Abstract

The article discusses the institution of mandatory appointment by court of an ex officio attorney for a person directly covered by the proceedings regarding admission to a mental hospital or a nursing home, or a person staying in a given entity without their consent (Art. 48.2 of the Mental Health Protection Act). This topic has been discussed in connection with the expression in a judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the opinion that appointing an ex officio attorney for such a person is mandatory even if they already have an appointed attorney by choice. The article presents a different position, supported by arguments referring to the results of the linguistic, systemic and functional interpretation of Art. 48.2 of the Act.