5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Riga. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  On 4 November 2000 the applicant addressed a letter to the World Bank, the Parliament of the Republic of Latvia and the President of the Supreme Court in which he alleged, somewhat confusedly, that certain judges in Latvia were corrupt and had acted fraudulently. In the letter he called the President of the Civil Cases Division of the Senate of the Supreme Court “a super cheater” and “a fundamental cheater who commits criminal offences”. He insisted that the judges should be prosecuted for various crimes. It appears that on other occasions before and after the aforementioned letter, the applicant had accused various other state officials in a similar manner. 8.  On 20 December 2000, upon an application received from the President of the Supreme Court, the prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for defamation of state officials. At the material time such activities were considered an offence under section 271 of the Criminal Law (see paragraph 48 below). 9.  On 11 October 2001 the prosecutor’s office brought charges against the applicant. On the same day the applicant was informed thereof. 10.  On 14 June 2001 the applicant underwent an outpatient psychiatric examination as part of the criminal investigation. Experts recommended that he undergo an inpatient medical examination in order for a decision to be made about his mental capacity. 11.  From 25 October to 7 December 2001 the applicant underwent an inpatient medical examination at a psychiatric hospital (Psihiatrijas centrs). On 22 November 2001 the experts issued a report concluding that since 1985 the applicant had been having fantasies and other-worldly ideas which had turned into paranoid delusions. They also concluded that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and at the time of committing the offence had not been fully aware and in control of his actions. It was therefore recommended that he be declared to have been in a state of mental incapacity (nepieskaitāms) with respect to the charges brought against him and that he undergo compulsory medical treatment in a secure psychiatric hospital, owing to the fact that he was in denial about his illness, refused to take medication and had “delusional plans with respect to certain judges and officials”. They also noted that the applicant’s participation in the pre-trial investigation and his attendance at court would not be useful. 12.  On 6 December 2001 a judge of the Riga City Centre District Court (Rīgas pilsētas Centra rajona tiesa) imposed a preventive measure on the applicant of confinement in a psychiatric hospital pending a court order for his compulsory medical treatment. It appears that the order was never executed. 13.  On 21 January 2002 the same court, in the presence of the applicant’s wife, acting as his legal representative, and his lawyer, absolved the applicant from criminal liability. It ruled that the applicant did not pose a danger to society and decided to release him into the care of his wife and under the supervision of a medical institution, in accordance with section 68(2) of the Criminal Law. 14.   Upon an appeal by the prosecutor, on 6 March 2002 the appellate court established that the lower court had failed to provide an assessment of the experts’ report and the evidence proving the applicant’s guilt. The 21 January 2002 decision was quashed and the criminal case was remitted to the lower court for re-examination. 15.  On 16 September 2002 the Riga City Centre District Court found the applicant guilty but exempted him from criminal liability. The court ordered his compulsory medical measure – treatment in a psychiatric hospital under guard. 16.  Upon an appeal by the applicant’s wife, on 3 December 2002 the Riga Regional Court upheld the lower court’s decision. It noted that the applicant’s wife could not exercise effective control over her husband’s medical treatment or his behaviour, given that he was still sending unsubstantiated applications to various domestic authorities. 17.  In a letter dated 17 December 2002, a judge of the Riga Regional Court (Rīgas apgabaltiesa) explained to the applicant’s wife that an appeal on points of law could be submitted only by the applicant’s legal representative, guardian or the prosecutor. 18.  On 16 January 2003, in a preparatory meeting, the Senate of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on points of law submitted by the applicant’s wife. It stated that the appellate court could only review the legality of a decision adopted by the lower court. As the appellate court had no right to decide on the necessity of the confinement, there was also no need for them to question the medical practitioner. It also referred to sections 4021 and 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which set out the procedure to be applied when grounds for the application of a compulsory medical measure had ceased to exist. 19.  Meanwhile, on 3 January 2003 representatives of a national newspaper brought a complaint before the Constitutional Court (Satversmes tiesa), seeking a ruling that section 271 of the Criminal Law was not in compliance with the fundamental rights protected under the Constitution (Satversme), in particular, the right to freedom of expression and equality before the law. 20.  On 24 February 2003 constitutional proceedings were instituted and on 28 February 2003 details were published in the official gazette “Latvijas Vēstnesis”. 21.  On 29 October 2003 the Constitutional Court found that section 271 of the Criminal Law was incompatible with the Constitution and thus void with effect from 1 February 2004, unless the legislature specified before the aforementioned date which groups of officials, owing to their official capacity, required special protection under criminal law. 22.  The Criminal Law was amended and the contested provision was repealed. The amendment came into force on 1 February 2004. 23.  On 2 July 2004 the Riga City Centre District Court issued an execution order for the judgment of 16 September 2002. 24.  On 30 July 2004 the judgment was executed and the police took the applicant to the psychiatric hospital for compulsory medical treatment. 25.  On the same day, 30 July 2004, the applicant complained to the Riga City Centre District Court, seeking his release from the psychiatric hospital on the grounds that since 1 February of that year section 271 of the Criminal Law had no longer been in force. The copy of the applicant’s complaint in the Court’s possession bears a stamp attesting to the fact that it was received at the Centre District Court on 4 August 2004. There is no further information in the case file about any decisions made in respect of this complaint. 26.  On 4 August 2004 he made a similar complaint to the prosecutor’s office. He also asked for criminal proceedings to be instituted in connection with his forced admission to hospital. 27.  On 9 August 2004 a prosecutor confirmed that the execution of the court’s decision of 16 September 2002 had been lawful. 28.  On 24 August 2004 the Riga City Centre District Court informed the head of the psychiatric hospital that the amendments to the Criminal Law were applicable in the applicant’s case. On 3 September 2004 the administration of the psychiatric hospital submitted an application to the Riga City Ziemeļu District Court (Rīgas pilsētas Ziemeļu rajona tiesa) seeking revocation of the compulsory medical measure. 29.  On 24 September 2004 that court revoked the decision of 16 September 2002 and the applicant was released the same day. In its reasoning, the court referred to the amendments to the Criminal Law (see paragraph 22 above) and sections 4021 and 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 30.  On 13 August 2003 the applicant addressed a complaint to the Senate of the Supreme Court claiming 4,000,000 euros (EUR) as compensation for alleged violations of his human rights. The prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that the above letter had been added to his file. On 26 August 2003 the applicant, somewhat confusedly, repeatedly asked the Senate to reopen the criminal proceedings. 31.  It appears that on numerous occasions the applicant addressed letters to various institutions alleging that judges and prosecutors had acted unlawfully. He submitted that on 18 March 2004 a judge of the Riga City Centre District Court had refused his request for criminal proceedings to be instituted against three prosecutors in connection with their alleged unlawful activities. 32.  On 29 September 2004 the Riga Regional Court submitted a request to the prosecutor’s office for measures to be taken with respect to the applicant’s legal capacity. 33.  On 22 February 2005 the Centre District Court ordered that the applicant undergo a psychiatric examination, which was carried out between 24 March and 27 April 2006. The experts observed that he was still making complaints about his alleged enemies, which were becoming more and more elaborate. They concluded that he only had basic social skills and a limited ability to deal with simple everyday situations, and that owing to his heart condition and lack of self-awareness, his submissions in court would be counterproductive. 34.  On 18 May 2006 the Riga City Vidzeme District Court (Rīgas pilsētas Vidzemes priekšpilsētas tiesa) ruled that the applicant was not legally capable (rīcībnespējīgs). He was not present at the hearing. 35.  On 27 July 2006 the applicant appointed V.B. as his legal representative by issuing a power of attorney certified by a public notary. 36.  On 10 August 2006 the Riga Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The hearing was held in private so V.B. was asked to leave. The applicant was represented by someone from the Bāriņtiesa, a guardianship and curatorship institution established by the Riga city council. 37.  On 8 March 2007 the Senate of the Supreme Court, in a preparatory meeting, dismissed the appeal on points of law because it was submitted by V. B. who was not authorised to lodge such appeals. 38.  According to the applicant, on 24 July 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed a constitutional complaint lodged by him, noting that only his guardian was authorised to lodge a complaint on his behalf. 39.  It appears that in 2008, at the applicant’s request, the Supreme Court extended the period for lodging an appeal on points of law. On 10 July 2009, in a preparatory meeting, the Senate of the Supreme Court instituted cassation proceedings and on 30 September 2009 it quashed the appellate court’s judgment of 10 August 2006 and remitted the case to the Regional Court. The Senate noted that the lower court had not assessed all the evidence and had failed to provide adequate reasoning as to the applicant’s legal incapacity; it observed that in reaching the conclusion that the applicant had no legal capacity, the lower court had merely rewritten the experts’ report and referred to the various complaints submitted by the applicant. 40.  On 16 November 2009 the applicant asked the Supreme Court to inform him of his right to obtain compensation in respect of the quashed decision of the appellate court. He was informed that providing such advice exceeded the competence of the Supreme Court. 41.  On 4 June 2010 the Riga Regional Court re-examined the applicant’s appeal, quashed the Vidzeme District Court’s decision in full and rejected the request to declare the applicant legally incapable. That decision became final at an unspecified date. 42.  Between August 2006 and May 2007 representatives of the Bāriņtiesa repeatedly tried to contact the applicant’s relatives to discuss the possibility of one of them being appointed as his guardian. According to information received by the Government’s Agent, in May 2007 the applicant’s relatives informed the tribunal that he did not need a guardian and to appoint one would be unnecessary. 43.  On several occasions the Bāriņtiesa asked the Riga City Vidzeme District Court to reinstate the applicant’s legal capacity. On 12 February 2007 it requested that his legal capacity be reinstated because since 2006 no guardian had been assigned to him, and throughout that period he had been able to take care of his daily needs himself. It was the tribunal’s view that his state of health had improved. 44.  On 12 February 2009 the proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of the proceedings for the applicant’s legal incapacitation. 45.  On 11 January 2006 the applicant brought a civil action against the prosecutor’s office, but his claim was not allowed because it had been lodged with the wrong court. 46.  On 20 June 2006 he lodged a complaint with the Administrative District Court (Administratīvā rajona tiesa) concerning damage he had sustained on 24 March 2006 when the police had taken him in for the inpatient medical examination. On 2 February 2007 those proceedings were stayed pending assignment of the applicant’s guardian. 47.  Several other civil and administrative proceedings initiated by him were stayed on the same grounds.