4.  The applicant, Mr Oleg Choumakov, is a Russian national who was born in 1971. He is currently serving a prison sentence in the Gdańsk Detention Centre. 5.  On 29 May 2003 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of robbery and the murder of a taxi driver. 6.  On 30 May 2003 the Braniewo District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to remand the applicant in custody, relying on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question and the high probability that a heavy sentence would be imposed on him. The court further considered that there was a risk that the applicant might interfere with the course of the proceedings and bring pressure to bear on witnesses. 7.  The applicant's pre-trial detention was subsequently extended on several occasions. 8.  On 30 June 2005 the Elbląg Regional Court convicted the applicant and his co‑accused and sentenced them to twenty-five years' imprisonment. The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment. 9.  On 21 December 2005 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration. On the same day, the appeal court extended the applicant's pre‑trial detention. 10.  The applicant's pre-trial detention was further extended. 11.  On 30 April 2007 the Elbląg Regional Court again convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twenty-five years' imprisonment. The applicant lodged an appeal. 12.  On 28 December 2007 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned judgment. It remitted the case to the Elbląg Regional Court. The court further extended the applicant's detention until 28 June 2008. In addition to the grounds invoked previously, the court found that the applicant and the second co-accused had made an attempt to contact each other illegally and to exchange information about the trial, which justified the finding that the applicant might interfere with the proper course of the proceedings. Moreover, the court found that the co‑accused had contacted the witnesses through other persons. 13.  On 30 April 2008 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed a request by the applicant for release. 14.  On 17 June 2008 the Elbląg Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 30 December 2008, relying on the high probability that the applicant had committed the offence in question. It also noted that he had already been convicted twice by the first-instance court. The court also considered that the likelihood of a severe sentence being imposed on the applicant created a presumption that he would obstruct the proceedings, and that the fact that the applicant had contacted third persons created a presumption that he might tamper with evidence. 15.  The applicant appealed against that decision. 16.  On 2 July 2008 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal upheld the challenged decision, repeating the grounds invoked by the Regional Court. 17.  On 1 December 2008 the applicant's lawyer requested the court to release the applicant from detention and apply a less severe measure, namely police supervision combined with the seizure of the applicant's passport. He relied, inter alia, on the fact that on 29 July 2008 the European Court of Human Rights had given judgment and found that the applicant's detention had exceeded a reasonable time. 18.  On 5 December 2008 the Elbląg Regional Court refused the applicant's lawyer's request. The court considered that the grounds for the applicant's detention remained valid and, therefore, the continued detention of the applicant did not violate the procedural guarantees safeguarded by Articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. As regards the Court's judgment, the Regional Court expressed the opinion that neither the Convention nor the Code of Criminal Procedure placed an obligation on the court to release an applicant following a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. The Regional Court noted that the applicant had been granted 1,500 euros (EUR), which constituted sufficient just‑satisfaction for the violation found. 19.  On 22 December 2008 the Elbląg Regional Court again extended the applicant's detention until 30 June 2009. The court copied the reasoning from its own decision of 5 December 2008. 20.  On 5 January 2009 the applicant's lawyer appealed. 21.  On 21 January 2009 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal upheld the challenged decision. It again repeated the grounds previously invoked by the Regional Court. As regards the judgment given by the Court, it considered that it was of a “declaratory nature” and “did not constitute a source of law but rather an application of the law”. 22.  On an unspecified date the applicant's lawyer requested again that a less severe preventive measure be applied to the applicant, namely police supervision combined with the seizure of the applicant's passport. 23.  On 13 May 2009 the Elbląg Regional Court refused to grant that request, finding that two expert reports had still to be prepared and the case was a particularly difficult one. It also noted that the applicant, as a foreigner without a fixed address in Poland, might abscond if released. Further, it repeated the same grounds as previously. 24.  On 20 May 2009 the applicant's lawyer appealed. He argued, inter alia, that the applicant's professional and family life prior to his arrest had been based in Elblag and that the sole fact that the applicant was a Russian citizen could not be regarded as creating a danger that he might abscond. 25.  On 2 June 2009 the Elbląg Regional Court upheld the challenged decision. It relied on the same grounds as invoked previously. 26.  On 16 June 2009 the Elbląg Regional Court again extended the applicant's detention for a further six months, that is, until 30 December 2009. It again relied on the same grounds as previously and added that the expert witnesses had to be heard again because “the accused persons [had] again changed their version of events”. 27.  On 22 June 2009 the applicant and his lawyer lodged appeals against the further extension of the detention. 28.  On 1 July 2009 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal found the appeals partly justified and decided that the applicant's detention should be extended only until 30 October 2009. It noted that the proceedings had “without doubt been considerably lengthy” and considered that the Regional Court should terminate them before the expiry of the detention time-limit. 29.  On 13 November 2009 the Elbląg Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twenty-five years' imprisonment. 30.  On 11 March 2010 the applicant's lawyer lodged an appeal. 31.  On 27 October 2010 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal upheld the challenged judgment. 32.  On 1 September 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). He sought a declaration that the criminal proceedings against him were lengthy, and compensation in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN). 33.  On 28 October 2008 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's complaint (II S 30/08). It considered that there had been no unjustified delays in the proceedings and pointed to the complicated nature of the case.