5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Szeged. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  On 30 June 2005 the applicant and an accomplice were arrested on a charge of theft of a car and two motorcycles. In the ensuing proceedings he was assisted by defence counsel of his choice. 8.  On 1 July 2005 the Szeged District Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 1 August 2005. The District Court considered that – given that the applicant had previous convictions and that another accomplice had absconded – there was a risk that he would endanger the investigation. 9.  The applicant appealed and requested his release. He argued that the stolen goods had been found and the third accomplice had been arrested, so that the reasons given by the first-instance court had ceased to exist. He also pointed out that his agricultural activity – which was his main source of income – was seriously hindered by his detention. Lastly, he stated that his mother was seriously ill and he had to take care of her. 10.  On 7 July 2005 the Csongrád County Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision. It considered that, given the seriousness of the charges against him and that his presence in the investigation could not be secured otherwise, the applicant’s pre-trial detention was necessary. 11.  The applicant was in the meantime charged with other minor offences. On 29 July 2005 the District Court prolonged his pre-trial detention until 1 October 2005. It considered that, in view of his record, there was a serious risk that he would abscond, reoffend or endanger the investigation, in particular by destroying evidence. It also established that the applicant’s request for release, which was based on identical reasons to those set out in his appeal, was insufficiently founded to justify ending his detention. The applicant appealed, asking to be released or to be placed under house arrest in lieu of detention. 12.  On 1 September 2005 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision but deleted from the list of reasons the risk of destruction of evidence. 13.  On 28 September 2005 the District Court again prolonged the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 1 January 2006 for the same reasons it had given previously. The applicant appealed and drew attention to the fact, inter alia, that the investigation was practically closed, as all the necessary investigative acts had already been carried out. He also stated that the seriousness of the charges against him could not serve as the sole basis for his detention. On 12 October 2005 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision. 14.  On 28 December 2005 the District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until the delivery of the first-instance judgment on the merits. It considered that the seriousness of the charges against him meant that there was a serious risk that he would abscond or jeopardise the procedure by conspiring with his missing accomplice. The applicant appealed and repeated his previous arguments. 15.  On 6 February 2006 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision but changed the ground for detention to the risk of the applicant’s reoffending. It also established that the investigation had ended, so that the applicant could no longer jeopardise it. 16.  On 21 August 2006 the District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until the delivery of the first-instance judgment on the merits on the same grounds as before. 17.  On 5 September 2006 the District Court terminated the applicant’s detention and ordered his house arrest. It considered that he was no longer in a position to endanger the goals of the proceedings and, based on the information in its possession, there was no risk that he would abscond. 18.  On 25 September 2007 the Szeged District Court found the applicant guilty of trafficking in stolen goods (orgazdaság) and sentenced him to one year’s suspended imprisonment.