5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Wrocław. 6.  The applicant was detained in Wrocław Remand Centre during various periods between 1991 and 2014, including from 24 June 2009 to 2 October 2010. He was released from detention on 8 July 2017. 7.  The applicant submitted that during his detention in Wrocław Remand Centre he had been held in overcrowded cells in which the space per person had been below the Polish statutory minimum standard of 3 sq. m 8.  According to documents from the domestic proceedings and the Government’s submissions, the applicant was held in overcrowded cells between 29 July and 26 August 2009 (a period of approximately one month). 9.  On 5 April 2011 the applicant brought a civil claim before the Wrocław Regional Court against the State Treasury for infringement of his personal rights and for compensation on account of his detention in overcrowded cells in Wrocław Remand Centre. He claimed 20,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in compensation. His case was transferred to the Wrocław‑Śródmieście District Court in Wrocław (hereinafter “the court”) and registered under the reference number IX C 295/11. 10.  On 6 May 2011 the court exempted the applicant from the court fees and dismissed his application for legal aid. The court held that the applicant was able to formulate his claims in a clear and understandable manner. Hence, the legal aid was not necessary. The applicant did not challenge that decision. 11.  In the course of the judicial proceedings the applicant lodged several applications and requests with the court, including a letter of 8 August 2012. The court, by an order of 28 August 2012, instructed the applicant that to comply with formal requirements he should submit an additional copy of that letter. The order further stated:
“At the same time the court informs [you] that all pleadings (pisma) should be submitted in two copies.” 12.  On 5 October 2012 the Wrocław‑Śródmieście District Court dismissed the applicant’s civil claim. The court found that the applicant’s cells had indeed been overcrowded for approximately one month, but that he had failed to demonstrate that the actions of the defendant had been unlawful. 13.  On 10 October 2012 the applicant lodged with the court a letter entitled “application: refers to an appeal against the judgment of the Wrocław‑Śródmieście District Court of 5 October 2012” which the court treated as an appeal. That pleading was submitted in one copy. 14.  On an unspecified date the applicant applied for legal aid. On 26 October 2012 the Wrocław‑Śródmieście District Court rejected the applicant’s request on the same grounds as previously (see paragraph 10 above). 15.  On 29 October 2012 the applicant was served with the judgment and information about the time and manner of the right to appeal, in the following terms:
“A party who disagrees with the judgment has a right to request the written reasoning of the judgment within seven days of the service of that judgment and later to appeal to the second-instance court via the court that issued the judgment, within two weeks, calculated from the service of the reasoned judgment. If the party does not ask for the reasoned judgment, the appeal is to be submitted directly within 21 days of the service of the judgment. Article 369 § 1: The appeal shall be submitted to the court that issued the judgment within two weeks, calculated from the service of the reasoned judgment.” 16.  On 12 November 2012 the applicant received the reasoning of the court’s judgment of 5 October 2012. 17.  On 21 December 2012 the applicant lodged with the court a request for leave to appeal out of time against the judgment of 5 October 2012, as well as two copies of a letter entitled “appeal”. On 1 February 2013 the court dismissed the applicant’s request for leave to appeal, and explained that he had already lodged his appeal on 10 October 2012, which was within the relevant time-limit. The court underlined that the applicant’s appeal of 10 October 2012 did not comply with the formal requirements. 18.  Therefore, on 6 February 2013 the court issued an order and instructed the applicant to comply with the formal requirements of his appeal by submitting a copy thereof within seven days of the service of the court order. The order was served on 14 February 2013. 19.  On 15 February 2013 the applicant submitted a letter in which he informed the court that he was unable to comply with the order because he did not have the text of his appeal that he could copy or rewrite and he did not remember the exact wording of his pleadings. He added that he had not been aware that he should have submitted his appeal in two copies. 20.  On 19 March 2013 the court rejected the applicant’s appeal for failure to submit an exact copy thereof. 21.  On 30 March 2013 the applicant appealed against that decision. When ordered, he rectified the formal requirements of his interlocutory appeal by submitting a copy of it and stating the amount of his claim. On 21 June 2013 the Wrocław Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s interlocutory appeal, holding that the applicant, who had started a civil action and knew that he was deprived of his liberty, could justifiably be expected to keep copies of all letters he sent to the court, especially since he had been informed on 28 August 2012 that all letters to the court should be submitted in two copies. Additionally, after the judgment had been issued the applicant was informed about the means and procedure of submitting appeals.