5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Elbląg. 6.  In a criminal case in which the applicant was accused of causing minor bodily harm to a certain D.Ł., in the context of a long‑running neighbourhood dispute between them, the applicant requested that judges of the Elbląg Regional Court be disqualified from dealing with her case. She indicated that D.Ł. was the brother of Judge M.K.P., a supervising judge at that court. 7.  By a decision of 17 May 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal allowed her request and transferred the case to the Włocławek District Court. It was of the view that those judges of the Elbląg Regional Court who had declared that they knew the victim of the alleged offence personally could not sit in the case as it would cast doubt on their impartiality. Similarly, the judges of that court who had not made such a declaration should be disqualified, as the existence of a link between the victim of the alleged offence and the supervising judge justified the view that their impartiality could also be open to doubt. The court referred to Article 6 of the Convention, guaranteeing the right to a fair hearing by an impartial court, and to Article 45 of the Constitution. 8.  In another criminal case against the applicant, concerning similar charges where D.Ł. was also a victim of the alleged offence, on 4 April 2001 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal gave a similar decision, disqualifying the judges of both the Elbląg District Court and Regional Court on similar grounds. The case was, likewise, transferred to the Włocławek District Court. 9.  On 28 September 2004, in another case in which D.Ł. was the accused and the applicant the victim of the alleged offence, the Gdańsk Court of Appeal held that twenty-seven of the judges of the Elbląg Regional Court (including Judges I.L. and N.B.; see paragraphs 19 and 19 below) should be disqualified as there were doubts as to their impartiality. The applicant had been arrested following a complaint submitted to the prosecuting authorities by D.Ł. Moreover, the twenty-seven disqualified judges had declared that circumstances obtained which could have given rise to doubts as to their impartiality. Four other judges were not disqualified as they had declared that no such doubts arose in respect of them. 10.  On 23 November 2004, in a case in which the applicant sought compensation for unjustified arrest and detention in connection with a criminal case in which she had ultimately been acquitted, the Gdańsk Court of Appeal held that all of the judges of the Elbląg Regional Court should be disqualified. It was of the view that there were doubts as to their impartiality. This was so because the applicant had been arrested and subsequently detained in a case in which D.Ł. was the victim of the alleged offences. Certain of the judges had declared that they knew D.Ł. personally. This set of circumstances justified the transfer of the case to the Włocławek Regional Court. 11.  Subsequently, D.Ł. requested that criminal proceedings be instituted against the applicant on charges of giving false testimony against him in another set of proceedings. 12.  By a decision of 7 January 2005 the Elbląg District Court submitted a request to the Supreme Court that the case be transferred for examination by another court. It referred to the applicant’s doubts as to the impartiality of the judges of the district court arising in connection with D.Ł. having a family link to the superior of those judges. It further referred to the previous cases in which the applicant had been involved. It was of the view that the reputation of the judiciary and the confidence which the courts should inspire in the public, in particular as to their impartiality, warranted the case being examined by another court. 13.  On 18 March 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the request. It held that the fact that the victim of the alleged offence was the brother of one of the judges of “a regional court (apparently in Elbląg)” (“sędziego Sądu Okręgowego (prawdopodobnie w Elblągu)”), even taken together with the fact that the applicant had sought to have all the judges of the Elbląg District Court and Elbląg Regional Court disqualified, was insufficient to give rise to doubts as to the impartiality of these judges. It was not in the interests of the administration of justice to abuse the possibility for cases to be transferred to another court. 14.  Subsequently, on 26 April 2005 the Elblag District Court, in a single-judge panel composed of Assessor E.M. (an assessor is a junior judge), dismissed the applicant’s request that K.S., another assessor assigned to examine her case, be disqualified. It held that no circumstances obtained that would show that K.S. might lack impartiality. No reference was made either to the specific facts of the case, to the relationship between D.Ł. and the supervising judge or to the decisions of the Gdańsk Court of Appeal summarised above. 15.  On 25 August 2005 the Elbląg District Court, presided over by Assessor K.S., found the applicant guilty of giving false evidence against D.Ł. and A.Ch., in that she had falsely informed the prosecuting authorities that they had caused damage to her orchard. The court sentenced her to one year’s imprisonment, suspending that sentence for a probationary period of one year, during which the applicant’s conduct would be supervised by a court officer. 16.  On 8 October 2005 the applicant appealed. She submitted, inter alia, that the court had lacked impartiality because D.Ł. was the brother of the supervising judge at the Elbląg Regional Court. The existence of family links between the victim and the supervising judge on the one hand, and the hierarchical professional link between the latter and all the other judges of the Elbląg courts on the other hand, had compromised the impartiality of the court. She further referred to the fact that in one of the orders to the court’s secretariat by which Assessor K.S. organised the procedure she had referred to the applicant as “the convicted person” (skazana). This demonstrated that even before the judgment had been given, that assessor had already prejudged the outcome of the proceedings. She further submitted that the court had wrongly established the facts and had committed errors in the legal assessment of the case. 17.  The prosecution also appealed against the judgment, arguing that the court had erred in the application of the substantive provisions of criminal law. 18.  Subsequently, the applicant requested that Judges N.B., I.L. and E.M. of the Elbląg Regional Court not be assigned to the bench which was to examine her appeal. She reiterated that the fact that D.Ł. was the brother of the supervising judge was capable of casting doubt on the impartiality of the judges of that court.
On 20 January 2006 the Elbląg Regional Court dismissed her request. It noted that the applicant had already unsuccessfully requested in that case that the judges of the Elbląg courts withdraw from the case, relying on the same circumstances. Hence, there were no grounds on which to allow her request in respect of the judges of the Regional Court. It further noted that the judges assigned to examine the applicant’s appeal had declared that they did not know any of the parties to the case personally. 19.  By a judgment of 27 January 2006, served on the applicant on 15 March 2006, the Elbląg Court of Appeal, composed of Judges I.L., N.B. and E.M., dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It was of the view that the arguments concerning the assessment of the evidence by the first-instance court were ill-founded. As to the applicant’s argument based on the alleged lack of impartiality of the District Court, the court noted that on 26 April 2005 the applicant’s request that assessor E.M. should step down had been dismissed. The circumstances of the case had not indicated that there could have been any bias on the part of the judge who had examined the case and the applicant’s arguments in this respect were unconvincing. 20.  The court allowed the prosecution’s appeal in part and quashed the part of the judgment imposing a supervision order on the applicant. 21.  In 1994 the Elbląg District Court found the applicant’s neighbours guilty of breaching planning and building regulations by building a house over the garage on their land, contrary to applicable law. In the ensuing sets of proceedings, the applicant sought to have the illegal construction demolished. 22.  On 15 September 2005 the applicant complained to the Olsztyn Regional Administrative Court about the authorities’ failure to take steps in order to have the construction comply with planning and building regulations. 23.  On 12 April 2006 the Olsztyn Regional Administrative Court gave a judgment. It found that the applicant’s complaint was justified and ordered the District Construction Supervision to give a decision in the applicant’s case within one month. On 22 May 2006 the Regional Administrative Court’s judgment was served on the applicant with its written reasons. On that date, the thirty-day time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal against the judgment started to run. 24.  By letter dated 20 June 2006, posted on 21 June 2006, the applicant requested the court to grant her legal aid. By a decision of 12 July 2006 legal aid was granted. By letter of 23 August 2006 the local District Chamber of Legal Advisers (Okręgowa Izba Radców Prawnych) informed the applicant that, upon the court’s request dated 17 August 2006 the case had been assigned to J.S. The court informed the applicant thereof by letter of 25 August 2006. On 31 August 2006 the applicant gave a power of attorney to J.S. On 4 September 2006 certain documents from the case file were served on J.S., following his request dated 1 September 2006. By a legal opinion dated 3 October 2006 J.S. informed the court and the applicant that there were no legal grounds on which he could prepare a cassation appeal and that, in any event, the applicant had no legal interest in lodging it because the judgment of the Regional Administrative Court had been in her favour.