8.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bratislava. 9.  On 11 August 1993 the applicant consulted a doctor to whom he complained of health problems due to the fact that his neighbour had tried to poison him. The doctor sent the applicant to the hospital in Ružinov in an ambulance. The accompanying document established by the doctor indicated that the applicant suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. In it the doctor requested that the applicant be treated as an in-patient. According to the applicant, he stayed in the central reception unit of the hospital in Ružinov for about ten minutes and during this time two injections were administered to him. Subsequently the applicant was brought against his will to the mental hospital in Pezinok. The chief physician of that hospital ordered that the applicant be released on 26 August 1993. 10.  On 19 August 1993 the Bratislava-vidiek District Court gave a decision in which it found that the applicant was held in a mental hospital lawfully. The reasons for this decision read as follows:
“The psychiatric hospital in Pezinok admitted Karol Tám, as an ill person, without his consent. The court took evidence with a view to assessing whether the grounds for his admission were lawful and concluded that the person concerned has suffered from a mental illness requiring treatment in a mental hospital.” 11.  The District Court’s decision of 19 August 1993 was served on the applicant on 20 September 1996. On 1 October 1996 the applicant appealed and claimed that he had been taken to the mental hospital unlawfully. 12.  On 30 April 1998 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the District Court’s decision of 19 August 1993. The Regional Court found that the first instance court had failed to establish the relevant facts and had committed errors of both a legal and procedural nature. In particular, the District Court had not taken formal decisions to bring proceedings concerning the lawfulness of the applicant’s examination in a mental hospital and to appoint a guardian for the applicant as required by Article 191b §§ 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, the District Court had not heard the applicant and the doctor treating him with a view to establishing whether the applicant’s deprivation of liberty had been justified. The case was sent back to the District Court for a new adjudication. 13.  In a letter dated 21 January 1999 a judge of the Bratislava III District Court (which had taken over the cases pending before the former Bratislava‑vidiek District Court) informed the applicant that the case would not be proceeded with as proceedings concerning the lawfulness of his placement in a mental hospital had never been formally brought. 14.  On 26 February 1999 the Bratislava Regional Court instructed the District Court to deliver a decision on the case. 15.  On 6 July 1999 the Bratislava III District Court discontinued the proceedings. The decision stated that the applicant had been released on 26 August 1993 and, therefore, the reasons for proceeding further with the case had fallen away. The applicant appealed on 9 August 1999. He claimed that his deprivation of liberty had been unlawful and that he had not been informed that a guardian had been appointed to represent him. 16.  On 31 May 2000 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision of 6 July 1999.