5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Szczecin. 6.  The applicant was involved in two sets of civil proceedings for payment pending before the Szczecin District Court. In one of them she was a defendant and in another she represented her mother, H.K. 7.  On 7 June 2007 the applicant submitted her pleadings in the second case to the Szczecin District Court. She argued that her mother had not given any grounds on which to institute execution proceedings against her, because she had already paid the amounts awarded to the plaintiff. She stated that the efforts to have that judgment executed was a result of “criminal activity of a group of persons acting with a view to intimidating, threatening and extorting money from [H.K.] and from the applicant and her family and threatening H.K.’s life. This amounted to a real danger to H.K, as she was 89 years old and in poor health. This group of a criminal nature was composed of [lawyer] D.N. acting in a corrupt mafia-like setup... under the aegis of J.S., the President of the Szczecin District Court.” 8.  Upon receipt of her pleadings, the President of the Szczecin District Court forwarded it to the supervising judge of the Szczecin Regional Court with a view to examining whether it would be justified to inform the prosecutor that a criminal offence punishable under Article 212 of the Criminal Code had been committed. 9.  On 11 July 2007 the President of the Szczecin Regional Court informed the Szczecin‑Śródmieście Prosecutor of the applicant’s pleadings. 10.  On 20 August 2007 the prosecutor instituted an investigation in the case. 11.  On 20 August 2007 the applicant was summoned to the Szczecin‑Śródmieście police station to be questioned on 10 September 2007 as a “witness” in a defamation case. She complied with the summons and was informed that in fact she was to be questioned as a suspect. She availed herself of her right to refuse to testify. 12.  On 31 October 2007 she submitted pleadings to the Szczecin‑Śródmieście Prosecutor’s Office, requesting that J.S. and three other persons be questioned in the case. 13.  On 26 November 2007 the Szczecin‑Śródmieście Prosecutor’s Office lodged a public bill of indictment against the applicant with the Szczecin‑Śródmieście District Court. She was charged with the offence of defamation, punishable under Article 212 of the Criminal Code. 14.  On 20 February 2008 the Supreme Court, acting upon a request submitted to it by the Szczecin Regional Court, ordered that the case should be transferred to the Gorzów Wielkopolski District Court. 15.  On 18 August 2008 that court, acting in simplified proceedings, found the applicant guilty of committing an offence of defamation against Judge J.S. and imposed a fine on her in the amount of 150 Polish zlotys (PLN), equivalent to 100 daily fines in the amount of PLN 15 each. 16.  The applicant lodged an objection against this judgment with that court and requested that it should be examined in normal criminal proceedings. She submitted, inter alia, that she had never made her pleadings of 7 June 2007 public, and argued that the contested judgment was “in line with the worst communist traditions and it undermined the foundations of the democratic rule of law of the state.” 17.  Following her objection, the Gorzów Wielkopolski District Court examined her case anew. 18.  In pleadings of 21 December 2008 the applicant requested that J.S., D.N.(who was representing the opposite party in her mother’s case; see paragraph 7 above) and two other individuals should be questioned as witnesses. She also requested that L.W., a journalist who had published an article about her criminal case, entitled “A corrupt mafia‑like setup” (“Mafijno‑korupcyjny układ”) in a local newspaper be questioned by the court. She stressed that information about the case must have leaked to the newspaper from the prosecutor’s office, as she had not given information about the case to anyone. 19.  During a hearing held on 10 February 2009 Judge J.S. was questioned. He submitted that he knew the applicant, as he had been the President of the Szczecin District Court. The applicant had on many occasions written to him complaining about various alleged shortcomings in civil proceedings in which she had been involved. 20.  He submitted that he had answered many of her complaints in writing, including those couched in strong terms, but that, as a matter of principle, he had not requested the prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against her. 21.  In pleadings submitted to the court on the same date the applicant cited Article 54 of the Constitution, which guaranteed freedom of expression, and Article 10 of the Convention. She submitted that the offence punishable under Article 212 was to be examined in proceedings instituted by private prosecution. However, in her case it was the public prosecutor who had brought the bill of indictment to the court. She reiterated that the proceedings against her were part of a campaign of intimidation against her and her elderly mother. She had made the submissions concerned in the case in the context of a civil case and they should have been regarded as legitimate means of defending her interests protected by civil law. She reiterated that she had never made those pleadings public and that the journalist who had published the article about that letter must have been informed of it by the prosecuting office. 22.  By a judgment of 13 February 2009 the court found the applicant guilty of the offence of defamation punishable under Article 212 of the Criminal Code and imposed a fine of PLN 700 (seventy daily fines of PLN 10) on her. The court referred to her pleadings of 7 June 2006 and held that the facts of the case had not given rise to any doubt. The allegations of lack of impartiality and the alleged failure to respect standards of professional conduct contained in the pleadings could clearly lower Judge J.S. in the estimation of the public or undermine public confidence in his capacity to hold his judicial position. The applicant’s document had a public character as it was formulated in official pleadings to a court, the files of judicial proceedings being accessible to all the parties to these proceedings. Moreover, there was a risk that its content could become known to the members of the public in the courtroom if it was read out during the proceedings. The allegations thus placed in the public domain were untrue and capable of undermining J.S.’s good reputation. They had to be seen in the context of a possible threat of loss of public trust in his capacity to carry out his judicial profession. 23.  The court further found that the applicant had written a number of letters to Judge J.S. in his capacity as President of the court, making various allegations about the judges of that court. She alleged that certain judges were party to a “mafia‑like setup”, and complained that Judge J.S. had been interfering with the conduct of cases in which the applicant was involved, to her detriment. She had alleged that he had passed a “death sentence” on the applicant’s family. In his replies, Judge J.S. had repeatedly drawn the applicant’s attention to the inappropriate terms she used and requested her to stop using offensive language. 24.  The court was of the view that the applicant had acted with the direct intention (zamiar bezpośredni) of insulting the judge. However, the offence was not particularly dangerous, because the offence of defamation breached only the honour of an individual person concerned, without violating other legally protected interests or values. Hence, the fine in the amount of PLN 700 was justified, as being capable of having both a dissuasive and a punitive effect on the applicant. The court noted that the applicant was unemployed, but she was young, had a good education and was able to find work and pay the fine, in instalments if need be. 25.  The applicant appealed. She again referred to Article 54 of the Constitution, guaranteeing the freedom of expression, and Article 10 of the Convention, arguing that the judgment breached them. 26.  By a judgment of 15 May 2009 the Gorzów Wielkopolski Regional Court upheld the contested judgment. It was of the view that the lower court had correctly established the facts of the case. The applicant’s allegations about J.S.’s involvement in any “mafia‑like setup” could not be regarded as legitimate criticism. The applicant did not have objective grounds on which to formulate such a view and she had thereby overstepped the limits of acceptable criticism.