FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 68221/12 N. against Poland lodged on 15 October 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The a pplicant, Ms N., is a Polish national, who was born in 1947 and lives in C .

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was repeatedly hospitalised in a psychiatric hospital in Morawica from 4 to 25 July 2002 and subsequently from 29 June 2006 until 2 August 2006, from 17 August 2006 u ntil 14 September 2006, from 15 January 2008 until 21 March 2008 and from 16 November 2010 until 16 February 2011

She submits a medical opinion drawn up in 2008 for the purposes of her detention in a psychiatric hospital. She was diagnosed as suffering from delusional syndrome ( zespó ł urojeniowy ).

At each occasion the applicant refused to give consent to the psychiatric treatment in a closed ward of the psychiatric hospital. The hospital asked the court for a permission to treat the applicant without her consent under the provisions of the 1994 Mental Health Act. Apparently relevant decisions were given by the Kielce District Court. The court apparently found, in the light of medical opinions drawn up for the purposes of each case, that the applicant ’ s condition made her psychiatric detention necessary as she could be dangerous to herself because she refused to eat and possibly also to other persons.

The applicant did not appeal against these decisions.

In 2012 the applicant tried to institute two sets of civil proceedings, against various persons who had been involved in proceedings concerning her psychiatric treatment and against the State Treasury, for damage resulting from her allegedly unlawful hospitalisations without her consent and from allegedly inappropriate treatment. She submitted that she had been repeatedly humiliated, that she had never consented to the treatment, that she had been badly treated by the medical staff, that the decisions concerning her deprivation of liberty were unlawful and unjustified and that her reputation in the community had been ruined because she had been stigmatised as a person of unsound mind.

On 15 March 2012 she lodged a civil action with the Kielce Regional Court . She subsequently repeatedly requested that legal-aid lawyer be assigned to the case to help her. She clearly stated that she did not know the law and she could not formulate her statement of claim in the manner required by law. It seems that she submitted such requests on a number of occasions, including on 30 April 2012.

On 2 May 2012 she reiterated her request for legal aid and submitted that she did not know how to formulate her complaints in conformity with the law.

Apparently two cases were opened by the Kielce Regional Court .

On 24 May 2 0 12 the Kielce Regional Court asked the applicant to provide information as to her financial situation for the purposes of one of the cases. The applicant did so on 4 July 2012.

On 5 July 2012 the Kielce Regional Court ordered the applicant to supplement her statement of claim by indicating, within a week, the institution or establishment which should act as a representative of interests of the State Treasury in her case ( statio fisci ).

On 25 July 2012 the Kielce Regional Court returned the applicant ’ s statement of claim ( zwrot pozwu ) in one of the cases to her finding that she had failed to indicate the institution or establishment which should act as a representative of the State Treasury in her case.

In August and September 2012 the applicant complained about her difficulties in instituting the civil cases to the Ombudsman, Prosecutor General and the Registry of the Supreme Court.

Apparently later the applicant complained about this decision by requesting that the judges of the Kielce Regional Court be disqualified as they lacked impartiality. On 11 September 2012 that court ordered the applicant to clarify, within seven days, whether her request concerned the entire court or individual judges of that court; if the latter, she should submit their names and refer to prima facie evidence in support of her contention that they lacked impartiality.

On 26 September 2012 the applicant wrote to the court, submitting that her request to assign a legal-aid lawyer to her case had been dismissed, that she was unable to comply with the formal requirements formulated by the court and that she was unable to pursue the case (“ nie mogę sobie poradzić ” ). There was no reply to this letter.

On 3 October 212 the Kielce Regional Court served on the applicant a decision of 21 August 2012 by which it had decided that her statement of claim in the second case had been returned to her.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that she was denied access to a civil court because her statement of claim was returned to her by the Kielce Regional Court. She had previously asked the court on five occasions to assign a lawyer to her case under the legal-aid scheme; to no avail.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

In the particular circumstances of the case, was the applicant denied access to a court in the determination of her civil rights and obligations within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention , regard being had to the fact that her requests to have a lawyer assigned to the cases were dismissed and her statements of claim returned to her?

The Government are requested to provide the Court with copies of decisions concerning the applicant ’ s attempt to institute civil proceedings for compensation in 2012, in particular those related to her application for legal aid.