5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Warsaw. 6.  On 15 December 1999 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of fraud. The District Court of Suwałki (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody. 7.  On 27 March 2000 the applicant was served with a bill of indictment, which comprised charges of attempted fraud and forgery committed with two accomplices. 8.  On 10 April 2000 the applicant’s detention was extended by the Suwałki District Court until 31 May 2000. The applicant appealed. On 17 May 2000 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question. It further considered that as the applicant did not have a permanent address in Poland there was a risk of his absconding or going into hiding. The court also stressed that there was the likelihood that a heavy penalty would be imposed on him. 9.  In the meantime, on 8 May 2000 the Suwałki Regional Court transmitted the case to the Tomaszów District Court. On 7 June 2000 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court transmitted the case to the Jaworzno District Court, in the vicinity of which two of the accused resided. 10.  On 19 September 2000 the Jaworzno District Court decided to remit the case to the Suwałki District Prosecutor (Prokuratura Rejonowa), finding that there was a need to complete the investigation. 11.  On 29 December 2000 the Suwałki District Prosecutor released the applicant on bail. The prosecutor prohibited the applicant from leaving the country, referring to the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation and to the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question. 12.  On 16 May 2001 the Suwałki District Prosecutor submitted a fresh bill of indictment. 13.  The Jaworzno District Court lodged an application with the Katowice Regional Court for the case to be transmitted to the Łódź District Court. On 19 September 2001 the Katowice Regional Court rejected the court’s application. It referred to the fact that the case had been transmitted to different courts several times and that this factor had prolonged the proceedings. 14.  On 26 February 2002 the Jaworzno District Court stayed the proceedings because one of the co-defendants suffered from mental health problems. They were resumed on 24 January 2003. 15.  On 13 October 2005 the Jaworzno District Court sentenced the applicant to one year and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant and the prosecutor appealed. However the applicant was not placed in detention. 16.  On 13 March 2007 the Katowice Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the Jaworzno District Court. 17.  In the meantime, on 20 July 2006 the applicant had asked the Jaworzno District Court to waive the prohibition on his leaving the territory of Poland. He submitted that his sister had died and that he wanted to visit his ailing mother. 18.  On 23 August 2006 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed his application. The court held that if the prohibition was lifted, there were serious grounds to believe that the applicant would go into hiding, especially since he had informed them that he wished to go to Libya. 19.  According to the information available to the Court on the date of the adoption of the present judgment, the proceedings are still pending before the District Court. 20.  On 3 June 2005 the applicant lodged, under the Law of 17 June 2004 (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”), a complaint that his right to a fair trial within a reasonable time had been breached. On 29 June 2005 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. 21.  On 17 January 2007 the applicant lodged a second complaint under the 2004 Act. The applicant claimed compensation in the amount of 60,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately EUR 15,000) and the return of security provided for bail. 22.  On 21 March 2007 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the application. The court examined the length of proceedings after 3 June 2005, the date on which he had lodged his first complaint. The court found that during the relevant part of the proceedings there had been no inactivity or undue delay on the part of the domestic courts. In that connection the court held that there had been no breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time in the period after 3 June 2005. 23.  On 3 July 2003 the applicant lodged an application for a visa with the President of the Office for Repatriation and Aliens (Prezes Urzędu do Spraw Repatriacji i Cudzoziemców). 24.  On 12 November 2003 the President dismissed the application. He relied on the fact that the applicant had been accused of fraud and on the need to secure the proceedings before the national courts. The President submitted that in accordance with section 110 of the Aliens Act of 25 June 1997 (Ustawa o cudzoziemcach), while a prohibition on leaving the country was in force the status of a foreigner was legal and there was no need to grant him or her a visa. The applicant appealed. 25.  On 27 January 2004 the President of the Office for Repatriation and Aliens dismissed the appeal.