CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE MIJOVI Ć

As emphasised i n my previous concurring/dissenting opinions in nine recent cases, [1] and in the joint dissenting opinion in Smyk v. Poland, no. 8954/04, 28 July 2009, 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 also to civil and administrative proceedings. To avoid repetition, I refer to the detailed 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 September 2010 , BÄ…kowska v. Poland , no. 33539/02 , 12 January 2010, Slowik v. Poland , no. 31477/05, 12 April 2011, Subicka v. Poland (n° 2 ) nos. 34043/05 and 15792/06, 21 June 2011; Teresa Kowalczyk v. Poland no. 23987/05, 11 October 2011; Dombrowski v. Poland, no. 9566/10 , 18 October 2011 .