5.  The applicant owned and ran a company. On an unspecified date before 1998 the factory owned by the company burned down. Subsequently, the applicant was involved in a number of proceedings in connection with serious financial difficulties which had been caused by the fire. 6.  On 19 August 1999 the Opole Regional Court in part dismissed and in part rejected the applicant’s compensation claim against the State Insurance Company, in connection with an insurance contract. On 14 September 1999 the applicant filed an appeal against this judgment with that court. 7.  On 21 September 1999 he requested the court to grant him full exemption from court fees. He referred to the fact that he had been partially exempted, by a decision of 30 September 1998, from the obligation to pay court fees. He submitted that his financial situation had further deteriorated since then. This request apparently remained unanswered. 8.  On 25 November 1999 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. 9.  On 1 February 2000 the applicant, represented by a privately hired lawyer, lodged with that court a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court. On 21 February 2000 the Wrocław Court of Appeal rejected the cassation appeal, finding that it failed to comply with the relevant formal requirements. 10.  On 16 March 2000 the applicant requested that a legal‑aid lawyer be assigned to the case for the purpose of preparing an appeal to the Supreme Court against that decision. 11.  On 20 March 2000 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed the request. This decision did not contain any grounds or reference to its legal basis. The applicant appealed. On 10 April 2000 the Wrocław Court of Appeal rejected his appeal, holding that no appeal lay against the contested decision. It was only possible to submit an appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision rejecting a cassation appeal. 12.  On 25 April 2000 the applicant appealed against the decision of 10 April and reiterated his request that a legal‑aid lawyer be assigned to represent him. 13.  On 8 May 2000 the Wroclaw Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, pointing to the fact that the applicant had already hired a lawyer privately. The applicant appealed. 14.  On 26 May 2000 the Wroclaw Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal, prepared and lodged by a lawyer, holding that no appeal was available in law against the contested decision. 15.  By a judgment of 7 April 2000, the Opole Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim against the BGŻ Bank by which he had sought that a bank enforcement title against him, arising from the fact that after the fire he had defaulted on a bank loan, be declared null and void. 16.  On 6 June 2000 the applicant requested the court to exempt him fully from the obligation to pay court fees in the appellate proceedings, referring to the fact that he had been partially exempted, by a decision of 30 September 1998, from the obligation to pay them. 17.  On 28 June 2000 the court, by a decision which did not contain grounds, granted the applicant partial exemption from court fees. 18.  On 1 September 2000 the applicant requested the court to assign a legal-aid lawyer to the case, referring again to his very difficult financial situation. 19.  By a decision of 4 September 2000 the court refused to assign a legal‑aid lawyer to the case. This decision did not contain any grounds. On 19 September 2000 the applicant appealed against it. 20.  By a decision of 26 September 2000 the Wrocław Court of Appeal rejected his appeal. This decision did not contain written grounds, apparently because no appeal was available in law against it. 21.  By a judgment of 25 September 2000 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the first-instance judgment. 22.  On 31 October 2000 the applicant requested retrospective leave to submit, out of time, a request that written grounds be prepared for the second-instance judgment. 23.  By a decision of 24 November 2000 the Wrocław Court of Appeal rejected his request without giving reasons.
On 7 December 2000 the applicant lodged with that court an appeal to the Supreme Court against that decision. On 5 January 2001 the Wrocław Court of Appeal rejected his appeal, holding that no appeal was available against the contested decision. 24.  On 8 March 2001 the applicant, represented by a privately hired lawyer, lodged with the Supreme Court a cassation appeal against the second‑instance judgment. 25.  On 22 March 2001 the Supreme Court rejected the cassation appeal, holding that the applicant had failed to submit, within seven days from the date on which the second-instance judgment had been delivered in open court, a request for the written grounds of this judgment to be prepared. A failure to do so resulted in a cassation appeal being inadmissible. 26.  On 24 May 1999 the Łódź Regional Court in part allowed and in part dismissed the applicant’s compensation claim against the trustee in bankruptcy of “Westa” Insurance Company. 27.  On 9 November 1999 the Łódź Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 28.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. On 22 November 2001 the Supreme Court refused to entertain that appeal. It relied on a provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended in May 2000, which allowed it to leave without examination manifestly ill‑founded cassation appeals or appeals in cases where no serious legal issue arose, also when those appeals had been lodged prior to the amendments entering into force. 29.  On 25 July 2003 the Kędzierzyn‑Koźle District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about allegedly unlawful actions of the court bailiff in the enforcement proceedings instituted against him by the BGŻ bank following the judgment given in the second set of proceedings, referred to above (see paragraphs 15 – 25 above). 30.  On 11 April 2005 another complaint against the bailiff was dismissed by the same court, which was of the view that the actions complained of were lawful. On 5 May 2005 the same court rejected the applicant’s appeal against this decision, considering that no appeal was available in law. 31.  In 2005 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the bailiff, claiming compensation for damage caused by his allegedly unlawful acts in the enforcement proceedings. The proceedings are pending.