PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 33539/02) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Polish national, Ms Emilia Bąkowska (“the applicant”), on 5 September 2002.

The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been deprived of access to the Supreme Court.

The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Słupsk.

On 5 November 2000 the applicant filed a claim for payment against a housing co‑operative of which she was a member. By a judgment of 27 February 2001 the Słupsk Regional Court dismissed the claim. The judgment was upheld on 7 September 2001 by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal. On 21 November 2001 the applicant was served with that judgment together with its written grounds.

On 10 December 2001 she filed a request with the Słupsk Regional Court to be granted a legal-aid lawyer for the purpose of lodging a cassation appeal. Her request was subsequently forwarded to the Gdańsk Court of Appeal as the Słupsk court lacked jurisdiction to deal with it. The request was allowed by a decision of 17 December 2001.

On 18 December 2001 the decision of 17 December 2001 was served on the local Bar Association. At the same time the Gdańsk Court of Appeal informed the Bar about the date on which the applicant had been served with the second-instance judgment. On 3 January 2002 the Bar Association informed the applicant that a legal-aid lawyer had been assigned to her case. By a letter of 19 January 2002 to the court the lawyer refused to lodge a cassation appeal, finding no grounds to do so. The letter read: “Having examined the file in detail, I have not found grounds for lodging a cassation appeal. The judgment given on 7 September 2001 by the Court of Appeal did not breach any provisions of substantive law. Nor were any provisions of procedural laws violated during the proceedings. The findings of fact made by the courts show without any ambiguity that the applicant had never had the right to a co-operative apartment which could be assimilated to ownership. She had admitted, both before the first-instance and the appellate court, that at the time of the exchange of apartments she had been aware that her right was only assimilable to the rights arising out of a rental contract. (...) It had been open to her to take steps in order to have her right transformed into an ownership-like right, but she had not done so. Hence, the first instance court was right in finding that the defendant housing co-operative was not obliged to pay compensation to the applicant. The appellate court accepted these findings. In these circumstances, a cassation appeal would not offer any prospects of success.”

On 23 January 2002 the applicant requested the Gdańsk Court of Appeal to assign a new legal-aid lawyer to her case.

On 29 January 2002 the court informed the applicant that she should file a request with the Bar Association for a new lawyer to be appointed. On 4 February 2002 the applicant accordingly submitted her request to the local Bar Association.

By a letter of 19 February 2002 the Bar Association dismissed the request, having found that the applicant's previous legal‑aid lawyer had been entitled to refuse to draft a cassation complaint.

On 4 March 2002 the applicant again requested the court to assign a legal‑aid lawyer to the case. On 15 March 2002 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal informed the applicant that the refusal to lodge a cassation appeal could not justify assigning a new lawyer for the same purpose.