5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Wrocław, Poland. 6.  In October 1970 the applicant, at that time a schoolboy, was a victim of an accident at his primary school as a result of which he lost the sight in his right eye. In 1983 a court granted him compensation and a monthly pension in the amount of 2,000 old Polish zlotys. 7.  On 12 August 1994 the applicant lodged with the Wrocław Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) a civil action in which he sought an increase in the amount of the invalidity pension. The applicant submitted that the amount of the monthly pension had not been changed since 1984. After the change in the denomination of the national currency which took place on 1 January 1995 the amount of the applicant's monthly pension was 0.2 Polish zlotys (PLN). He further sought compensation in connection with the further deterioration of his health in the amount of PLN 10,000,000. 8.  Subsequently, the applicant was exempted from court fees and granted legal aid. 9.  The trial court held several hearings and on 17 December 1998 it gave judgment. The Regional Court partly allowed the action and awarded the applicant a monthly pension in the amount of PLN 1,220. It ordered the defendant to make back payments of the pension as adjusted to the date of the lodging of the claim. The back payment amounted to PLN 43,000 and the interest to PLN 100,000. The court dismissed the applicant's claim for non‑pecuniary damage (zadośćuczynienie) as time‑barred as well as the remainder of his compensation claims, in particular the claim for pecuniary damage incurred in connection with a new eye operation. 10.  The applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment with the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny). 11.  On 18 May 1999 the Court of Appeal partly allowed the appeal in that it quashed the part of the judgment which dismissed the remainder of the applicant's claims and remitted this part of the case. The appeal court found, inter alia, that the first‑instance court had breached the law in deciding, ex officio, not to examine the merits of the applicant's claim for non‑pecuniary damage on the ground that the claim was time‑barred, despite the fact that the issue of prescription had not been raised by the defendant. 12.  On 21 December 1999 the Wrocław Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy), after reconsideration of the case, gave a judgment. It partly allowed the applicant's action and awarded him PLN 8,000 for pecuniary damage. As regards the claim for non‑pecuniary damage, the defendant raised the objection that the limitation period had elapsed. The court dismissed the applicant's claim for that reason. 13.  The applicant appealed submitting inter alia that the limitation period had not elapsed as his compensation claim related to a further deterioration of his health. 14.  On 11 April 2000 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. With regard to the claim for non‑pecuniary damage, the court reiterated that an objection that an action was time‑barred could be dismissed only if the application of the limitation period would violate “the principles of co‑existence with others” contained in Article 5 of the Civil Code. According to the judicial practice such an exception had only been granted in exceptional circumstances, which were not present in the instant case. The court also dismissed his appeal in so far as it challenged the amount of pecuniary damage awarded by the Regional Court. The court further withdrew the applicant's exemption from court fees and the grant of legal aid and ordered the applicant to pay PLN 5,000 for court fees in the appellate proceedings and PLN 4,000 for the legal‑aid lawyer's fee. It considered that the applicant was able to pay those fees as he had received compensation in a total amount of PLN 140,000. 15.  On 13 July 2000 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy). In the cassation appeal the applicant complained about the dismissal of his claim for compensation for non‑pecuniary damage and about the withdrawal of the exemption from court fees and the grant of legal aid. The applicant lowered the amount of the compensation sought to PLN 500,000. 16.  On 26 July 2000 the Wroclaw Court of Appeal ordered the applicant to pay PLN 26,600 in court fees for the cassation proceedings. 17.  On the same date the applicant lodged an application for exemption from court fees. He argued that he could not bear such costs as his only income was the monthly pension ordered by the Regional Court in the amount of PLN 1,220. He further submitted that the compensation ordered by the same court in 1998 had been spent on buying an apartment in which he and his family were living. The applicant, handicapped as a result of the accident, was married and had three children. His wife was unemployed. In consequence, the applicant submitted that he could not pay the court fees without serious harm being caused to the well‑being of his family. 18.  On 8 August 2000 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed the application for exemption from court fees for the cassation proceedings. The court gave no reasons for the decision. 19.  The applicant lodged an appeal. However, it appears that the domestic law did not provide any remedy against such a decision and that the appeal was never examined. 20.  On 20 September 2000 the Wrocław Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's cassation appeal on the grounds that the applicant had failed to pay court fees. 21.  The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. 22.  Subsequently, the Court of Appeal ordered the applicant to pay PLN 5,320 in court fees for lodging an appeal. 23.  On 17 October 2000 the applicant applied for exemption from court fees, reiterating his argument about his personal situation and arguing that he was unable to bear the costs. 24.  On 17 November 2000 the Wrocław Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal against the decision rejecting his cassation appeal on the grounds of his failure to pay court fees pertaining to that appeal.