5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Vrbovec. 6.  On 16 July and 30 August 2013 the applicant was indicted in the Ivanić-Grand Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Ivanić-Gradu – hereinafter “the Municipal Court”) on charges of uttering serious threats to his neighbours. 7.  Following an expert report into the applicant’s mental condition at the time of the commission of the alleged offences, on 2 January 2014 the relevant State Attorney’s Office amended the indictments, arguing that he had committed the offences in a state of mental derangement caused by paranoid schizophrenia which he had been suffering from for a number of years. It also asked that he be placed in a psychiatric hospital in accordance with the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders Act. 8.  In the meantime, on 26 November 2013 the Municipal Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention on the grounds that he might reoffend. He was detained on 30 November 2013 and on 2 December 2013 he was placed in the Zagreb Prison hospital for treatment. During the proceedings, his pre‑trial detention was extended several times. 9.  The applicant challenged the orders for his detention before the Velika Gorica County Court (Županijski sud u Velikoj Gorici), which on 12 December 2013 and 13 January 2014 dismissed his appeals as ill‑founded. Judge LJ.B. took part in these decisions as a member of the appeal panel of the Velika Gorica County Court. 10.  On 14 January 2014 the Municipal Court found that the applicant had committed the offence of uttering serious threats against his neighbours in a state of mental derangement and that he posed a threat to others. On this basis, the court ordered his internment in a psychiatric institution, in accordance with the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders Act. The court also decided that he would remain detained until the judgment became final. 11.  The applicant challenged the first-instance judgment by lodging an appeal with the Velika Gorica County Court. He also challenged the decision to detain him until the judgment became final. 12.  On 23 January 2014 the Velika Gorica County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision to detain him until the judgment became final. Judge LJ.B. took part in this decision as a member of a three‑judge panel. 13.  On 3 March 2014 a three-judge panel of the Velika Gorica County Court, on which Judge LJ.B. was sitting, dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the first-instance judgment of the Municipal Court, which thereby became final. 14.  The applicant challenged the judgment of the Velika Gorica County Court by lodging a request for extraordinary review of a final judgment with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) and a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske). He alleged in particular a lack of impartiality on the part of the Velika Gorica County Court, given Judge LJ.B.’s previous involvement in his case. 15.  On 4 June 2014 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s request for extraordinary review on the grounds that there was no reason to call the impartiality of Judge LJ.B into question. 16.  On 20 May 2015 the Constitutional Court upheld these findings and dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint as unfounded. 17.  After the criminal court’s judgment became final, on 19 March 2014 the file was forwarded to the Zagreb County Court (hereinafter “the County Court”) as the court with competence to rule on the applicant’s involuntary placement in a psychiatric hospital under the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders Act (see paragraphs 34 and 36 below). The file also contained submissions made by F.Ž., the applicant’s lawyer in the criminal proceedings. At that time, the applicant was still being held in the prison hospital (see paragraph 8 above). 18.  On the same day the County Court opened the proceedings for the applicant’s committal to a psychiatric hospital. In the decision opening the proceedings, it noted that the applicant was represented by a legal aid lawyer, R.T. 19.  On 21 March 2014 the County Court found that the applicant had not appointed a lawyer to represent him in the proceedings and, as legal representation was mandatory, it appointed him a legal aid lawyer, T.Ž. 20.  On 10 April 2014 it committed the applicant to Vrapče Psychiatric Hospital (hereinafter “the hospital”) for a period of six months, starting from 3 May 2014. 21.  On 28 July 2014 the hospital asked the County Court to extend the applicant’s involuntary psychiatric confinement on the grounds that the treatment had started to show positive results but had been short, so further treatment was needed. 22.  Upon receipt of the request, the County Court opened the proceedings for the applicant’s further involuntary placement in the hospital and appointed the legal aid lawyer T.Ž. to represent him in the proceedings. 23.  On 30 July 2014 the judge conducting the proceedings visited the applicant in the hospital. According to a note of the visit, it was possible to communicate with the applicant, he was engaged in therapeutic activities, his mother had been visiting him and he wanted to be given the possibility to take occasional therapeutic leave from the hospital. The note also indicated that T.Ž. had attended the meeting. There is no indication that she asked any questions or otherwise addressed the applicant or the judge during the meeting. 24.  On 7 August 2014 the County Court ordered an expert report from S.H., a psychiatrist from a different psychiatric hospital to the one in which the applicant was placed, concerning the possibility of granting the applicant therapeutic leave. S.H. was of the opinion that short-term therapeutic leave from the hospital could be granted. 25.  On 20 August 2014 F.Ž., the lawyer who had represented the applicant in the criminal proceedings before the Municipal Court, sent a request to the hospital for information concerning the applicant’s treatment. He stressed that all his previous attempts to contact the hospital had been to no avail. He asked the hospital to consider the possibility of releasing the applicant, as his parents had been actively engaged in finding him employment. This letter appears to have only been received by the County Court on 18 December 2014. 26.  Meanwhile, on 27 August 2014 the County Court held a hearing, which was attended by representatives of the hospital and the State Attorney’s Office, as well as the applicant’s legal aid lawyer T.Ž. Those present at the hearing agreed that the applicant should be granted short-term therapeutic leave. The representative of the hospital reiterated its request for the applicant’s further psychiatric confinement (see paragraph 21 above) and the judge conducting the proceedings read out the note of her visit to the applicant (see paragraph 23 above). The representative of the State Attorney’s Office agreed with the request. The legal aid lawyer T.Ž. also agreed with the request, and made no other submissions at the hearing. 27.  On the same day the County Court ordered the applicant’s involuntary hospitalisation for a further period of one year. It referred to the judge’s meeting with the applicant (see paragraph 23 above) and noted that neither the representative of the State Attorney’s Office nor the applicant’s legal aid lawyer opposed the hospital’s request. At the same time, the County Court granted the applicant therapeutic leave for the period between 28 and 31 August 2014. 28.  The applicant’s father, on behalf of the applicant, challenged the decision on his son’s further involuntary hospitalisation before a three-judge panel of the County Court. He contended that the applicant’s family had never been informed that his psychiatric confinement would be extended, and had only accidentally learned of his further confinement after inspecting the case file in the County Court. The applicant’s father also complained of ineffective legal representation in the proceedings. 29.  On 19 December 2014 a three-judge panel of Zagreb County Court dismissed the appeal as ill-founded on the grounds that a lawyer had been duly appointed to represent the applicant in the proceedings concerning his involuntary hospitalisation. 30.  The applicant’s father then lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court, arguing that the legal aid lawyer appointed for his son in the proceedings before the County Court had acted as an extended arm of the institutions rather than a lawyer protecting his interests. 31.  On 3 June 2015 the Constitutional Court dismissed the constitutional complaint, endorsing the reasoning of the three-judge panel of the County Court. 32.  In the meantime, on 22 May 2015 the applicant, through his chosen representative F.Ž., asked to be released from the hospital. 33.  On 24 August 2015, following a further examination of the applicant’s situation, the County Court ordered the applicant’s conditional release from the hospital.