4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Gdynia. The application was lodged on his behalf by his wife, Mrs Beata Szydłowska, who submitted a duly signed written authorisation from the applicant. 5.  On 17 March 2000 the Gdańsk District Court remanded the applicant in custody on suspicion of attempted armed robbery. It held that there was a reasonable risk that he would tamper with evidence. It also relied on the severity of the anticipated penalty. At the same time the applicant was detained on remand in respect of another, separate set of criminal proceedings (no. IV K 174/98). 6.  On 6 June 2000 the Gdańsk Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 17 September 2000. On 12 September 2000 the Regional Court extended that period until 15 December 2000. It relied on the complexity of the investigation, the need to obtain expert evidence and the severity of the anticipated penalty. It further found that detention on remand was the only measure which could secure the proper conduct of the proceedings and prevent the applicant from interfering with witnesses. On 5 December 2000 the Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 17 March 2001, invoking the nature of the charges. 7.  The applicant was detained in connection with an investigation conducted by the Department of Organised Crime of the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor's Office, in which several other persons had already been detained and charged. 8.  On 7 March 2001 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention until 31 May 2001. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged and the severity of the anticipated penalty. The Court of Appeal further held that detention on remand was the only measure which could secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the nature of the charges and the relations between the suspects who had acted in an organised group. It also considered that the prolongation of detention was justified by the need to obtain DNA evidence in order to corroborate evidence previously obtained. 9.  On 15 May 2001 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant was charged with robbery and armed robbery which had been committed in an organised armed criminal group. The bill of indictment listed 118 charges brought against 19 defendants, who were all detained on remand. The case file comprised 114 volumes. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from 366 witnesses. 10.  On 17 May 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody until 31 October 2001, finding that it was necessary in order to prevent him and his co-defendants from evading justice or tampering with evidence. It also referred to the complexity of the case stemming from the number of defendants and witnesses to be heard. 11.  On 13 September 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court refused the request of the applicant and two other defendants (J.N. and R.O.) to grant a severance order with a view to hearing their cases separately, and thus expediting the proceedings. Similar requests were refused on 23 January 2003 and 15 April 2003. 12.  On 16 October 2001 the Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 17 March 2002, finding that the grounds previously given for remanding him in custody were still valid. 13.  The trial began on 28 December 2001. However, as of April 2002 the reading out of the bill of indictment by the prosecution had still not been concluded. Initially, the trial court held three hearings per month. As from June 2002 it decided to hold five hearings per month. 14.  During the hearing held on 30 January 2002 the trial court ordered the removal of the applicant and some other defendants from the court room because of their disruptive behaviour. 15.  On 25 February 2002 the applicant attempted to commit suicide by hanging himself. He was hospitalised in the detention centre hospital from 25 February to 4 March 2002 and treated for a head injury. 16.  During the hearing held on 27 February 2002 the applicant stated that he had a severe headache and was unable to participate in the hearing. The trial court ordered him to be examined by a doctor who found that the applicant could participate in the hearing. 17.  On 13 March 2002 the Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody until 30 September 2002. In addition to the grounds previously invoked, it found that the prolongation of detention was justified under Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the particular complexity of the case. It further observed that the delays in the trial were partly attributable to some of the defendants who had attempted to disrupt the proceedings and, consequently, had had to be removed from the court room. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal held that no other preventive measure could secure the proper conduct of the trial. In that respect, the Court of Appeal observed that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant and other defendants would interfere with the proceedings, given the nature of the charges, the severity of the anticipated penalty and the fact that some of them had attempted to interfere with the proceedings in the course of the investigation. 18.  On 11 September 2002 the Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention until 31 December 2002. In addition to the grounds previously relied on, it held that the applicant's detention was justified under Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since that provision established a presumption to the effect that the likelihood of a severe penalty being imposed on the applicant might induce him to obstruct the proceedings[1]. It also noted that the prolongation of detention was justified by the volume of evidence to be heard during the trial. 19.  On 18 December 2002 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant be held in custody until 30 June 2003. On 25 June 2003 the Court of Appeal extended the applicant's detention until 31 December 2003, relying on the same grounds as previously. In addition, it observed that the trial could not be terminated earlier due to obstructiveness on the part of the defendants who had filed numerous requests challenging the trial court. It also noted that the trial court had taken various procedural steps in order to accelerate the proceedings. 20.  On 11 December 2003 the Regional Court made an application under Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Gdańsk Court of Appeal, asking that the applicant's detention be prolonged beyond the statutory time-limit of 2 years – until 30 June 2004. On 17 December 2003 the Court of Appeal granted that application. The applicant appealed against that decision. 21.  On 29 January 2004 a different panel of the Court of Appeal amended the decision of 17 December 2003, holding that the Court of Appeal could not rule on the Regional Court's application of 11 December 2003, as that application had been premature. The Court of Appeal found that since in the other set of criminal proceedings (no. IV K 174/98) the applicant had been remanded in custody from 29 October 1997 to 3 October 2002, and subsequently had begun to serve his sentence, the period of the applicant's detention in the present case has not yet reached the statutory time-limit of two years. Consequently, a decision on the prolongation of the applicant's detention should be taken by the Regional Court. 22.  On 10 February 2004 the Regional Court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody until 30 June 2004. It invoked the complexity of the case, the volume of evidence and the severity of the anticipated penalty. Having regard to the latter, it considered that the applicant might attempt to obstruct the proceedings. In addition, the Regional Court observed that up to April 2003, when the court commenced to hear evidence, the defendants had frequently attempted to obstruct the proceedings by filing numerous requests challenging the trial court. 23.  On 17 February 2004 the Regional Court informed the applicant that it was not feasible to schedule more than 5 hearings per month. 24.  Subsequently, the Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention on 29 June 2004 (until 31 December 2004), 27 December 2004 (until 30 June 2005) and 23 June 2005 (until 30 October 2005). In addition to the reasons invoked in its decision of 10 February 2004, the Regional Court relied on the exceptional nature of the case owing to the number of charges and defendants. 25.  During the trial the applicant filed numerous but unsuccessful applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against the decisions prolonging his detention. He maintained that the length of his detention was excessive and that the charges against him lacked a sufficiently strong basis. In a number of decisions refusing his applications for release (of 20 May 2003 and 20 January 2004), the Regional Court relied on the severity of the anticipated penalty. That factor, in the court's view, justified the conclusion that the applicant might attempt to obstruct the proceedings by absconding or interfering with witnesses. On that basis the Regional Court considered that other preventive measures would not be sufficient to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. 26.  On 21 March 2005 the trial court made a severance order with a view to expediting the proceedings, and thereafter four defendants (J.N., G.P., Z.S. and Z.C.), who in the meantime had been released from detention, were to be tried separately. 27.  By June 2005 the trial court had held over 150 hearings and heard more than 400 witnesses. 28.  After 20 June 2005 no hearing was held due to the serious illness of the judge rapporteur. On 21 September 2005 the President of the Criminal Section IV of the Gdańsk Regional Court assigned a new judge rapporteur. Consequently, the trial had to commence de novo. 29.  On 20 October 2005 the Regional Court ordered the applicant's release under police supervision. It found that continued application of the most severe preventive measure was no longer justified since the trial had to commence de novo. 30.  On 24 November 2005 the trial court made a further severance order and split the case into eleven separate cases. 31.  On 19 September 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the case of the applicant and some other defendants and referred it to the Poznań Regional Court. On 29 January 2007 the latter court objected to the Gdańsk Regional Court's decision and referred the jurisdiction dispute to the Poznań Court of Appeal. On 13 February 2007 the Court of Appeal ruled that the applicant's case was to be heard by the Gdańsk Regional Court. It held that the referral of the case to the Poznań Regional Court at this stage of the proceedings would lead to unacceptable delays. It further noted that the case had lain dormant before the Gdańsk Regional Court from 24 November 2005 to 19 September 2006. 32.  It appears that the proceedings against the applicant are still pending before the first-instance court. 33.  On 3 November 2004 the applicant filed with the Gdańsk Court of Appeal a complaint about a breach of his right to a trial within a reasonable time and asked for compensation. He relied on section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (“the 2004 Act”). 34.  The applicant submitted that the hearings in the case had been short and that a significant number of them had been cancelled. He further referred to numerous absences of witnesses and the fact that the trial court had failed to enforce discipline against those witnesses who had failed to appear. Lastly, he submitted that the trial court had refused his request for a severance order in respect of the charges against him. 35.  On 28 December 2004 the Court of Appeal dismissed his complaint as unfounded, having regard to the criteria set out in section 2 § 2 of the 2004 Act, namely the conduct of the court and of the parties, the nature of the case, its factual and legal complexity and what was at stake in the proceedings for the complainant. 36.  It admitted that some hearings had been short, but that had been due to the witnesses' absence or the need to take into account the defendants' health problems. However, there had been a number of hearings in the course of 2004 which had lasted until the late afternoon. Overall, the Court of Appeal considered that the isolated cases of hearings which had not been well prepared in advance could not undermine the substantial efforts of the trial court in handling the case. Furthermore, it considered that it could not be said that the exceptional cancellation of some hearings pointed to inactivity on the part of the trial court. 37.  The Court of Appeal also found that the absences of certain witnesses referred to by the applicant had been justified; in other cases the trial court had taken steps to discipline unjustified absenteeism. It further considered that the joint examination of the charges against the defendants who had collectively committed a crime was justified under domestic law. 38.  In conclusion, the Court of Appeal found that given the nature of the case, its complexity and the attitude of the defendants who, by filing numerous unsubstantiated procedural applications, had contributed to the delays in the trial, there was no ground to hold that the proceedings had been unreasonably long.