4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Częstochowa. 5.  The applicant was arrested on 26 April 2001. On 28 April 2001 the Częstochowa District Court remanded her in custody on suspicion of fraud, forgery and making unlawful threats. It held that there was a risk that the applicant would attempt to influence the witnesses, given the significant differences between her statements and those of the victims and witnesses. Furthermore, the District Court relied on the severity of the anticipated penalty. Lastly, it found that other preventive measures would be insufficient to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. 6.  On 8 June 2001 the Częstochowa District Prosecutor ordered that the investigation in the applicant's case be conducted in conjunction with an investigation carried out by the Department of Organised Crime of the Katowice Regional Prosecutor's Office. That investigation concerned the operation in Częstochowa of an organised criminal group led by a certain M.M. 7.  On 19 July 2001 the Częstochowa Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 26 October 2001. It relied on the risk that the applicant would obstruct the investigation and on the severity of the anticipated penalty. 8.  On 18 October 2001 the Regional Court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody until 10 December 2001, having regard to the evidence obtained in the investigation. It found that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would attempt to obstruct the proceedings, in particular by influencing witnesses, since she had not confessed. Furthermore, the Regional Court found that the prolongation of the applicant's detention was justified by the fact that the investigation concerned a significant number of suspects. Lastly, it found that there were no special circumstances, as specified in Article 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that would justify her release. The applicant appealed against that decision. 9.  On 14 November 2001 the Katowice Court of Appeal upheld the impugned decision. It held, however, that there were no grounds indicating that there was a risk that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings. It further pointed out that the Regional Court had erred in holding that such risk could flow from the fact that the applicant had not confessed, since such a view infringed the applicant's defence rights. On the other hand, the Court of Appeal found that the applicant's continued detention was justified under Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That provision established a presumption to the effect that the likelihood of a severe penalty being imposed on the applicant might induce her to obstruct the proceedings[1]. 10.  On 29 November 2001 the Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 26 April 2002. 11.  Since on 26 April 2002 the applicant's detention pending investigation had reached the statutory time-limit of one year, further prolongation of her detention was ordered by the Katowice Court of Appeal. On 17 April 2002 the Court of Appeal extended the applicant's detention until 10 June 2002. In addition to the grounds previously invoked, it had regard to the evidence given by the State's witnesses and the fact that not all of the accomplices had been arrested. The Court of Appeal also relied on the need to obtain further expert evidence and the complexity of the case. 12.  On 22 May 2002 the Court of Appeal ruled that the applicant and some of her co-suspects be kept in custody until 10 December 2002. Taking into account the fact that they had acted in an organised criminal group and that some of the members of the group had incriminated them, the Court of Appeal found that the above factors gave substance to the risk that they might obstruct the proceedings. It also referred to the particular complexity of the case. 13.  On 4 December 2002 the Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant and her 7 co-suspects be held in custody until 24 April 2003. It referred to the gravity of the charges and the number of suspects involved. 14.  On 17 March 2003 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor laid additional charges against the applicant. 15.  On 14 April 2003 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Częstochowa District Court. The applicant was charged with leading an organised criminal group, aggravated assault, possessing a firearm without a licence, making unlawful threats, several forgeries and numerous property-related frauds. There were 11 defendants in the case. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from 145 witnesses. 16.  On 23 April 2003 the Katowice Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention until 31 December 2003. It noted that the period of her detention up to the first conviction had exceeded the statutory time-limit of 2 years (Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). However the length of the period had been justified, in the court's view, by the particular complexity of the case. It considered that since the applicant had been charged with leading an organised criminal group, her continued detention had been necessary in order to avoid the risk of obstruction of the proceedings. It noted that the applicant, as a leader of the organised criminal group, if released, could give instructions to its members during the proceedings. It also had regard to the number of charges. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal underlined the strong likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant, having regard to Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 17.  On 13 August 2003 the Katowice Court of Appeal, on an application from the Częstochowa District Court, ordered that the applicant's case be examined by the Częstochowa Regional Court. 18.  According to a medical report prepared in October 2004 the applicant could be held in custody. However, it was recommended that she undergo surgery. It appears that the applicant refused to do so. 19.  During the trial the Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention several times. The relevant decisions were given on 23 December 2003 (prolonging her detention until 30 June 2004), 9 June 2004 (ordering her continued detention until 30 December 2004), 10 November 2004 (extending that period until 30 June 2005) and 15 June 2005 (prolonging the applicant's detention until 31 October 2005). The Court of Appeal held that the grounds previously given for the applicant's continued detention were still valid. In its decision of 10 November 2004, the Court of Appeal found that the trial could not be concluded due to the illness of the applicant and two other defendants. 20.  On 19 March 2005 the applicant suffered a cardiac arrest. She underwent surgery and was hospitalised from 19 to 22 March 2005 in a civil hospital in Częstochowa, and subsequently in the prison hospitals in Lubliniec and Wrocław. According to reports prepared by cardiologists (one of unspecified date and the other of 9 July 2005), the applicant could receive adequate treatment while in detention on remand. 21.  The trial court held 69 hearings between 24 November 2003 and 24 October 2005. 22.  During the investigation and the trial the applicant filed several unsuccessful applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against the decisions prolonging her detention. 23.  On 24 October 2005 the Częstochowa Regional Court gave judgment. It convicted the applicant of 31 out of the 33 offences she had been charged with and sentenced her to seven years' imprisonment. On the same day the trial court ordered the applicant's release. She was released on 25 October 2005. 24.  The applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment. On 22 November 2006 the Katowice Court of Appeal upheld the conviction in respect of certain charges and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to three and a half years. In respect of other charges it remitted the case for re-examination by the trial court. 25.  On 26 April 2004 the Częstochowa District Prosecutor charged the applicant with incitement to murder and fraud. On the same day the Częstochowa District Court remanded her in custody on suspicion of incitement to murder and fraud. It relied on evidence given by the applicant's co-suspect, a certain Z.K. 26.  Subsequently, the Częstochowa Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention on several occasions until 7 March 2005. The applicant maintained that the charges against her lacked a sufficiently strong basis since they were founded on unreliable evidence given by Z.K. 27.  On 7 March 2005 the Częstochowa Regional Prosecutor decided to release the applicant. On 11 March 2005 the Regional Prosecutor discontinued the investigation against her.