6.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Mysłowic 7.  From 22 October 2002 to 21 February 2003 the applicant was detained on remand in Mysłowice Remand Centre. Subsequently, from 13 October 2003 to 26 November 2003, from 31 August 2005 to 7 March 2006 and from 21 April 2006 to 30 July 2007 he served his sentence of imprisonment there. 8.  On 3 May 2006 the applicant received a disciplinary punishment of 14 days of solitary confinement. He was also subject to certain restrictions concerning accessibility of the prison canteen, religious service, outdoor activities, etc. Furthermore, he was limited in receiving packages until the end of that quarter. 9.  The applicant submitted that throughout his detention in Mysłowice Remand Centre he had been held in overcrowded cells which did not meet the basic standards of hygiene. According to the official statistics published by the Prison Service (Służba Więzienna) at the relevant time the overcrowding in the facility ranged from 23 to 67%. 10.  The Government did not submit any information as to the number of detainees held in Mysłowice Remand Centre. 11.  On 27 February 2006 the applicant brought a civil action in tort against Mysłowice Remand Centre, seeking compensation for the infringement of his personal rights on account of the inadequate conditions of his detention. 12.  On 15 May 2006 the Mysłowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) acknowledged that, at times, the applicant had indeed been held in overcrowded conditions. It dismissed his claim, finding that this practice had not been unlawful, as the penitentiary judge had been duly informed about the situation. The District Court also held that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that he had suffered any harm as a result of the overcrowding. It further considered that the overall sanitary conditions and the quality of food in the defendant remand centre had been adequate. 13.  On 2 June 2006 the applicant appealed against the above first instance judgment. 14.  On 8 June 2006 the Mysłowice District Court decided to exempt the applicant from the court fee for appeal. The applicant was called to rectify the appeal by providing the court with a copy of the appeal, by informing the court about the scope of his appeal, by informing the court about the content of his appeal request and by paying the basic fee of 30 Polish zlotys [PLN] (approx. 7 euros [EUR] within 30 days. The court also informed the applicant that lack of rectification would result in rejection of the appeal. 15.  On 22 June 2006 the same court rejected the applicant’s appeal for failure to pay the basic court fee. 16.  The applicant’s interlocutory appeal against that decision was rejected on 28 July 2006 for failure to pay the applicable court fee. The applicant did not appeal against the latter decision. 17.  On 26 March 2007 the applicant filed a complaint about the conditions of his detention to the Regional Inspectorate of the Prison Service (Okręgowy Inspektorat Służby Więziennej). 18.  On 22 May 2007 the Inspectorate acknowledged that the applicant had been occasionally held in overcrowded cells and it apologised for this situation, but refused to remedy the situation, finding that the problem affected Poland’s entire penitentiary system. 19.  On an unspecified date the applicant filed a request for a temporary release from prison (przerwa), arguing that the release was necessary in order to allow him to participate in person in two sets of court proceedings which he had instituted. 20.  On 17 July 2006 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) refused to grant the release. The court considered that neither the reasons invoked by the applicant nor his family situation nor the state of his health warranted such release. The applicant, who attended the sitting, was also advised that he had a right to lodge, within seven days, an interlocutory appeal against that decision. 21.  On 19 July 2006 the applicant requested to be served with a copy of the decision, which was served on him on 1 August 2006. 22.  On 11 August 2006 the Katowice Regional Court refused to entertain the applicant’s appeal, filed on 7 August 2006, finding that it had been lodged out of time. 23.  On 6 September 2006 the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the applicant’s interlocutory appeal against the Regional Court’s refusal. It held that the time-limit for filing an appeal against the Katowice Regional Court’s decision, delivered on 17 July 2006, had expired seven days after the day of its delivery. 24.  On 17 July 2006 the applicant requested the Katowice Regional Court to release him on probation. 25.  On 9 January 2007 the court granted the applicant’s request. The court observed that the applicant’s overall behaviour in detention had been correct, that he could be given a relatively positive socio-criminological forecast and that his resocialisation process could be continued at liberty. 26.  Following an appeal by the prosecutor, on 7 February 2007 the Katowice Court of Appeal amended the Regional Court’s decision and refused to release the applicant on probation. The Court of Appeal did not share the Regional Court’s findings and considered that the applicant’s socio‑criminological forecast was a negative one. It stressed that the applicant had been an unrepentant, habitual offender who had often been subjected to disciplinary penalties while in detention. Lastly, the court observed that the applicant had not shown any interest in following an individualised resocialisation programme and that he had no specified plans for the future. 27.  On the applicant’s request, filed on 20 March 2006, on 26 June 2006 the Katowice District Court issued an aggregate sentence composed of the applicant’s previous convictions (wyrok łączny). 28.  On 27 October 2006 the Katowice Regional Court upheld the first‑instance court’s judgment. 29.  The applicant applied for a legal-aid lawyer for the purposes of a cassation appeal. Simultaneously, he drafted his own cassation appeal and lodged it with the Katowice Regional Court. 30.  On 1 December 2006 the Katowice Regional Court appointed a legal‑aid lawyer for the purposes of the cassation proceedings. By a letter of 5 January 2007 the lawyer informed the Katowice Regional Court that he had not found any grounds to lodge the cassation appeal. By a letter of 9 January 2007 the Katowice Regional Court informed the applicant of the legal-aid lawyer’s refusal. Furthermore, the applicant was instructed that he could appoint a lawyer of his choice and that the time-limit of thirty days for lodging a cassation appeal by that lawyer would start to run on the date of service of that letter. The court’s letter was served on the applicant on 11 January 2007. The applicant did not appoint a lawyer of his choice. 31.  On 8 March 2007 the Katowice Regional Court refused to accept the applicant’s cassation appeal as it had not been prepared by a lawyer as required by law.