5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Łódź. 6.  On 20 October 2004 the Łódź District Court ordered the applicant's pre-trial detention for a period of fourteen days. The court referred to the reasonable suspicion that the applicant was guilty of fraud while acting in an organised group. 7.  On 6 June 2006 the applicant was arrested. On 13 June 2006 the Łódź District Court ordered his detention for a period of three months. The court held that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged (including establishing and leading an organised criminal group). Furthermore, he had confessed to the charges. The court also stressed that the detention was necessary in order to ensure the proper course of the proceedings, in particular as the applicant had been in hiding. 8.  In July his detention was extended until 6 November 2006. The court repeated the reasons previously given. 9.  On 14 June and 3 July 2006 the applicant's wife, M.G., asked for permission to visit her husband in prison. On 20 June and 5 July 2006 respectively, the Łódź Regional Prosecutor refused her requests. The prosecutor made handwritten notes on M.G.'s applications – “no permission” and “permission refused” respectively (“brak zgody”, “nie wyrażam zgody”). 10.  On 24 July 2006 the applicant was again refused permission to be visited by his wife and children by the Piotrków Trybunalski District Court. The prosecutor made a handwritten note on the applicant's motion “permission refused” (“nie wyrażam zgody”). 11.  On 24 September 2006 the applicant was visited by his daughter. 12.  On 26 October 2006 the Łódź District Court extended the applicant's detention until 6 May 2007. The court held that the original reasons for his detention were still valid. The court also referred to the likelihood of a heavy sentence and the fact that the applicant had acted in a criminal group. The court further refused the applicant's request for release. 13.  On 21 February 2007 the Łódź District Court refused the applicant's application for release and the replacement of detention by more lenient preventive measures. The court referred to the grounds given in previous decisions. 14.  The trial began on 4 April 2007. There were sixteen other co‑accused in the proceedings. The prosecutor asked the court to hear 106 witnesses. 15.  At the hearing held on 29 May 2007 the applicant again asked for the preventive measure to be changed. The court refused his request and extended the detention until 31 July 2007. 16.  Between 8 June 2007 and 2 May 2008 the applicant was visited by his wife on twelve occasions. 17.  The applicant's detention was subsequently extended on several occasions, in particular on 23 August and 5 October 2007. 18.  On 8 May 2008 the applicant was released from detention. 19.  It would appear that the proceedings are pending.