5.  The applicant was born in 1987 and lives in Słomczyn. 6.  On 6 April 2009 the applicant was arrested on charges of participation in an organised and armed criminal group involved in extortions and procuring of several violent offences committed while acting in an organised criminal group. 7.  The investigation against the applicant and some other persons was conducted by the Warsaw Prosecutor of Appeal (Prokuratura Apelacyjna). 8.  On 8 April 2009 the Warsaw Wola District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. The court considered that, whereas the statements of a co-accused were the key evidence against the applicant, they were corroborated by the other evidence gathered in the case. It further considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. In the court’s view the risk that the applicant might obstruct the proceedings resulted from the fact that he had been charged with membership in an organised criminal group. The court further noted in this connection that one of the charges against the applicant concerned witness tampering by means of violence. It also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence which might encourage the accused to interfere with the conduct of the proceedings. 9.  On 5 June 2009 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against this decision. The court underlined, in particular, that the credibility of the statements of the co-accused was confirmed by evidence given by several witnesses. Consequently, the suspicion against the applicant could indeed be considered as reasonable. The Regional Court also agreed with the District Court that the circumstances of the case justified the suspicion that a severe penalty might be imposed on the applicant. 10.  The applicant’s pre‑trial detention was subsequently extended by the Warsaw Regional Court on 2 July, 28 September and 7 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010. The court relied on the same grounds as previously. It also stressed that a possible severe penalty which might be imposed on the applicant might incite him to interfere with the conduct of the proceedings, especially that not all members of the organised group in question had been arrested at that time. It further noted that because of complicated nature of the case the proceedings could not be terminated earlier and that less preventive measures would not be capable of securing the proper conduct of the proceedings. 11.  On 19 March 2010 the bill of indictment against the applicant was lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court. The applicant was indicted as charged. The bill of indictment concerned altogether nine accused charged with thirty six offences. It contained seventy-six pages. The prosecutor requested the trial court to hear twenty-six witnesses. 12.  On 29 March 2010 the Warsaw Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 31 July 2010. The court relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences, the severity of the anticipated penalty and the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings due to the organised character of the criminal activities in question. 13.  The applicant’s detention pending trial was subsequently prolonged by further decisions of the Warsaw Regional Court. 14.  The applicant’s appeal against the decision of that court of 23 December 2010 was dismissed by the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 20 January 2011. 15.  Meanwhile, the trial was started on 19 July 2010. The trial court held fourteen hearings. 16.  On 31 March 2011 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment. It convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to a cumulative penalty of seven years’ imprisonment. 17.  The applicant and the other defendants appealed. 18.  On 20 December 2011 the Warsaw Court of Appeal quashed the first‑instance judgment and remitted the case. 19.  On the same day the Warsaw Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention. It considered that the reasons previously given remained valid. In particular, there was still a need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, in the light of the judgment of 20 December 2011. 20.  On 10 April 2012 the same court again extended the applicant’s detention. 21.  The applicant’s appeals against the above decisions were dismissed by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 17 January and on 17 May 2012, respectively. 22.  On 19 October 2012 the Warsaw Regional Court decided to lift the detention on remand referring, in particular, to its length. The court considered that the length of proceedings resulted from reasons unrelated to the defendants (sickness of a judge) and that they should not suffer “negative consequences” of the fact that the proceedings could not be concluded in time. 23.  The prosecutor appealed. 24.  On 6 December 2012 the Warsaw Court of Appeal quashed the contested decision finding the lower court’s reasoning insufficient. 25.  On 9 January 2013, after reexamination of the case, the Warsaw Regional Court decided to extend the applicant’s detention. The court relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question. It considered that there was no risk of absconding; nevertheless, keeping the applicant in detention was justified by severe penalty to which he was liable and by the risk that he might obstruct the proceedings. The court also referred to the fact, relied on by the court which had imposed the detention on the applicant (see paragraph 8 above), that one of the charges against him concerned witness tampering by means of violence. 26.  On 12 February 2013 the Warsaw Court of Appeal quashed that decision for procedural reasons. 27.  On 6 March 2013 the Warsaw Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention for a period of three months. It relied on the severity of the anticipated penalty and the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings in finding that keeping the applicant in custody was necessary. It also noted that the length of the proceedings resulted mainly from the complexity of the case. 28.  On 18 April 2013 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the above mentioned decision. 29.  On 5 June 2013 the applicant’s detention on remand was lifted. He remained in detention due to a preventive measure imposed on him in another set of proceedings (see below). 30.  The proceedings are still pending before the Warsaw Regional Court. 31.  On 18 June 2012 the Warsaw Prosecutor of Appeal charged the applicant with participation in an organised and armed criminal group involved in drug trafficking and with several offences of drug trafficking. 32.  On 20 June 2012 the Warsaw Śródmieście District Court remanded the applicant in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. The court also referred to the severity of the anticipated penalty and the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. It considered that the risk that the applicant might obstruct the proceedings resulted from the gravity of accusations against him. 33.  On 17 July 2012 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against this decision. 34.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was subsequently extended by the decisions of the Warsaw Regional Court of 11 September and 11 December 2012 and of 21 February 2013, and of the Warsaw Court of Appeal of 18 June and 22 August 2013. The courts continually justified their decisions by the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question. They also referred to the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on him after conviction. They emphasised the need to secure the process of obtaining evidence and the complex character of the case. They also considered that the risk that the applicant might obstruct the proceedings resulted from the fact that he had been charged with offences committed in an organised and armed criminal group. 35.  The applicant appealed against all of the above decisions but to no avail. 36.  Meanwhile, on 28 June 2013 the investigation concerning the charge of membership in an organised criminal group was discontinued as it concerned substantially the same matter as the other set of criminal proceedings against the applicant, at that time pending before the Warsaw Regional Court (see above). 37.  On an unspecified date in 2013 the charges against the applicant and some of the defendants were severed to a separate set of proceedings. 38.  On 5 September 2013 the bill of indictment containing 187 pages was lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court. The applicant was charged with several instances of drug trafficking committed in an organised criminal group. The bill of indictment concerned altogether twenty-six accused charged with 168 offences. The prosecutor requested the trial court to hear fifty-eight witnesses. 39.  The applicant’s detention pending trial was extended by the Warsaw Regional Court on 17 September and 17 December 2013 and on 20 January 2014. The court repeatedly relied on the reasonable suspicion against the applicant, the severity of anticipated penalty and the risk that the applicant might obstruct the proceedings due to the organised character of the offences in question. It also noted that despite the complexity of the case the trial court had conducted the proceedings in a timely and diligent manner. 40.  The applicant’s appeals against the above decisions and, likewise, his applications for release were unsuccessful. 41.  On 25 June 2014 the Warsaw Regional Court ordered that the applicant’s detention on remand be lifted on condition that he paid the bail in the sum of 80,000 Polish zlotys. 42.  The bail was paid and the applicant was released on 2 July 2014. The court also imposed on him police supervision and a ban on leaving the country. 43.  The proceedings are still pending before the Warsaw Regional Court.