4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Dmitrovgrad. 5.  Between 2012 and 2014 the applicant lodged numerous complaints with the local police department concerning the allegedly unauthorised use of the plot of land near the block of flats where her family resided. She also alleged that there had been a number of assassination attempts planned against her. 6.  On 15 January 2014 the head of the inter-municipal police department forwarded the following letter to the Psychiatric and Narcological Service:
“Following receipt of numerous complaints, the [police department] asks you to examine (check) [the applicant] ... at her place of residence. Her behaviour is inappropriate. She constantly talks about conspiracies against her. Complaints lodged by residents and entrepreneurs about her aggressive behaviour have grown in number. [The applicant] might cause harm to others.” 7.  On 28 and 29 January 2014 a psychiatrist, Sav., questioned the applicant’s neighbours, asking them if they had observed any strange behaviour on the applicant’s part. 8.  On 30 January 2014 a psychiatrist visited the applicant at her place of residence. 9.  On 31 January 2014 the psychiatrist informed the police that the applicant did not have any psychiatric disorders. 10.  On 12 March 2014, in response to the applicant’s complaint, the Dimitrovgrad Town Court found the psychiatrist’s actions unlawful. The court established that, contrary to the applicable legislation, the psychiatrist had failed to obtain the applicant’s consent to a psychiatric examination and that the applicant had objected to such an examination. 11.  On 17 March 2014 the applicant asked the court to find the police’s decision to have her assessed by the psychiatrist unlawful. She considered that the decision had been arbitrary and that it had amounted to an unjustified interference with her private life. 12.  On 29 April 2014 the Town Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court found that the actions of the police had had a basis in law. The court interpreted the letter of 15 January 2014 issued by the police department as a request for information from the psychiatrist as to whether the applicant suffered from any mental illness. It further reasoned that the police had not asked the psychiatric service to examine the applicant. In 2012 the police had received numerous complaints from the applicant, who had alleged that she had been persecuted by unknown persons, and complaints from owners and employees of concession stands alleging that the applicant had destroyed their property and had disrupted their activities by making scenes. The police had conducted an inquiry, which did not confirm the applicant’s allegations. Accordingly, the police had decided to obtain information about the applicant’s mental condition. Lastly, the court reasoned that the fact that, in response to the police’s request for information, the psychiatric service had examined the applicant unlawfully had no bearing on the lawfulness of the police’s actions. 13.  On 22 July 2014 the Ulyanovsk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 29 April 2014 on appeal. 14.  On 17 December 2014 the Regional Court refused to grant the applicant leave to lodge a cassation appeal. 15.  On 26 March 2015 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation issued a similar decision in response to the applicant’s application to lodge a cassation appeal.