5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Lublin. 6.  By a judgment of 19 November 2003 the Lublin Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against a second-instance administrative decision of 25 March 2003 by which the second-instance authority had refused to acknowledge that the applicant’s ailment was of an occupational character. 7.  This judgment was served on the applicant on 27 January 2004. 8.  On 27 February 2004 the applicant requested to be granted legal aid. 9.  On an unspecified date the Lublin Bar Association refused to assign a lawyer to the case. Subsequently, on 26 March 2004 it allowed the applicant’s request after the Supreme Administrative Court had instructed it that it had no right to refuse. 10.  On 19 November 2004 the lawyer assigned to the case had effective access to the case-file.  On 1 December 2004 the lawyer lodged a cassation appeal together with a request for retrospective leave to appeal out of time with the Lublin Administrative Court. 11.  By a decision of 1 April 2005 that court rejected the cassation appeal. It noted that the seven-day time-limit for lodging a request for leave to appeal out of time had started, at the latest and if counted in a manner most advantageous to the applicant, on the day when the legal-aid lawyer had had an opportunity to have effective access to the case file. In the present case that time-limit had started to run on 19 November 2004, while the request had been lodged with the court on 1 December 2004. It had therefore to be rejected for failure to comply with the time-limit. 12.  The lawyer appealed. On 1 April 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the contested decision and shared the legal view expressed by the regional court.