5.  The applicant, Mr Zdeněk Jirsák, is a Czech national who was born in 1953 and is currently serving a sentence in Karviná Prison. 6.  The applicant served his prison sentence in Valdice Prison in Sections C and D between 2000 and 2005. 7.  Between 10 November 2000 and 29 January 2001, he shared cell no. 223, of a total surface area of 35.816 sq. m., with nine other prisoners. The cell was rectangular in shape with bunk beds along both of the longer walls. Next to the entrance, which was at one end of the cell, was a separate room with a toilet. At the opposite end of the cell were two large windows, measuring 1.44 sq. m each. One window and half of the second one could be opened. Yellow translucent pieces of fibreglass covered them from the outside at a distance of approximately 1.5 m. It was up to the detainees how and when the windows were opened. The cell was equipped with ten lockers, two tables and ten chairs. 8.  During the whole period of his detention in cell no. 223 the applicant was employed in the prison laundry where he spent nine hours every working day. He was allowed to spend one hour a day outside in the yard. He could also watch television or take part in other recreational activities outside his cell. The applicant could take a hot shower twice a week and wash after work. He was guaranteed one warm meal per day and two hot meals four times a week. He had access to a range of cultural and sports activities, books, newspapers and magazines. 9.  On 28 January 2001 at 7.30 p.m. the applicant broke his ankle in his cell while climbing down from his bunk bed. According to him, he fell because he was dizzy due to the stuffy air in the cell. He did not call for medical assistance as he thought that his ankle was just sprained. He took some pills containing Ibuprofen as a painkiller. In the morning, he was unable to walk due to a severe pain in his ankle, so his cell mates took him to the prison infirmary. 10.  The prison doctor visually examined the applicant and considered him to be heavily intoxicated with medicaments, although he did not conduct a medical test. The doctor did not send him for an x-ray, because the person operating the prison’s x-ray machine was on holiday and due to the applicant’s alleged intoxication, his transfer to a hospital was, in his view, impossible. The applicant, having been proclaimed intoxicated, was sent to solitary confinement. 11.  On the next day, 30 January 2001, the applicant was x-rayed and it was found that his ankle was broken. He was transferred to a prison hospital in Prague. The record shows that the applicant fully cooperated with the medical staff and was operated on at the hospital on 31 January 2001. He then stayed in Prague Prison, where he was treated until 20 March 2001. He was subsequently transferred to Brno Prison, where he continued his treatment, including physiotherapy. The treatment lasted for seven months overall, but the applicant has continued to see a doctor afterwards as he has developed arthritis in his broken ankle. 12.  On 26 March 2001 the applicant was found guilty of the disciplinary offence of self-intoxication. He was sentenced to five days under the “closed prison” regime (uzavřené oddělení). He did not appeal. 13.  He was also dismissed from his prison job because it was considered that on 29 January 2001 he had been absent from work due to his self-intoxication. 14.  In November 2001 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the director of Valdice Prison alleging inadequate treatment of his injury. 15.  On 1 February 2002 the Hradec Králové Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed him that his complaints were unjustified. 16.  On 22 August 2002 the High Prosecutor’s Office expressed doubts about the conduct of the prison authorities towards the applicant and forwarded the complaints to the Ministry of Justice, Department of Prison Inspections (odbor generální inspekce, oddělení vězeňství) to investigate the matter. The prosecutor noted with concern that even though a medical report had found that the applicant had no longer been intoxicated at 3.10 p.m. on 29 January 2001, he still had not been sent for an x-ray but had been kept in solitary confinement until the next day; that the applicant had been dismissed from his prison job during the time of his injury; that he had not been paid sickness benefit; and that he had been subjected to disciplinary punishment for intoxication without any consideration to his claim that he had taken painkillers due to the injury he had suffered. The applicant did not inform the Court about the outcome of this investigation. 17.  On 13 February 2004, in reply to another complaint by the applicant alleging overcrowding in the prison, the High Prosecutor’s Office informed him that it was aware of the fact that some sections in Valdice Prison were overcrowded and that the competent prosecutor had been taking steps to remedy the situation. 18.  On 20 October 2005 the applicant sent another complaint challenging his treatment on 29 and 30 January 2001 to the Prison Directorate General (Generální ředitelství Vězeňské služby) which, on 29 November 2005, found it unsubstantiated. 19.  The applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Czech Republic claiming compensation in respect of pecuniary damage arising from his injury, which had been caused by the unsatisfactory conditions of detention in cell no. 223 in Valdice Prison and inadequate treatment of the injury by the prison doctor. 20.  In a judgment of 7 April 2005 the Jičín District Court (okresní soud) rejected his action, finding that at the material time the applicant had been held together with nine other inmates in a cell measuring 35.816 sq. m. (or 107,448 cubic metres) including a toilet, which was in accordance with Order of the Minister of Justice no. 20/1977 in force at the relevant time, which had required a minimum of 7 cubic metres per prisoner. The court based its findings on the testimony of the applicant, two of his cellmates at the time of the injury, other witnesses and several documents. The information about the cell dimensions was based on a report by the prison authorities and the court did not consider it necessary to measure the cell itself, as requested by the applicant. It did not find any illegality in the prison doctor’s conduct. It dismissed the applicant’s request to admit additional evidence as unnecessary. 21.  The applicant appealed, arguing that the conditions of his detention had been unsatisfactory. He claimed that the court had rejected his request to admit in evidence a medical expert report to assess the conditions of his detention and his request that the court measure the cell itself and not rely on the prison report. 22.  On 19 October 2005 the Hradec Králové Regional Court (krajský soud) upheld the first-instance judgment endorsing the District Court’s opinion. 23.  On 10 May 2007 the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law (dovolání). It upheld the conclusions of the lower courts that the conditions of the applicant’s detention, including the dimensions of his cell, complied with domestic law. 24.  The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnost) complaining about the conditions of his detention and violations of his right to a fair trial in the precedent proceedings. 25.  The Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) sent the appeal to the lower courts that had previously been involved in the case for comments. 26.  On 24 October 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal as manifestly ill-founded, holding that the applicant had merely disagreed with the outcome of the proceedings. It added that the decisions of the ordinary courts had been logical and sufficiently reasoned without any appearance of arbitrariness. The court did not refer in its reasoning to the written observations submitted by the lower courts. It appears from the decision that the District Court maintained, in a short submission, that its decision had not violated the applicant’s constitutional rights and that the Regional Court referred only to the text of its judgment. None of these observations were sent to the applicant, the court finding that they did not bring anything new to the case. 27.  In 2007 the applicant instituted proceedings against the prison doctor who treated him on 29 January 2001, for the protection of his personality rights. On 3 December 2010 the claim was dismissed on the ground that the doctor had been acting in his official capacity and therefore it was the State which should have been sued. At the same time, the prescription period for the claim had already expired. 28.  On 22 July 2010 the applicant instituted proceedings for damages against the State before the Prague 2 District Court (obvodní soud) under the State Liability Act for inhuman conditions of detention for the whole period of his sentence. Those proceedings are pending.