4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Warsaw. 5.  On 22 June 2005 the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor (Prokuratur Prokuratury Apelacyjnej) charged the applicant with fraud and dealing in stolen goods committed in an organised criminal group. 6.  On 29 June 2005 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It further considered that there was a risk that he would obstruct the proper conduct of the investigation. The court also stressed the likelihood that a heavy penalty would be imposed on him. 7.  In the course of the investigation the applicant’s detention was extended regularly by the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) and the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny). The courts repeated the grounds originally given for his detention. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully against the subsequent decisions. 8.  On 13 and 30 October and 6 December 2005 the applicant lodged unsuccessful applications with the Appeal Prosecutor for his detention to be lifted and replaced by another preventive measure. 9.  On 14 February 2006 the Wrocław Court of Appeal did not extend the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The court prohibited the applicant from leaving the country and ordered police supervision. 10.  The applicant submits that despite the Court of Appeal’s decision to release him he was kept in detention until 17 February 2006, the date when new charges were laid against him and the Katowice District Court remanded him in custody in another set of proceedings. 11.  On 17 February 2006 the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor charged the applicant with armed robbery, hostage taking and fraud committed in an organised group. 12.  On the same date the Katowice District Court remanded the applicant in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It further considered that there was a risk that he would obstruct the proper conduct of the investigation. It referred to the complexity of the case and the large number of persons involved. The court also stressed the likelihood that a heavy penalty would be imposed on him. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against the decision. 13.  On 24 February and 30 May 2006 the applicant lodged applications with the Prosecutor of Appeal for his detention to be lifted and replaced by another preventive measure. He referred to his state of health and the deterioration of his family relationships. On 24 March and 5 June 2006 respectively the Prosecutor of Appeal dismissed his applications. 14.  On 8 May 2006 the Katowice Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention. The court repeated the grounds previously given by the District Court. 15.  Subsequently, in the course of the proceedings the applicant’s detention was extended regularly by the Katowice Regional Court and the Katowice Court of Appeal. The courts repeated the grounds originally given for his detention. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully against the subsequent decisions. 16.  In the meantime, on 13 July 2006 and 22 January 2007 the applicant lodged applications with the Appeal Prosecutor requesting permission to call his daughter. Respectively, on 24 July 2006 and 5 February 2007 the Prosecutor refused his requests, referring in his decisions to the prohibition on using telephone and other communication devices by persons in pre-trial detention. 17.  On 30 October 2007 the Katowice Regional Court sentenced the applicant to four years’ imprisonment and ordered his release. It appears that he was released on the same day. 18. The proceedings are still pending before the appellate court. 19.  The applicant submitted that during his detention his correspondence with the Registry had been censored by the authorities. He produced a Court envelope sent on 25 October 2006, which bears the following stamp: “Censored, date ...” (Cenzurowano, dnia ...) and an illegible signature. It appears that the envelope had been cut open and subsequently resealed with adhesive tape. 20.  He also produced a Court letter dated 27 March 2007, which bears a stamp: “Prosecutor of the Appeal Prosecution Office in Kraków delegated to the Katowice Appeal Prosecution Office, W. M.” (Prokurator Prokuratury Apelacyjnej w Krakowie del. Do Prokuratury Apelacyjnej w Katowicach, W. M.), a handwritten “date ..., censored” (Ocenzurowano) and an illegible signature. The envelope in which the letter was delivered bears the following stamp: “Censored, date ...” It appears that the envelope had been cut open and subsequently resealed with adhesive tape. 21.  On 9 May 2007 the Court received a letter from the applicant dated 14 March 2007. It bears the following stamp: “Prosecutor of the Appeal Prosecution Office in Kraków delegated to the Katowice Appeal Prosecution Office, W.M.” (Prokurator Prokuratury Apelacyjnej w Krakowie del. do Prokuratury Apelacyjnej w Katowicach, W.M.), a handwritten “date..., censored” (Ocenzurowano) and an illegible signature.