000 the Court of Appeal prolonged his detention until 30 September 2000 pending the outcome of the investigation on the grounds that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question and that he was potentially liable to a severe penalty, which justified the fear that he would obstruct the proper conduct of the proceedings. The court also held that due to the close links between the suspects there was a risk that, if released, they might interfere with the course of the investigation. Thus it was justified to keep them in custody pending the termination of the investigation. That decision was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) on 31 August 2000. 9.  The investigation was terminated on 14 September 2000. On 15 September 2000 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Katowice Regional Court. The applicant was charged with 2 burglaries. The bill of indictment comprised 19 charges (nearly each of them consisted of several counts of burglary) brought against 11 defendants (including the applicant). Five of them were remanded in custody. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from 34 witnesses. The case file comprised at that time some 32 volumes. The prosecution had obtained voluminous evidence, including various expert reports. 10.  On 25 September 2000 the Regional Court ordered that the applicant be kept in custody until 23 February 2001, relying on the same grounds as in the previous decisions. 11.  On 13 November 2000 the Regional Court ordered that the case be joined to that of a certain M.K. 12.  On 15 January 2001 the Katowice Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 15 May 2001. It found that the nature of the offences with which the applicant had been charged, the defendants’ modus operandi and the severity of the likely penalty justified the prolongation of the detention. It further held that there was a risk that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings, given, inter alia, that he had not confessed. The Regional Court found that the prolongation of the applicant’s detention was necessary in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings for the time needed for the examination of the case. It held that no other measures could prevent the applicant from attempting to interfere with the proceedings or even from going into hiding. 13.  The first hearing was listed for 22 March 2001 but it was cancelled. 14.  On 14 May 2001 the Regional Court ordered that the applicant be held in custody until 15 October 2001, relying on the same grounds as previously. In addition, it observed that so far the trial court had not commenced an examination of the merits due to reasons that were beyond the court’s control, such as the failure of some of the co-defendants or their counsel to appear before the court or the police’s failure to bring the detained co-defendants from prison for trial. The Regional Court noted that the continued detention of the applicant and some of his co-defendants was necessary in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings in the case. That decision was upheld on appeal on 13 June 2001. 15.  On 8 October 2001 the Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 17 January 2002. It reiterated the grounds given in its previous decisions and stressed that since the principal defendants (including the applicant) had not confessed, there was a risk that, once released, they might interfere with the proceedings. The Regional Court also noted that all of the 8 hearings scheduled to date had had to be cancelled for various reasons such as: the illness of the trial judge or one of the co-defendants, the unwarranted absence of some of the co-defendants, the absence of the legal-aid lawyer of one of the co-defendants, the fact that one of the lawyers had left the courtroom when the bill of indictment was being read out and the failure of the police to bring the detained co-defendants from prison for trial. The applicant and two other co-defendants appealed against that decision. 16.  On 30 October 2001 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision. It found that there was a real risk that the defendants, including the applicant, would obstruct the proceedings by exerting pressure on P.S. (a co-defendant who had incriminated them), given the fact that they had resorted to very aggressive language in their correspondence when referring to P.S. Further, there was a risk of their going into hiding. 17.  Two hearings had to be cancelled due to the police’s failure to bring the detained co-defendants from prison (18 October and 8 November 2001). 18.  On 22 November 2001 the trial began. However, the Regional Court was only able to hear two defendants. Two subsequent hearings had to be cancelled due to the absence of one of the defence counsel (29 November 2001) and the illness of one of the defence counsel (20 December 2001). 19.  On 28 December 2001 the Regional Court ordered that the applicant be held in custody until 22 February 2002. It reiterated the grounds given in its earlier decisions. 20.  On 28 December 2001 the Regional Court made an application under Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Katowice Court of Appeal for prolongation of the applicant’s detention until 15 June 2002, since the statutory 2-year time-limit of detention pending trial was soon to be exceeded (Article 263 § 3 of the CCP). It emphasised that the grounds originally given for his detention were still valid and that the court was not able to proceed with the hearing of evidence due to reasons that could not be attributed to it. It noted that out of 13 hearings scheduled to date 12 had had to be cancelled. In addition to the reasons specified in the decision of 8 October 2001, the Regional Court also mentioned the illness of one of the defence counsel and the police’s failure to bring the detained co-defendants from prison (on two occasions). It also observed that the continued detention of the applicant was necessary in order to secure the proper conduct of the trial and that no other measures would prevent the applicant and his co-accused from obstructing the proceedings or going into hiding. 21.  On 9 January 2002 the Court of Appeal granted the Regional Court’s application. In addition to the reasons previously given, it held that the case was particularly complex. It also emphasised that the trial court should take all necessary measures to organise the proceedings in a diligent manner so as to hold hearings at reasonable intervals and terminate the trial by 15 June 2002. The applicant appealed against that decision, but to no avail. 22.  On 20 May 2002 the Regional Court made another application to the Katowice Court of Appeal, requesting an extension of the applicant’s detention until 1 October 2002. It stressed that, despite some progress in the trial (all the co-defendants and 23 out of 34 witnesses called by the prosecution had been heard), there were still prosecution witnesses (11) and witnesses called by the co-accused (20) to be heard. 23.  On 29 May 2002 the Court of Appeal granted that application. It held that the applicant was charged with armed robbery, a serious offence for the commission of which an offender was liable to a minimum sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment; however, in reality the charges of armed robbery were brought against other defendants and the applicant had been, and still was, charged with 2 burglaries. The Court of Appeal considered that the serious nature of the offences, the complexity of the case as well as the fact that the original grounds for keeping him in custody were still valid warranted a further prolongation of his detention. 24.  On 16 September 2002 the trial court made yet another application to the Court of Appeal for an extension of the applicant’s detention until 4 November 2002. It referred to the necessity to hear witnesses called by the co-defendants and to obtain an expert report as to the mental health of one of the co-defendants. On 25 September 2002 the Court of Appeal granted that application. Another similar application of the trial court of 18 October 2002 was granted by the Court of Appeal on 30 October 2002. The latter court considered that the proceedings had not been terminated due to reasons beyond the trial court’s control. The applicant’s detention was prolonged until 20 December 2002. 25.  The trial court held hearings on the following dates: 31 January, 15 and 21 March, 11 and 25 April, 16 May 2002, 3 and 27 June, 31 July, 29 August and 12 September 2002. Four hearings were cancelled for the following reasons: the absence of some of the co-defendants and defence counsel (24 January 2002); the trial judge’s illness (22 February 2002); the failure of one of the co-defendants to appear (26 September 2002) and the failure of the defence counsel to appear (17 October 2002). 26.  All of the applicant’s applications for release on bail or under police supervision, likewise his appeals against decisions prolonging his detention, were to no avail. 27.  On 3 December 2002 the Regional Court closed the trial. On 10 December 2002 it gave judgment. The applicant was convicted of one burglary and sentenced to 2 years’ and 10 months’ imprisonment, which was nearly (less 12 days) the period he had spent in detention on remand. In sentencing the applicant the trial court took into account his two earlier convictions for similar offences. 28.  The applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment. On 23 October 2003 the Katowice Court of Appeal upheld the Regional Court’s judgment in respect of the applicant.