6.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Czeladź. 7.  She and her husband married in 1973. Their daughter was born in 1976. It appears that the applicant's husband abused alcohol and subjected her to psychological harassment over a long period of time. In the early 1980s that situation led to the applicant's nervous breakdown. She began receiving neurological treatment. In October 1993 she and her daughter left the matrimonial home. Nonetheless, the applicant's husband continued to harass her. 8.  In November 1995 the applicant applied for a divorce order which was granted in March 1996. The divorce court found that the applicant's husband had been at fault in respect of the breakdown of their marriage. 9.  In July 1996 the applicant began receiving psychiatric treatment. In January 1997 she was declared to have a “second degree of invalidity” and granted an invalidity pension on account of the state of her mental health. In March 1998 the applicant was declared entirely unfit for work. 10.  On 26 February 1999 the applicant filed with the Będzin District Court a claim for maintenance in the amount of PLN 600 per month against her former husband. At that time she was in receipt of a gross monthly invalidity pension in the amount of PLN 388.82. 11.  On 29 March 1999 the District Court gave judgment by default, allowing the applicant's claim in full. 12.  Subsequently, the defendant filed an objection against the judgment by default. On 20 September 1999 the District Court quashed that judgment and ruled on the applicant's maintenance claim. It ordered the defendant to pay monthly maintenance in the amount of PLN 300 as of 1 April 1999. 13.  On 25 October 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal against the first-instance judgment. She requested the District Court to exempt her from the court fees and to appoint a legal-aid lawyer in the appeal proceedings. She submitted that she was unable to represent herself during the proceedings due to stress related to her presence in the court. She further submitted that she could not afford a lawyer. 14.  On 28 October 1999 the District Court dismissed her application for a legal-aid lawyer[1]. It considered that assistance of a legal-aid lawyer was necessary only in complex cases or where a party to the proceedings was incapable of defending his/her interests. However, in the present case those conditions had not been met. It further found that the content of the applicant's submissions to the court supported the finding that she was capable of effectively representing herself. 15.  On 19 November 1999 the applicant filed an interlocutory appeal (zażalenie) against the decision of 28 October 1999. She referred to the stress caused by her participation in the proceedings. She further submitted that she was receiving psychiatric treatment, had been granted an invalidity pension on account of her mental health and was regularly taking various medicines. Those medicines significantly affected her memory, concentration and the ability to express her thoughts clearly. Furthermore, she submitted that she was not an educated person and that her friends had assisted her in preparation of the court's submissions. Thus, she considered that legal aid was necessary in order to enable her to defend her interests adequately in the proceedings. 16.  On 7 December 1999 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the interlocutory appeal. It endorsed the reasoning of the District Court. In addition, it held that the applicant had not submitted any proof to the effect that she had been receiving psychiatric treatment. 17.  The applicant submits that the case-file of the maintenance proceedings included a medical certificate issued on 12 May 1999. That certificate attested that the applicant has been regularly treated in a psychiatric clinic since 1996. 18.  On 2 February 2000 the Katowice Regional Court, following a hearing, dismissed the applicant's appeal against the District Court's judgment of 20 September 1999. The court instructed the applicant that a cassation appeal was not provided for in the present case. 19.  On 10 March 2000 the applicant requested the Regional Court to appoint a legal-aid lawyer with a view to filing a cassation appeal. 20.  On 23 March 2000 the Regional Court informed the applicant that a cassation appeal in her case was not provided for by law and inquired whether she wanted to pursue her legal aid application. On 31 March 2000 the applicant replied in the affirmative. 21.  On 14 April 2000 the Regional Court dismissed her application for legal aid. It considered that a cassation appeal in her case could not be lodged as a matter of law, and thus there was no need to provide her with legal assistance. On 2 May 2000 the applicant filed an interlocutory appeal against that decision. 22.  On 1 June 2000 the Regional Court rejected her interlocutory appeal as inadmissible in law. Her further appeals were rejected on 6 July and 16 August 2000. 23.  On 28 July 2000 the Regional Court informed the applicant that she had been previously advised that a cassation appeal in her case, which could only concern the amount of maintenance, was not available. She was further informed that in the case of a change of circumstances she could seek an increase of her maintenance. 24.  On 29 August 2000 the applicant in person lodged a cassation appeal against the Katowice Regional Court's judgment of 2 February 2000. On 14 September 2000 the Regional Court rejected her cassation appeal. It considered that, pursuant to Article 393 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the cassation appeal in her case was not available as it concerned the amount of maintenance. It also found that the cassation appeal had not been lodged by a lawyer and within the statutory time-limit of one month from the date of the service of the second-instance judgment. 25.  On 27 September 2000 the applicant filed with the Supreme Court an interlocutory appeal against the decision of 14 September 2000. 26.  On 18 January 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's interlocutory appeal. Firstly, it held that, contrary to the position of the Regional Court, the applicant's cassation appeal, which concerned the issue of her entitlement to maintenance, was allowed in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as applicable at the relevant time. It found that the applicant's case did not concern the issue of the amount of maintenance, which was excluded from the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. However, the applicant's cassation appeal was inadmissible on two other statutory grounds invoked by the Regional Court, namely non-compliance with the applicable time-limit and compulsory legal representation in cassation appeal proceedings.