5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Liepāja 6.  On 7 March 1999 the applicant’s neighbour called the ambulance service and the municipal police and informed them that the applicant was going to jump out of the window of her fifth-floor apartment. She also reported that the applicant was shouting and swearing in her apartment, throwing papers outside and pouring water out of the window. 7.  After the ambulance arrived, the applicant refused to comply with the paramedic’s request that she open the door, whereupon rescuers were called. They entered the applicant’s apartment through a window and let the paramedic in. 8.  The applicant told the paramedic that she had received threats and that the mafia had kidnapped her and operated on her organs without leaving any marks. After having observed that the applicant’s overall condition was satisfactory and that her mood had shifted during the conversation, the paramedic suggested that the applicant might be suffering from an endogenous disease and took her to the Liepāja psychiatric hospital in the ambulance car. The applicant was accompanied to the hospital by her mother and a police officer. 9.  Later the same day the applicant was examined by a duty doctor, S., who made the following notes:
“The neighbours called the police saying that [the applicant] had been throwing papers out of the window and swearing and shouting. According to [the applicant], for more than a year [she] has been receiving threats from unknown persons ... According to [the applicant’s] mother, [the applicant] has been suffering from a mental disease for about two years, which began as depression and evolved into delusions of persecution. [The applicant had] said that her organs had been operated on ... [The applicant’s] speech is chaotic; [she] tries to deny everything, except the delusions. [The applicant] is nervous ... asks to be allowed to go home. [She] denies the hallucinations ... [Her] somatic condition [is] without pathology. Diagnosis: hallucinatory paranoid condition ...” 10.  On the same day the applicant was admitted for in-patient medical treatment and prescribed medicines. 11.  On 9 March 1999 a panel of three psychiatrists, consisting of the doctor S. and two other doctors practising at the same medical establishment, concluded that the applicant suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and that it was necessary for her to continue in-patient medical treatment.
“Regard being had to the anamnesis of the illness and symptoms, the patient suffers from paranoid schizophrenia: it is therefore necessary to continue with emergency in-patient medical treatment”. 12.  From 11 to 30 March 1999 the applicant underwent in-patient medical treatment in a psychiatric hospital. From 1 to 6 April 1999 she was given hospital leave, which was extended until 13 April 1999, after which she was discharged from hospital. 13.  On various occasions after her release from hospital the applicant asked the Liepāja prosecutor’s office to institute criminal proceedings concerning the allegedly unlawful actions of the municipal police officer and the medical staff at the time of her compulsory admission to the psychiatric hospital. She appealed to the Kurzeme district public prosecutor’s office against the refusals to institute criminal proceedings. Her appeals were dismissed in June 1999 and December 2001. The applicant appealed against those decisions to the Office of the Prosecutor General, which dismissed them in May and July 2003. 14.  On 15 March 2000 the applicant asked the administration of the Liepāja psychiatric hospital to provide her with the excerpts from her medical file concerning the reasons for her compulsory confinement in a psychiatric hospital on 7 March 1999. She also sought to obtain information about the medical treatment she had received during her stay in hospital. On 29 March 2000 the hospital informed the applicant that the requested information would be furnished only at a court’s request. 15.  On 11 April 2000 the applicant complained to the Inspectorate of Quality Control for Medical Care and Working Capability (“the MADEKKI”) about her allegedly unlawful compulsory confinement in a psychiatric hospital. In its response dated 26 May 2000 the MADEKKI concluded that on 7 March 1999 the applicant had been committed for an in-patient medical examination pursuant to section 68 of the Law on Medical Treatment (Ārstniecības likums) and that her medical treatment had been adequate. 16.  On 10 August 2000 the applicant and her mother filed an administrative complaint with the Liepāja Court against the doctor S. and the paramedic who had accompanied the applicant to hospital on 7 March 1999. The claimants asked the court to declare the applicant’s confinement unlawful and to overturn the diagnosis in part. 17.  The court refused to register the claim, owing to various procedural deficiencies. On appeal by the applicant, the Kurzeme Regional Court upheld the lower court’s decision, stating that the doctor and the paramedic were not public officials whose decisions could be the subject of an administrative complaints procedure. Besides, it was noted that the applicant had failed to submit the complaint within the one-month time-limit from the adoption of the final decision of the MADEKKI. It also indicated that the claimants should bring a civil claim if they considered that they had sustained damage as a result of the defendants’ actions. The decision became final because none of the parties appealed. 18.  On an unspecified date the applicant and her mother lodged defamation proceedings against their neighbours, asking the Liepāja Court to find that the defendants had uttered false information concerning the applicant’s behaviour on 7 March 1999. The applicant also claimed damages from the paramedic who had taken her to hospital and allegedly provided false information concerning her health to the duty doctor. 19.  On 27 April 2000 the court upheld the claim in part, finding that it could not be established that on the day in question the applicant had threatened to jump out of the window. However, it dismissed the remainder of the claim. The court noted, inter alia, that the information from the applicant’s neighbours and the conversation with the applicant (see paragraph 8, above), as well as the latter’s appearance and her mother’s statements, had provided sufficient grounds for the paramedic to admit the applicant to hospital. It appears that none of the parties appealed. 20.  On 10 August 2000 the applicant and her mother lodged a civil claim against the doctor S. They asked the Liepāja Court to declare that the applicant had been unlawfully confined in the psychiatric hospital and to order the doctor to remove the allegedly false symptoms from her medical records, in particular, the aggression, hallucinations and paranoid delusions. In the statement of claim the claimants argued that, despite her stable state of health, the applicant had been confined in a psychiatric hospital owing to false information provided by her neighbour and that the doctor had reached her diagnosis without duly examining the patient. 21.  On 11 December 2000 the applicant underwent a court-ordered forensic psychiatric examination. The experts concluded that the applicant suffered from chronic schizophrenia and that, according to her medical records, on 7 March 1999 she had been in a condition which potentially endangered her health and life. 22.  On 14 February 2001 the Liepāja Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. It established that the defendant had acted in accordance with the Law on Medical Treatment; that the expert had correctly diagnosed her condition; and that her mental state had necessitated compulsory hospitalisation. 23.  On 9 October 2001 the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment. The court dismissed as irrelevant the outcome of the defamation proceedings (see paragraph 19 above), establishing that this was not crucial in reaching the decision regarding the applicant’s compulsory admission to the psychiatric hospital and that the panel of psychiatrists had made its diagnosis after having examined the applicant. 24.  On 16 January 2002 the Senate of the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant.