6.  The applicant was born in 1983 and is detained in Rzekuń.
7.  The applicant was detained in Płock Prison from 26 March to 29 August 2009 (five months and four days).
8.  The applicant submitted that during his detention in Płock Prison he had been held in overcrowded cells.
9.  According to documents from the domestic proceedings which were provided, and the Government’s submissions, the applicant was detained in overcrowded cells nos. 400 and 402 between 26 March and 29 August 2009. The ventilation and the sanitary conditions in these cells were inadequate. The applicant had one shower per week and one hour’s outdoor exercise per day.
10.  On 17 January 2011 the applicant brought an action for infringement of his personal rights on account of inadequate conditions in Płock Prison. He claimed 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in compensation (approximately EUR 2,500). He applied to be exempted from court fees. On 18 February 2011 the court allowed this application. The applicant did not apply for legal aid at this stage of the proceedings.
11.  Between 21 January and 31 March 2011 the applicant submitted several requests for evidence and asked to attend the court’s hearings. On 11 March 2011 the Płock District Court informed the applicant that he would not be transported to the hearing, and instructed him about the formal requirements in respect of requests for evidence, among other things that such requests should be lodged with the court in two copies.
12.  The applicant was not present at the court hearing on 23 March 2011. On 24 March 2011 the Płock District Court served the applicant with a copy of Płock Prison’s response to the applicant’s action (odpowiedź na pozew) and ordered the applicant to clarify his pleading (sprecyzowanie powództwa), in particular as regards the period of his detention. The applicant was instructed to send the clarification of the pleading to the court in two copies.
13.  On 12 April 2011 the Płock District Court rejected part of the applicant’s action on the basis of res judicata, and asked the applicant to inform the court if he wished to maintain the remainder thereof. The court informed the applicant that the requested information should be sent in two copies.
14.  On 6 January 2011 the applicant examined the files of his case in Warsaw Mokotów Remand Centre.
15.  On 2 February 2012 he applied for legal aid. On 14 February 2012 the Płock District Court refused the request, finding that the applicant was able to represent himself. He had access to the court’s files and was heard as a witness in the proceedings (I C 31/11).
16.  On 28 May 2012 the Płock District Court dismissed the applicant’s action. It held that the cells in question had indeed been overcrowded for approximately five months, but that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the actions of the respondent (the relevant prison authorities) had constituted unlawful conduct for which the latter were liable. Lastly, the remainder of the applicant’s allegations about the material conditions in his cells were considered unsubstantiated in the light of the material gathered in the case.
17.  On 29 May 2012 the applicant was served with the judgment and information about the time and manner of the right to appeal, which read as follows:
“You may request the written reasoning of the judgment within seven days of the day on which the judgment was served on you. You have the right to appeal. Any appeal should be submitted to the court which issued the judgment within two weeks, calculated from the date of service of the judgment with reasoning. Sending the appeal by post is equivalent to submitting it to the court.”
18.  On 22 June 2012 the applicant lodged an appeal against the first‑instance judgment. On 29 June 2012 the court issued an order and instructed the applicant to submit two additional copies of his appeal. On 9 July 2012 the applicant submitted to the court a handwritten letter entitled “appeal” (in two copies), the content of which was similar but not identical to the original appeal.
19.  On 17 July 2012 the court rejected the applicant’s appeal. The court pointed out that a copy of a pleading meant a handwritten copy of an original or a photocopy containing exactly the same submissions and arguments. It held that as the applicant had extended his arguments by relying on the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, it followed that he had changed his original submissions, and the copies provided by him could not be regarded as copies of the original appeal.
20.  On 2 August 2012 the applicant appealed against the rejection of his earlier appeal. On 22 August 2012 the court requested from the applicant a copy of his interlocutory appeal. He did not comply. Consequently, on 13 September 2012 his interlocutory appeal was rejected. On 20 September 2012 the applicant submitted an interlocutory appeal against the decision of 13 September 2012, arguing as follows:
“I should have been informed in advance that the court would require me to provide copies of pleadings. I am a simple man without legal knowledge and my application for a legal-aid lawyer was dismissed by the court. If I had had a legal-aid lawyer I would have known that the court might require copies of appeals or interlocutory appeals. The court asked me to provide the copies only after I had sent the original pleading, and I do not have a computer memory to reproduce exactly the same copy of what I had written one month before. If the court had sent me the original pleading I could have copied it and sent it back. For the above reasons I ask the court to accept my appeal and interlocutory appeals.”
21.  On 15 November 2012 the court instructed the applicant that in order to comply with the formal requirement of his interlocutory appeal he should submit an additional copy of it, which the applicant failed to do. On 24 January 2013 the court rejected the applicant’s interlocutory appeal.