5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Tryavna. 6.  In 1999 the relations between the applicant and her partner N.B., a local police officer, deteriorated and they separated. 7.  On an unspecified date in 2000 the applicant filed a request to the district prosecutor to open criminal proceedings against N.B. for physical and psychological abuse. That was refused by a decision of 4 March 2002. 8.  On 27 July 2000 G.I. and D.M., who according to the applicant were friends of N.B., filed complaints against the applicant to the district prosecutor, stating that she was harassing them as she was mentally ill. The prosecutor sent the complaints to the police to gather information concerning the applicant’s mental state. He instructed them, in particular, to interview friends and family of the applicant. 9.  On 8 August 2000 the police reported to the prosecutor that the applicant should be subjected to compulsory psychiatric treatment. On 28 September 2000 the district prosecutor ordered the applicant’s psychiatric examination with a view to establishing whether it was necessary to initiate judicial proceedings for her compulsory psychiatric treatment. The applicant maintains that she never received a summons to voluntarily appear before the authorities in order to undergo any such examination. 10.  In the morning of 4 October 2000 a police officer visited the applicant in her house and requested her appearance at the police station in relation to her complaint against N.B. The applicant contends that when she arrived at the police station, she was forced into an ambulance. There she was served with a prosecutor’s order for her detention in a psychiatric hospital in order to undergo a psychiatric examination. 11.  On the same day the applicant was taken to the Sevlievo State Psychiatric Hospital where she was kept for a month for a psychiatric examination. The doctors noted in their opinion that the applicant was suffering from certain, apparently not very serious, disorders. They did not express an opinion on the need for the applicant’s confinement. The applicant was discharged from the hospital on 3 November 2000. 12.  On 13 November 2000 the prosecutor decided not to request the applicant’s committal for compulsory psychiatric treatment, noting that the applicant did not suffer from a mental disease. 13.  On an unspecified date in 2001 the applicant filed a complaint to the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office, claiming that her detention in a psychiatric hospital constituted an abuse of office on the part of the district prosecutor. The complaint was referred to the regional prosecutor who dismissed it on 22 April 2002. He stated, in particular, that the actions of the district prosecutor in respect of the applicant’s detention had been lawful. 14.  On 29 August 2001 G.I. filed a fresh complaint to the district prosecutor, claiming again harassment on the part of the applicant. Following another police inquiry, on 20 September 2001 the district prosecutor ordered the applicant’s psychiatric examination. 15.  In a letter of 26 September 2001 the director of the Sevlievo State Psychiatric Hospital required the applicant’s appearance in order to undergo a psychiatric examination. The applicant did not respond to the letter. 16.  On 23 January 2002 the applicant appeared before the local police station in order to obtain her new identification document when she was detained and sent to the Sevlievo State Psychiatric Hospital. The applicant was kept there for a month for another examination. The doctors noted the same disorders as in their previous opinion. They did not express an opinion on the need for the applicant’s confinement. The applicant was discharged from the hospital on 22 February 2002. 17.  In an order of 25 February 2002 the district prosecutor decided not to proceed with the matter as the applicant did not suffer from a mental disease. 18.  Upon the applicant’s initiative, on 6 March 2002 experts from the Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology Clinic in Sofia issued a report concerning her mental state. They concluded that the applicant did not suffer from a mental disease. The experts further noted that her detention in a psychiatric hospital had considerably traumatised her. 19.  Relying on the Convention, the Bulgarian Constitution, section 1 of the 1988 State Responsibility for Damage Caused to Citizens Act (see Relevant domestic law, below) and the Court’s judgments in the cases of Varbanov v. Bulgaria (no. 31365/96, ECHR 2000‑X) and Kepenerov v. Bulgaria (no. 39269/98, 31 July 2003), on 7 May 2003 the applicant lodged claims for damages with the Dryanovo District Court against the police and the Prosecutor’s Office. The applicant claimed, in particular, that her first detention had been in breach of the relevant procedure as she had never been officially requested to appear before the authorities (see paragraph 9 above). She further maintained, referring to the Court’s findings in the abovementioned judgments, that both detentions had been unlawful within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which had a priority over the domestic legislation in case of discrepancy with its provisions, and that she had not had access to a court. She also argued that the actions of the police and the prosecutor had interfered with her right to a good reputation in violation with the Bulgarian Constitution and Article 8 of the Convention. 20.  In a judgment of 13 February 2004 the District Court allowed the claims. The court observed that when detaining the applicant the police had acted without a written order and thus in breach of section 1 of the 1988 Act. The court also discussed the impossibility for the applicant to have her detention be examined by a court. The court further held that by ordering the applicant’s detentions the prosecution authorities had acted in violation of Article 5 of the Convention. In view of that the court awarded compensation for the sustained damage. 21.  The respondents appealed. In a final judgment of 15 March 2005 the Gabrovo Regional Court quashed the lower court’s ruling and dismissed the applicant’s claims. As regards the claim against the police, the court stated that the police had acted lawfully and in execution of the prosecutor’s orders. As regards the actions of the Prosecutor’s Office, the court found that they had been lawful. The court further acknowledged that the national legislation was deficient in that it did not provide for judicial control over the prosecutor’s order for forced psychiatric examination. However, any claims for compensation in this regard should have been brought against the State and not the Prosecutor’s Office.