5.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in the Kaliningrad Region. 6.  At the beginning of February 1999 the applicant complained to her doctor Ms K. about the neighbours, who had allegedly subjected her to electromagnetic emissions, attempted to contaminate her with HIV, created noises and draughts and tortured her in a multitude of other ways. She threatened to pour acid on them. 7.  On 10 February 1999 the applicant was examined by a medical panel comprising two psychiatrists and three general practitioners affiliated with the Baltiysk Town Medical Association. The panel concluded that the applicant suffered from a paranoid personality disorder and was hallucinatory and aggressive. She was therefore dangerous to the public and to herself. The doctors also found that the applicant suffered from hypertension. 8.  On the same day she was taken to the Kaliningrad Regional psychiatric hospital No. 1 (hereinafter “the hospital”). 9.  On 12 February 1999 the applicant was examined by the hospital psychiatrists, who diagnosed her with involutional paranoid psychosis and concluded that she needed compulsory treatment. 10.  On the same day the hospital applied to a court for approval of the applicant’s confinement. 11.  On 16 February 1999 the Leningradskiy District Court of Kaliningrad ordered that the applicant should provisionally remain in the hospital until the application was examined. The hearing was scheduled for 18 February 1999. 12.  On 18 February 1999 the hearing did not go ahead. The record indicated that the applicant was unable to appoint a representative owing to her grave mental state. 13.  On 26 March 1999 the applicant consented to medical treatment. She remained in the hospital until 21 April 1999. 14.  On 13 May 1999 the court proceedings were discontinued as the hospital had withdrawn its application. 15.  After her discharge, the applicant complained to the prosecutor’s office about her allegedly unlawful confinement. 16.  By letter of 1 February 2000, the Head of the Law-Enforcement Supervision Department of the Kaliningrad Regional prosecutor’s office acknowledged that from 16 to 26 March 1999 she had been unlawfully held in the hospital without a judicial decision and advised her that measures would be taken to remedy the situation. 17.  On 11 April 2002 the Leningradskiy District Court informed the prosecutor’s office that it would take measures to avoid similar violations in future and undertook to observe the time-limits for examining applications from hospitals. 18.  In the meanwhile on 21 February 2000 the applicant sued doctor K. and the hospital in tort. She contested the findings of the medical panels of 10 and 12 February 1999, claiming that she had not suffered from any mental disorder and that it had not been necessary to confine her. She further argued that her detention had been unlawful as it had not been based on a court order. She sought compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In reply, the hospital’s representative argued that the medical findings in the applicant’s case had been correct and her confinement lawful. He asked the court to reject the applicant’s claims in full. 19.  On 22 June 2000 the Leningradskiy District Court of Kaliningrad found that there had been no reason to question the findings of the medical panels and that the applicant’s detention had been lawful. 20.  On 25 October 2000 the Kaliningrad Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case. It held that the first-instance court had omitted to address the applicant’s criticism of the findings of the medical panels of 10 and 12 February 1999 and had failed to verify whether her confinement had been justified by her mental condition. 21.  On 31 May 2001 the Leningradskiy District Court found that expert advice was necessary to assess the applicant’s mental condition in February 1999. It commissioned the hospital’s medical specialists to perform a psychiatric examination on the applicant. The experts were asked to determine whether the findings of the medical panels of 10 and 12 February 1999 had been correct and whether the applicant’s state of mental health in February 1999 had warranted compulsory psychiatric treatment. 22.  On 30 July 2002 the experts examined the applicant’s medical file, in particular the reports of 10 and 12 February 1999, and concluded that the medical findings contained in those reports had been correct and that the applicant’s involuntary placement into the hospital had been justified, taking into account her serious mental condition in February 1999. 23.  The applicant challenged the experts’ report. She claimed that the experts were biased because they were employees of the hospital and asked the court to dismiss the report. 24.  On 15 January 2003 the Leningradskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. In particular, with reference to the medical reports of 10 and 12 February 1999 and 30 July 2002, it held that the applicant’s placement in the hospital had been necessary because she had been a danger to the public and to herself. The court held that the expert report of 30 July 2002 was admissible evidence because the experts had been informed that they would be criminally liable for perjury. Moreover, the panel of 30 July 2002 had not included the psychiatrists who had examined the applicant on 12 February 1999. 25.  As to the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention from 10 to 26 March 1999, the court found as follows:
“... in accordance with section 33(3) of the [Psychiatric Treatment Act] a judge ordered that [the applicant] should remain in the hospital until the decision [on the hospital’s application for her confinement] had been taken. The hospital’s application was not examined within five days as required by section 34(1) of the Act because, owing to her mental state, [the applicant] could not participate in the hearing or name her representative, whose presence was mandatory under section 34(4) of the Act...
Since the judicial decision committing [the applicant] to the hospital was not set aside or amended, and the hospital had no right to discharge [the applicant] in defiance of the order, the court considers that in those circumstances the hospital was not responsible for [the applicant’s] involuntary confinement until 26 March 1999.” 26.  The applicant appealed. In her grounds of appeal she complained, in particular, that the experts who had produced the report of 30 July 2002 had been partial. 27.  On 2 April 2003 the Kaliningrad Regional Court upheld the judgment, finding that it had been lawful and justified. As to the experts, it held that the judgment had not been based solely on the report of 30 July 2002, but was corroborated by other evidence.