4.  The applicant lives in a flat in a building situated in L., Croatia. The ground floor of the building is leased by the L. Municipality to M.M., who runs a restaurant there, “N.”. 5.  Between March 2002 and January 2007 the applicant called the police on 137 occasions in connection with the restaurant “N.”. 6.  On 5 September 2003 the R. State Inspectorate lodged a request for the institution of minor-offence proceedings against M.M. in connection with unspecified irregularities in his restaurant business. 7.  On 16 December 2004 the O. Minor Offences Court (Prekršajni sud u O.) found M.M. and M.Č., an employee of the restaurant, guilty of disturbing public peace and order at night by making excessive noise while carrying out some building work on the restaurant. 8.  On 20 May 2005 M.M. lodged a complaint with the police against the applicant and her sister, alleging that at about 3 a.m., when about thirty guests were leaving his restaurant, the applicant and her sister had thrown water on them from the applicant’s balcony. 9.  On 1 September 2005 the O. Minor Offences court found M.M. and M.Č. guilty of disturbing public peace and order by making excessive noise while carrying out building work on the restaurant. 10.  On the same day another family complained about the noise coming from the restaurant at 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. 11.  On 7 January 2006 the other occupants of the building, including the applicant, lodged a request with the L. Municipality for the lease of the ground floor to M.M. to be terminated owing to noise and foul smells. The request referred to ten previous complaints lodged with various authorities against M.M. in respect of noise, the poisoning of cats and disturbance of public peace and order, all of which remained unanswered. 12.  On an unspecified date, forty-three persons signed a petition complaining about the foul smell of the rubbish bins at the restaurant “N.”, and twenty-two persons signed another petition concerning excessive nightly noise from the restaurant. 13.  On 22 May 2003 the applicant and her sister, I., brought a private prosecution in the O. Municipal Court (Općinski sud u O.) against M.Č. for verbal assault and inflicting bodily injury. The applicant alleged, inter alia, that at about 1 a.m. on 10 May 2003 M.Č. had kicked and hit her several times all over her body. 14.  A medical report drawn up at 2.37 a.m. on 10 May 2003 in respect of the applicant established that she had arrived at 2 a.m. escorted by the police and alleged that Mr M.Č. had hit and kicked her. Her right ankle and right hand were swollen; a contusion and haematoma were found on her right hand and a further contusion on her right shin. A further medical report drawn up on 12 May 2010 confirmed the same injuries and also noted a contusion and haematoma on her right hip and a painful neck. 15.  A hearing was held on 26 November 2003, at which criminal proceedings on charges of verbal assault against the applicant and her sister following a private prosecution by M.Č. were joined to the criminal proceedings instituted by the applicant and her sister. M.Č. alleged that the applicant had called him “an idiot” and sworn at him. 16.  On 20 January 2004 the applicant’s counsel submitted an application for the expedition of the proceedings in order to avoid the expiry of the statutory limitation period for prosecution. 17.  At a hearing held on 25 August 2004 the applicant’s sister gave her oral evidence. 18.  Another hearing was held on 26 October 2004. At a hearing held on 17 November 2004 witnesses V.I., M.S. and G.R. gave evidence. At a hearing held on 16 December 2004 an expert in forensic medicine gave her opinion that the injuries to the applicant’s leg and hand could have been caused in the manner described by the applicant. Witness G.Š. also gave evidence. 19.  At a hearing held on 10 February 2005 all the accused gave their oral evidence and the trial was concluded. M.Č. was found guilty of inflicting bodily injury on the applicant, and the applicant and her sister were found guilty of insulting M.Č. A court warning was given in respect of all the accused. 20.  The applicant, her sister and M.Č. all appealed. 21.  On 21 February 2007 the R. County Court (Županijski sud u R.) quashed the first-instance judgment on the ground that, contrary to the requirements of the criminal procedure, some hearings had been conducted by an assistant to a judge and not a judge. 22.  Hearings in the fresh proceedings were held on 12 February and 26 March 2008. 23.  On 3 July 2008 the criminal proceedings against the applicant and her sister were terminated but those against M.Č. continued. 24.  On 20 October 2008 a claim for costs and expenses lodged by the applicant and her sister was dismissed. They lodged an appeal. 25.  Further hearings were held on 27 February and 17 March 2009. 26.  On 10 April 2009 the judge conducting the proceedings learned that the O. Social Welfare Centre (“the Centre”) had instituted proceedings for divesting the applicant and her sister of their legal capacity before the same court and that a special guardian had been appointed for each of them. On 14 April 2009 the judge asked the Centre to extend the guardian’s authority to the representation of the applicant in the criminal proceedings in issue. This was complied with on 21 April 2009 on the basis that the applicant and her sister were unaccountable (neubrojive) and thus not capable of being parties to the proceedings because of their mental issues. 27.  At a hearing held on 28 April 2009 the special guardians appointed for the applicant and her sister both stated that they were not able to pronounce on whether or not they gave their consent to the continuation of the criminal proceedings in issue. 28.  On 28 April 2009 the proceedings were terminated on the ground that on 21 April 2009 a special guardian had been appointed for the applicant who had not expressly given her consent to the proceedings being conducted and that therefore there was no request by an authorised prosecutor for proceedings to be conducted. 29.  On 6 May 2009 the applicant and her sister lodged an appeal. 30.  On 17 June 2009 the R. County Court terminated the proceedings on the ground that in the meantime the prosecution against M.Č. had become time-barred and that therefore the appeal by the applicant and her sister had become obsolete. 31.  On 12 October 2009 the applicant’s sister lodged a constitutional complaint about the fact, inter alia, that the criminal proceedings against M.Č. had been terminated. 32.  On 11 March 2010 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s sister’s constitutional complaint inadmissible, finding that the decision terminating the criminal proceedings against M.Č. had not been arbitrary. 33.  On 30 August 2006 M.M. brought a private prosecution in the same court against the applicant and her sister for defamation, alleging that on 31 May 2006, at about 8.35 p.m., just as the President of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” was entering his restaurant, which was situated below the applicant’s and her sister’s flat, they had shouted from their balcony that M.M. was involved in illegal weapons trafficking. 34.  In their defence the applicant and her sister claimed that they had not known that the person concerned was the President of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, and that the comment they had made while standing on their balcony, that M.M. had been involved in trafficking in weapons, had been only to each other. 35.  In the course of the proceedings the applicant filed several submissions with the trial court, analysing in detail the hearings and the witnesses’ statements and alleging discrepancies between what the witnesses had said and what the judge had dictated in the record of the hearings. 36.  On 27 December 2007 the judge conducting the proceedings commissioned a psychiatric report in respect of the applicant and her sister. The applicant then sought that judge’s removal from the proceedings. On 10 May 2007 the Vice-president of the O. Municipal Court dismissed her request. 37.  In several submissions the applicant expressed strong opposition to psychiatric intervention. 38.  Psychiatrist K.R. drew up a report on the basis of the documents in the case-file, mostly consisting of the above-mentioned submissions by the applicant, without direct contact with her. The relevant part of a report drawn up by the psychiatrist on 21 March 2008, in so far as it concerns the applicant, reads:
“The case file shows that the second defendant ... answered that she understood the charges and pleaded not guilty. Her defence ... shows that she sees these criminal proceedings as an attack by the plaintiff, who wants to destroy her physically, mentally and economically (a feeling of fear for her mental and physical integrity which has no basis in reality).
In her defence ... the second defendant describes two situations which are prevalent in mental illness ... and indicate a psychotic disorder.
The entire case file shows that the second defendant is a person prone to writing lengthy and repetitive letters, which she sends to various institutions (mostly to courts and, as she said herself, also to the police, ministries, and the office of the President, [of the O. Municipal] Court containing detailed descriptions and complaints. The submissions in the case file show that the second defendant is very literate, giving detailed descriptions (often insignificant for the court proceedings) which appear convincing. It is also to be noted that she studied the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose of communicating with this court, which indicates a high degree of intelligence.
The medical documentation has no date and does not bear the stamp of the institution or name of the person who carried out the examination. The second defendant concealed that information by photocopying the document, owing to her suspicion and distrust, which is typical of paranoid persons. For the same reason, the second defendant took away her medical record on 24 April 2007, that is, the day after the hearing at which it was decided that a psychiatric assessment should be carried out. It is not known whether she submitted her medical record to another medical institution, but it would not be surprising if, because of the nature of her mental disorder, she were holding that record in her possession.
All the available information leads to the conclusion that the second defendant, M. S., suffers from mental illness which may be diagnosed as a psychotic disorder.
...”
The psychiatrist concluded that both the applicant and her sister suffered from a persistent psychotic disorder and that tempore criminis they had both been unaccountable. 39.  On 10 April 2010 the proceedings were terminated on the ground that both the applicant and her sister had committed the offence while suffering from a mental illness. 40.  On 14 April 2008 the judge conducting the above-mentioned criminal proceedings against the applicant and her sister sent a letter to the O. Social Welfare Centre informing them that a psychiatric report had been drawn up in respect of the applicant and her sister for the purposes of those criminal proceedings and that the psychiatrist had established that both the applicant and her sister were “mentally disturbed persons, suffering from a persistent psychotic disorder”. 41.  On 19 June 2008 psychiatrist K.R. sent a letter to the O. Social Welfare Centre (“the Centre”) informing them that she had carried out a psychiatric assessment of the applicant and her sister for the purposes of the criminal proceedings against them before the O. Municipal Court on the basis of the medical documentation enclosed with the criminal case file but without any personal contact with them, since they refused to undergo any examination. 42.  The psychiatrist referred to the findings of her expert report (see § 38 above). The relevant part of the letter reads:
“The available sources ... indicate a manifest mental illness of the persons concerned which is expressed in psychosis of a paranoid character (relational ideas, ideas of persecution) primarily directed at one person (M.M., possibly together with a new tenant in the same building, E.L.), and the number of persons by whom the persons concerned feel threatened is growing (the trial judge, the President [of the O. Municipal] Court, police officers). The persons concerned frequently make complaints against these persons in which, for the time being, they simply insult, sully and threaten them. Given that paranoid persons have no control over themselves, that they feel threatened, that they insist on their rights, expecting a favourable outcome (which does not happen – that is to say that their problems are not resolved because the police do not respond – they fabricate their statements and encourage the persons who are threatening them ...).
The persons concerned are obviously dissatisfied with the system; they constantly write letters, fax submissions ... An abundance of psychopathology is evident, in particular in the copies of material written by M.S. (enclosed with your letter of 16 May 2008). Increasingly serious psychopathology is apparent, their anxiety is growing and eventually, with the aim of resolving their problems, the persons concerned may take justice into their own hands in an attempt to resolve their problems, which could manifest as aggression directed at the persons who are threatening them.
The behaviour of I. and M.S. shows that they do not take care of their (mental) health, which is only logical since they have no awareness of their condition and illness. But, their behaviour jeopardises the rights and interests of other persons, namely those at whom their psychosis is directed, or those that they feel threatened by. Their behaviour threatens the existence of the M. family; they inundate the police and the State Attorney’s Office with letters; they seek examinations by medical personnel ...
They behave in this way because of their mental illness, owing to which they lack introspection and self-awareness.
Against the above [background], I am of the opinion that there is a basis for depriving [them] of their legal capacity.” 43.  On 26 June 2008 the Centre asked the O. Municipal Court to institute proceedings with a view to divesting the applicant and her sister of legal capacity. The relevant part of the Centre’s submission reads:
“ ... the psychiatric report in respect of .... M.S. drawn up for the purposes of the criminal proceedings against her ... indicates that she is mentally disturbed, suffering from a chronic psychotic disorder. On 26 June 2008 the Centre also received an opinion by the same psychiatrist stressing that, owing to the said illness, there were grounds for the institution of proceedings to divest her of legal capacity.” 44.  On 15 September 2008 the Centre decided to appoint its employee T.T. as guardian ad litem for the applicant in the proceedings to divest her of her legal capacity. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“The O. Municipal Court informed this Centre that non-contentious proceedings had been instituted with a view to divesting M.S. of her legal capacity ... and that a guardian ad litem needed to be appointed for her for the purposes of these proceedings.
In the proceedings [before this Centre] the following has been established:
- that on 22 April 2008 the O. Municipal Court sent a submission to this Centre stating that criminal proceedings had been instituted against the person concerned and her sister I. ... and that a psychiatric assessment had been carried out in the context of these proceedings by permanent court expert K.R., who established that the person concerned was a mentally disturbed person, suffering from persistent psychosis; that the criminal offence she was accused of had been committed under the influence of her own psychotic experiences ..., that she was not capable of being a party in the proceedings, and that therefore this Centre had to take all the necessary steps within its competence. A copy of the expert opinion was enclosed as evidence.
...
- this Centre sent requests to her general practitioner and the permanent court expert K.R., asking for their opinions as regards the justification for instituting proceedings before a competent municipal court with a view to divesting her of her legal capacity. In his expert opinion, psychiatrist K.R. expressed the view that, given the above-described diagnosis, the institution of such proceedings was justified;
- that this Centre, having established all the relevant facts, requested the O. Municipal Court to institute proceedings for divesting [the applicant] of her legal capacity;
-...
- that this Centre repeatedly sent written notifications and telegrams to the person concerned so as to inform her about the proceedings in issue and to obtain her response; which remained unanswered, and [the receipt slips] showed that she had not collected her mail ...;
- that on 28 August 2008 employees of this Centre paid a visit to her address in order to establish contact with M.S. and I., but they were not found at their address.
Section 168, paragraph 1, of the Family Act provides that “for the protection of personal and property rights and interests, a social welfare centre shall appoint a guardian ad litem for a person in respect of whom a request for divesting him or her of legal capacity has been lodged”.
Against the above background, this Centre considers that the circumstances of the present case and the wellbeing of M.S. require that a guardian ad litem, an employee of this Centre, be appointed for her to represent her rights and interests in the non-contentious proceedings for divesting her of legal capacity pending before the O. Municipal Court.
...” 45.  On 30 January 2009 the O. Municipal Court ordered a psychiatric and psychological assessment of the applicant. 46.  The proceedings are still pending. 47.  On 23 May 2006 the applicant and her sister lodged a civil claim in the O. Municipal Court against M.M., seeking repossession of their wood shed and compensation for the use of the shed by M.M. 48.  On 26 April 2010 those proceedings were stayed owing to the institution of the proceedings for divesting the applicant and her sister of legal capacity. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision and the proceedings are currently pending before the R. County Court. 49.  The relevant part of a report drawn up by a psychologist on 26 March 1999 reads:
“Personality inventory MMPI-201
Personality profile on all clinical scales is entirely within the normal limits, which shows a mentally healthy person.
Test of mental capacity Wb-sp
Memory function is normal and the results of the test show regular general knowledge, orientation, good mental control, excellent numerical memory, and average logical and associative memory and visual reproduction.
Conclusion
The patient is mentally healthy with no evidence of impaired mental capacity.” 50.  Another report drawn up by a different psychologist on 31 August 2009 reads:
“She is open and her speech is normal. When undergoing tests she is cooperative and understands the instructions and the purpose of the tests. She shows adequate effort in fulfilling the tasks.
... in the past ten years she has had property disputes with her neighbours, she talks about the destruction of property and theft of some documents. On a few occasions she was physically attacked ... she is worried for her life and complains of feelings of exhaustion and intense anger as regards the inefficiency of the system. She suffers from insomnia when at her flat because of her anxiety about the situation with the neighbours.
...
PM [test] shows far above average intellectual efficiency in relation to her chronological age.
Memory function is also above average in relation to her chronological age. Despite this, there is a certain lack of concentration on the task at hand and low ability to acquire new knowledge.
LB [test] does not indicate anomalies as regards thought and motor functioning.
The MMPI-201 profile of pathological tendencies shows a defensive attitude towards testing. She presents herself as an energetic person, inclined towards the suppression of sadness. A perception of being misunderstood by those around her is present.
The Emotions Profile Index shows a tendency to give socially desirable answers. She has exaggerated self control. She presents herself as a person who does not react impulsively, and desires stability and safety. In her relations with others she is overly cautious but suggestible. She overcomes aggressive impulses, remains passive.
General defensiveness is of a significantly lower level. She mostly uses intellectualisation as a defence mechanism, distancing herself from emotion (afekt izolira). Her capacity for regression and transfer is insufficient.
The NS semi-projective technique shows emphasised conflict with authority. Grief caused by her mother’s [death] is present. She has little insight into her own fears.” 51.  The relevant part of a report drawn up by a different psychiatrist on 11 December 2009 reads:
“Mental status: conscious, adequately orientated, contact is easily established and maintained. Affect: euthymic [regular mood]. No psychotic thoughts. She denies sensory hallucinations. Above average intelligence.
So far she has not been treated for any psychiatric condition.” 52.  The medical report of 17 July 2010 shows that the applicant had sustained haematomas to the back of her head and left cheek. 53.  She alleged that on 16 and 17 July 2010 she had been attacked by a person she knew.