PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 30358/04) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Polish national, Mr Krzysztof Wersel (“the applicant”), on 4 August 2004.

The applicant was represented before the Court by Ms E. Korzydło, a lawyer practising in Brzeg. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant complained, in particular, under Article 6 of the Convention about the lack of access to a court in that a domestic court refused to appoint him a legal aid lawyer for the purpose of lodging a cassation appeal.

On 6 December 2007 the President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant, Mr Krzysztof Wersel, is a Polish national who was born in 1970 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Brzeg Prison.

A. Conditions of the applicant’s detention

1. Period of the applicant’s detention

The applicant has been in continuous detention from an unspecified date in September 2000 until the present day.

2. Description of the applicant’s detention conditions

He was initially committed to Mysłowice Remand Centre.

In November 2000 he was transferred to Zabrze Remand Centre, where, as he submitted, he had been detained together with two or three other detainees in cells measuring 6 or 10 square metres.

In July 2001 the applicant was transferred back to Mysłowice Remand Centre, where he had been detained in overcrowded cells. In addition, the applicant, who was a non-smoker, had been exposed to cigarette smoke because smoking inside the cell was allowed.

From 31 December 2003 until an unspecified date in July 2005 the applicant was detained in Gliwice Remand Centre. He was assigned to a cell measuring 6 square metres which he had shared with two other detainees.

On an unspecified date in July 2005 the applicant was committed to Zabrze Remand Centre. He submitted that, initially, the conditions of his detention had been satisfactory. In his letter of 19 June 2006, however, he claimed that the establishment had become overcrowded just like all the other detention facilities.

The Government submitted that as of 26 November 2009 the applicant had been detained in Brzeg Prison, in a cell in which the statutory minimum space of 3 square metres per person had been respected.

B. The applicant’s actions concerning the conditions of his detention

On 7 October 2004 the applicant complained to the remand centre’s administration about overcrowding and bad living conditions. He did not complain to the penitentiary authorities in connection with the living conditions as regards the more recent period of his detention. Moreover, the applicant did not bring a civil action in tort to seek compensation for the infringement of his personal rights.

C. The applicant’s criminal proceedings

On 27 October 2003 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) convicted the applicant of three counts of armed robbery and sentenced him to a prison term of three and a half years. During the first-instance proceedings the applicant was represented by a legal aid lawyer.

On 23 April 2004 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Rejonowy) upheld the above-mentioned judgment on appeal. During the second‑instance proceedings the applicant was also represented by a legal aid lawyer. To that effect the appellate court held that the applicant be exempted from all costs of the appellate proceedings, including legal assistance.

On 25 May 2004 the reasoned judgment was served on the applicant. On that date the time-limit of thirty days for lodging a cassation appeal began to run.

On 26 May 2004 the lawyer instructed the applicant that her mandate had expired when the appellate proceedings had come to an end. If the applicant wished to have a cassation appeal lodged with the Supreme Court, he should make a new request for legal aid.

On 30 May 2004 the applicant prepared an application for legal aid and deposited it as out-going mail with the authorities of the Gliwice Remand Centre. His legal aid application was received by the Katowice Regional Court on 3 June 2004.

By an official letter of 22 June 2004 the registry of the Katowice Regional Court notified the applicant that his appeal for legal aid had been rejected. The court’s decision was not accompanied by any reasoned opinion.

On 24 June 2004 the applicant drafted his own cassation appeal and filed it with the Katowice Regional Court.

On 1 July 2004 the Katowice Regional Court requested the applicant to complete the procedural requirements by having his cassation appeal prepared and signed by a lawyer within 7 days. That request was served on the applicant on 5 July 2004.

On 6 July 2004 the applicant informed the Regional Court that he was unable to comply with the above-mentioned instruction because he had not been granted legal-aid. The applicant, once more, asked the court to grant him legal aid for the purpose of his cassation appeal proceedings.

On 16 July 2004 the registry of the Katowice Regional Court informed the applicant that his application for legal aid had been rejected. No formal decision was served on the applicant to that effect.

On 6 August 2004 the President of the Criminal Law Section of the Katowice Regional Court decided that the applicant’s cassation appeal was not to be entertained (odmówił przyjęcia kasacji) for non-compliance with procedural requirements.