5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Trzebnica. 6.  The applicant is a police officer. In 2002 he divorced his wife and moved out from their apartment. 7.  On 18 June 2004 the applicant filed a claim for damages with the Wrocław Regional Court against the State Treasury – Wrocław Court of Appeal. At the same time he asked to be exempted from the court fees due in the proceedings. 8.  On 29 June 2004 the Regional Court ordered the applicant to specify the amount of damages sought. The applicant complied with the order. He also submitted information about his personal income tax for 2002 and 2003, in which he indicated as his places of residence Wrocław, Drucki –Lubecki street and Wrocław Muzealna street respectively. 9.  The Regional Court subsequently transferred the case to the Wrocław Krzyki District Court, which had in the meantime become competent to examine it. 10.  On 23 November 2004 the District Court dismissed the applicant's request for an exemption from court fees. That decision was upheld by the Regional Court on 28 January 2005. 11.  The applicant subsequently modified the claim and specified that he sought 3,000 zlotys (PLN) in damages. 12.  On 11 April 2005 the District Court ordered the applicant to indicate his place of residence (miejsce zamieszkania). 13.  On 27 April 2005 the applicant informed the court that following his divorce he had had to move out from the apartment he had previously occupied at Gajowa Street in Wrocław. On 25 October 2002 his name had been removed from the register of residents. Since then, he had been living with friends at different addresses. He gave a post-office box address for any correspondence and stressed that he could be reached every day at his work address, at the police station in Wrocław, Stare Miasto. 14.  On 16 May 2005 the District Court ordered that the statement of claim be returned to the applicant. The court held that the applicant had failed to indicate his place of residence. It noted that a post-office box or a work address could not be considered as a place of residence within the meaning of Article 126 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 15.  The applicant filed an interlocutory appeal against that decision. He argued that he did not have a permanent place of residence. He lived at different addresses, his last place of residence having been the apartment at Gajowa Street in Wrocław. He submitted that the refusal to admit his claim constituted a restriction on his right of access to a court. 16.  On 11 July 2005 the applicant was ordered to pay a court fee of PLN 240 for lodging the interlocutory appeal. On the same date the applicant made an application for an exemption from court fees in the interlocutory appeal proceedings. On 12 August 2005 the District Court dismissed his application. That decision was upheld on appeal on 9 December 2005. Consequently, the applicant paid the required court fee for lodging his interlocutory appeal. 17.  On 14 April 2006 the Wrocław Regional Court upheld the District Court's decision of 16 May 2005. The court held that the applicant had failed to indicate his place of residence. Since he had stayed at different addresses he should have indicated a place where he spent most of his time and where his daily activities were located. 18.  Consequently, the Regional Court ordered the return of the applicant's statement of claim and the payment of the court fee of PLN 240.