4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Czarnowo.
5.  On 29 January 2010 the Szczecin Social Security Board (“the ZUS”) dismissed an application by the applicant for a disability pension on account of a total incapacity to work. The ZUS based its decision on a medical opinion which had found the applicant fit to work. The applicant appealed to a court.
6.  On 8 April 2010 the Szczecin Regional Court decided to appoint experts on neurology, orthopaedics and psychiatry and requested that they prepare opinions on the applicant’s state of health. The expert opinions were submitted to the court on 12 July 2010. According to the opinions the applicant was fit to work.
7.  On 16 July 2010 the court dismissed an application by the applicant to appoint a legal aid lawyer to represent her. The applicant appointed her husband to represent her in the proceedings.
8.  The applicant’s representative submitted comments on the expert’s opinions on 3 August 2010 and, afterwards, several applications for the case to be examined by another court. Some of the representative’s letters to the court contained insulting expressions and he was advised that such expressions could amount to contempt of court. On 28 March 2011 the applicant’s representative also challenged the impartiality of all the judges of the Szczecin Regional Court.
9.  On 18 April 2011 the court asked the experts to supplement their opinions but they upheld their earlier conclusions.
10.  On 31 May 2011 the court ordered that the applicant be examined by doctors again. Although at first she refused the examination, it did take place. In July 2011 a further expert opinion was prepared. It did not differ in its conclusions from the earlier ones.
11.  In August 2011 the court sent the case file to an expert on psychiatry who submitted his supplementary opinion in September 2011. The expert suggested that a further opinion on the applicant’s mental health should be obtained. The court ordered the preparation of such an opinion. It appears that the applicant refused to undergo an examination at a psychiatric hospital.
12.  On 19 October 2011 the applicant’s representative was punished for contempt of court in connection with his insulting letter to the court. He was fined 5,000 Polish zlotys (PLN). The applicant’s representative appealed and his appeal was initially rejected for formal reasons but was ultimately admitted for examination on its merits. On 28 November 2012 the Szczecin Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 19 October 2011, finding that insulting remarks contained in a letter to a court should not be regarded as contempt of court. The applicant in the meantime withdrew power of attorney from her husband and started representing herself. She also repeated her application for a legal aid lawyer to be appointed.
13.  On 24 June 2013 the court sent the case file to another expert. The opinion was prepared within a month.
14.  Subsequently, the court dealt with various applications by the applicant to have a legal aid lawyer appointed, which were ultimately dismissed on 26 March 2015. The applicant lodged several procedural applications with the court, in particular challenging experts. The applicant also challenged the judges again; the presiding judge was changed following a decision of the president of the court on 20 May 2015.
15.  On 22 May 2015 the Szczecin Regional Court gave a judgment in which it dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the ZUS decision of 29 January 2010. The applicant appealed.
16.  On 27 April 2016 the applicant submitted an application challenging all the judges of the Court of Appeal. In July 2016 the court granted her request for a legal aid lawyer and one was appointed to represent the applicant before the Supreme Court.
17.  On 10 January 2017 the Supreme Court dismissed her application challenging all the judges of the Szczecin Court of Appeal.
18.  The case file was returned to the Szczecin Court of Appeal for examination. The court ordered further expert opinions on the subjects of psychiatry and occupational medicine. The applicant refused to undergo a medical examination. The expert opinions were finally prepared on 31 August 2017.
19.  On 27 February 2018 the Szczecin Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the Regional Court’s judgment.
20.  On 25 April 2018 the court granted an application by the applicant for a legal aid lawyer for the purpose of lodging a cassation appeal.
21.  A legal aid lawyer was appointed to represent her; however, the applicant requested the appointment of another lawyer. Afterwards she appointed a different lawyer of her choice and revoked power of attorney for her legal aid lawyer.
22.  The applicant’s lawyer was asked to remedy some formal shortcomings in her cassation appeal and to pay a fee.
23.  On 17 August 2018 the cassation appeal was sent to the Supreme Court.
24.  The proceedings are pending.
25.  The applicant lodged several complaints under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about breaches of the right to have a case examined, in an investigation conducted or supervised by a prosecutor and in judicial proceedings, without undue delay (ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki - “the 2004 Act”).
26.  On 4 January 2013, 17 February 2014 and 29 June 2015 the Szczecin Court of Appeal dismissed her complaints. The court, relying on Convention principles, considered that, taking into account the complexity of the case, the length of the proceedings had not been excessive. In particular, in the second of the above-mentioned decisions, the court agreed that the proceedings in the case had concentrated on the examination of the applicant’s applications for legal aid and her applications challenging the experts and judges. The applicant and her representative had been very active in lodging numerous unfounded applications and appeals, including seeking to appeal after they had been instructed that no further appeal was available under the law. The large number of those applications had made it virtually impossible to deal with the merits of the case.
27.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 17 February 2014, although no such remedy was available under the law. Her appeal and a further request to reopen the proceedings were rejected by the Szczecin Court of Appeal in May 2014.
28.  Some other complaints about the length of the proceedings were rejected as they had been lodged less than twelve months following a previous decision under the 2004 Act. On 26 February 2018 the Szczecin Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s most recent complaint about the length of the proceedings before the Court of Appeal as it had not been lodged by a lawyer.
29.  A detailed description of the relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for excessive length of judicial proceedings – in particular, the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act – is set out in the Court’s decisions in the cases of Charzyński v.Poland ((dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V) and Ratajczyk v. Poland ((dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005-VIII), and in its judgments in the cases of Krasuski v. Poland (no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V (extracts)) and Rutkowski and Others v. Poland (nos. 72287/10 and 2 others, §§ 75-107, 7 July 2015).