PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MIJOVIĆ

As emphasis ed i n my previous concurring/dissenting opinions in eight recent cases, [1] and in the joint dissenting opinion in Smyk v. Poland , I see the problem of the refusal of lawyers appointed under legal-aid schemes to represent legally aided persons on the ground that the claim has no reasonable prospects of success, as the general one, related not only to criminal, but both civil and administrative proceedings. That is the reason I voted against the majority ’ s decision to hold that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the first and third sets of administrative proceedings in this applicant ’ s case.

To avoid repetition, I refer to the detail ed reasoning of those opinions.

[1] . Kulikowski v. Poland , no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009 ‑ … ( extracts ) ; Antonicelli v. Poland , no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009, ArciÅ„ski v. Poland , no. 41373/04, 15 September 2009 , Zapadka v. Poland , no. 2619/05 , 15 December 2009; Jan Zawadzki v. Poland , no. 648/02 , 6 July 2010 , S ubicka v. Poland, no. 29342/06, 14 Septembre 2010 , BÄ…kowska v. Poland , no. 33539/02 , 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland , no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011.