5.  The applicant, Mr Adam Jarkiewicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1971 and lives Warszawa. 6.  On 24 April 2005 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of drug trafficking. 7.  On 26 April 2005 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody. The applicant did not appeal against that decision. 8.  The inquiry against the applicant was initially conducted by the Warsaw District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy). It appears that a few months after the applicant's arrest the Lublin Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy) opened another inquiry against the applicant, who was suspected of further drug-related offences. As a consequence, the Lublin Regional Prosecutor took over the Warsaw case. 9.  The applicant's pre-trial detention was extended by the Warsaw District Court on 14 July 2005 (decision upheld on 13 September 2005), by the Lublin District Court on 19 October 2005 (upheld on 1 December 2005) and 6 January 2006 (upheld on 2 February 2006), and by the Lublin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 12 April 2006 (upheld on 5 July 2006). 10.  The courts justified the applicant's pre-trial detention by the strong evidence against him, the severity of the offences with which he had been charged, the heavy penalty which might be imposed if convicted and the risk of inducing witnesses to give false testimony, which was particularly high in light of the fact that one of the witnesses was the applicant's close friend. 11.  During the pre-trial proceedings the applicant made several requests to be granted access to the investigation files. On 1 February 2006 the Lublin Regional Prosecutor rejected the applicant's request for security reasons (dla dobra śledztwa). 12.  On 6 April 2006 the Lublin Appellate Prosecutor (Prokurator Prokuratury Apelacyjnej) dismissed an interlocutory appeal against that decision. It was noted that at the preliminary phase of a criminal inquiry the case files were, in principle, confidential and were to be presented to the suspected person only at the end of that phase of the proceedings. In light of the fact that the authorities were still engaged in their investigation, releasing confidential information to the applicant could impede the proceedings. 13.  The applicant's subsequent request was likewise dismissed by the Lublin Regional Prosecutor on 6 May 2006. 14.  On 28 June 2006 the inquiry was closed and the bill of indictment against the applicant was lodged with the Zamość District Court. The applicant was indicted on several charges related to drugs trafficking. 15.  Pending trial the applicant's detention was extended by the decisions of the Zamość District Court of 6 July 2006, of the Lublin District Court of 12 September 2006 and 24 January 2007, and of the Lublin Court of Appeal of 18 April 2007.
It appears that the applicant appealed against all of the above-mentioned decisions with the exception of the decision of 24 January 2007. 16.  The authorities relied on the original grounds for the applicant's pre‑trial detention and noted that the proceedings were complex. At the relevant time twenty-three people were suspected of being accomplices to the applicant's alleged crimes, seven of whom were in pre-trial detention. 17.  The interlocutory appeals lodged by the applicant's lawyer against the decisions to uphold the detention measure and his requests for release were examined on the merits and dismissed. 18.  Meanwhile, on 25 August 2006 the Zamość District Court decided to relinquish its jurisdiction over the applicant's case to the Lublin District Court. 19.  The first hearing before the trial court was scheduled for 19 December 2006. It was adjourned until 24 January 2007 because the applicant had not had enough time to read the case file. 20.  The next hearing was scheduled for 9 February 2007. It was adjourned until 21 March 2007 (due to the absence of witnesses) and then again until 30 March 2007 (due to the illness of the applicant's lawyer). 21.  In the following months six hearings took place and seven were adjourned for different reasons. The periods of the court's inactivity between hearings amounted to 49 days, 82 days or 35 days, respectively. The hearings were adjourned due to the illness of the applicant's lawyer (once), difficulties in organising the applicant's escort from the remand centre to the court (twice), failure to summon one of the applicant's co‑accused (once) and for other unspecified reasons. 22.  In the initial phase of the proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer of his choice. On 19 March 2007 the lawyer in question withdrew from the case and the applicant asked the trial court to appoint a legal-aid lawyer to represent him.
On 30 March 2007 the Lublin District Court refused to appoint a lawyer under the legal-aid scheme. The decision was justified by the view that the applicant had failed to prove that he was indigent.
As a result, the applicant acted without a legal representation. 23.  At the hearing held on 24 October 2007 the applicant once again asked the trial court to appoint a legal-aid lawyer. This time, he submitted a certificate of indigence from the tax office. The trial court granted the applicant's request and appointed a lawyer to represent him before the court. 24.  The legal-aid lawyer assisted the applicant at the subsequent hearings. The applicant also acted through his lawyer in lodging interlocutory appeals against the decisions to extend his pre-trial detention. 25.  Meanwhile, on 30 September 2007 the preventive measure imposed in connection with the proceedings subject of this application was lifted. The applicant is currently at liberty. 26.  The relevant criminal proceedings are currently pending before the domestic court. 27.  In parallel to his pre-trial detention which is the subject of the instant application, namely from 4 to 29 July 2005, the applicant was serving a prison sentence, resulting from an unpaid fine, which had been imposed on him in another criminal case (judgment of the Kołobrzeg District Court of 25 July 2001). 28.  The applicant submitted that his correspondence had been withheld by the authorities for two or three months and that the letters he had sent to his lawyer or to the domestic courts had been opened and copied before being forwarded to him. 29.  The envelope containing the registered letter sent to the applicant by the Lublin District Court on 3 April 2006 bears a stamp: “Censored” (Cenzurowano). An illegible signature and the date, 18 April 2006, together with a note: “Lublin Regional Prosecutor VII Department” (PO Lublin VII O) are handwritten on top of the stamp. 30.  The envelope containing the letter of 19 March 2007 sent to the Lublin Remand Centre's address by the applicant's lawyer bears a stamp: “Lublin Remand Centre ... received on ... No. ...” (Areszt Śledczy w Lublnie Wpł. 2007‑03‑22 L.dz....dział...). The blank spaces are filled in with a printed date, 22 March 2007, and a handwritten number: 14346. In addition, a stamp: “it is not subject to censorship” (nie podlega cenzurze) is visible on the front side of the envelope. 31.  The envelope containing the letter, which had been sent to the applicant by the Supreme Court at the applicant's address in the Lublin Remand Centre on 14 March 2006, bears a similar stamp: “Lublin Remand Centre ... received on ... No. ...” (Areszt Śledczy w Lublnie Wpł. ...L.dz....dział...). The blank space is filled in with a printed date, 17 March 2006, and a handwritten number, 12386. The other notes visible on the envelope indicate that the letter was forwarded to Warsaw Remand Centre on 28 March 2006. A stamp: Lublin Regional Prosecutor Organised Crime Division VI (Prokuratura Okręgowa VI Wydział d/s Przestępczości Zorganizowanej w Lublinie) is visible on the back of the envelope. The stamp is covered by an illegible signature and a handwritten date, 11 April 2006. 32.  Two letters sent to the applicant by the INFOR publishing company to Lublin Remand Centre on unspecified dates and received by the applicant on 14 August 2007 and 10 October 2007 respectively, bear a stamp: “Censored” (Ocenzurowano) or “Censored, on ... signature...” (Ocenzurowano, dnia ... podpis). The blank spaces of each stamp are filled in with an illegible signature and the dates, 8 August 2007 and 4 September 2007 respectively. Each of the letters contained an issue of a legal newspaper “Gazeta Prawna” which had been ordered by the applicant. 33.  By letter of 7 May 2007 the Head of the Criminal Department of the Lublin Regional Court (Przewodniczący Wydziału) informed the applicant that there were no grounds for granting his request not to censor the packages in which the applicant received newspapers from the publisher because of the risk that the envelopes might conceal illegal correspondence.
By letter of 13 June 2007 the same authority informed the applicant that Article 217 (a) § 2 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences allowed certain authorities to withhold, censor or monitor the correspondence of a detained person. It was stressed that the newspapers which the applicant received in the remand centre had to be inspected so as to ensure that they did not conceal any illegal information related to the criminal proceedings against the applicant. The authorities, however, did not censor any newspaper articles.