4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Raciborz. He is currently detained in the Racibórz Remand Centre. 5.  On 15 December 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of committing 11 crimes, including forming and running a criminal gang, and detained on remand pursuant to a decision given by the Gliwice District Court on charges of repeated robbery and membership of an organised gang. On 19 January 2005 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the detention order, stating that the application of the most severe preventive measure was justified by the existence of strong evidence of his guilt, in particular testimonies of co-suspects and witnesses. Furthermore, having regard to the fact that the applicant was domiciled in the Netherlands and had been arrested on the basis of a wanted notice, the court concluded that there was a justified fear that the applicant might go into hiding and obstruct the proper course of the proceedings. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence and the fact that the applicant had a previous criminal record. 6.  On 15 February 2005 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant with the Katowice Regional Court. The applicant was charged with setting up a criminal gang and running its activity, several accounts of aggravated theft with the use of violence, attempted robbery with the use of violence and burglary committed following his relapse into crime. The prosecutor requested that 14 witnesses be heard and the testimonies of a further 8 witnesses be read out and 39 pieces of evidence be taken. 7.  On 15 March 2005 the applicant’s detention was prolonged for three months. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed on 13 April 2005 by the Katowice Court of Appeal. The decision was based on strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported by the evidence from witnesses. The courts attached importance to the grave nature of those offences and to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. They further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, especially the need to verify evidence from suspects and witnesses and to obtain fresh evidence from witnesses, justified holding the applicant in custody. 8.  On 19 July 2005 the Gliwice Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for release, considering that he had previously tried to evade justice by absconding and that the evidence against him sufficiently supported the charges laid against him. 9.  On 2 August 2005 the Wodzislaw Division of the Gliwice Regional Court refused to release the applicant, relying on the high likelihood that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged. The court referred to the evidence gathered so far in the proceedings and to the fact that one of the accused had acknowledged that he had committed the offences in question. It also noted that before his arrest the applicant, having absconded, had been sought pursuant to a wanted notice. The court further noted that he lived abroad, which made it likely that he would abscond again. 10.  On 31 August 2006 the court extended the applicant’s detention until 14 December 2006 relying on the fact that the applicant had tried to exert pressure upon two other accused and, if released, he could hinder the proper conduct of the proceedings. The decision was upheld on 27 September 2006. 11.  On 21 November 2006 the Wodzislaw Division of the Gliwice Regional Court refused to release the applicant, essentially relying on the same grounds as in its refusal of 2 August 2005. 12.  On 27 November 2006 one of the accused who had been released pending trial did not appear at the scheduled court hearing. Hence, the hearing could not be held. The court decided to request the Katowice Court of Appeal to extend the applicant’s detention until 14 June 2007. On 13 December 2006 the motion was partly allowed and the applicant’s detention prolonged until 31 March 2007. The court held that the prerequisites justifying the application of this preventive measure remained valid. It noted that the applicant faced serious charges and referred to the fact that he had attempted to influence the testimonies of the co-accused. Furthermore, the court stressed the fact that the applicant had in the past tried to evade justice by going into hiding. The court referred to the fact that the applicant had previously absconded and observed that the judicial proceedings were coming to an end and that only one witness had still to be heard. 13.  Hearings in the case were held on 23 May, 24 June, 5 July, 6 July 2005, 22 August, 21 September, 28 November and 19 December 2005; 23 January, 27 March, 27 April, 5 June, 26 June, 6 August, 19 October and 27 November 2006, 12 January, 26 February, 5 March, 11 April and 16 May 2007. The Katowice Regional Court held in all 59 hearings in the case. 14.  On 6 June 2007 the Regional Court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. The period of his detention was counted towards the sentence. 15.  The parties appealed. The applicant is being kept in detention pending appeal.