Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    Twenty-Two Cases Concerning Independence and Impartiality of Polish Supreme Court Struck Out

    Uploaded by

    Zama Vitalie
    polonezii

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Twenty-Two Cases Concerning Independence and Impartiality of Polish Supreme Court Struck Out

    Uploaded by

    Zama Vitalie
    4 views3 pages
    polonezii

    Original Title

    Twenty-two cases concerning independence and impartiality of Polish Supreme Court struck out (1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    polonezii

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    4 views3 pages

    Twenty-Two Cases Concerning Independence and Impartiality of Polish Supreme Court Struck Out

    Uploaded by

    Zama Vitalie
    polonezii

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    issued by the Registrar of the Court

    ECHR 259 (2024)


    07.11.2024

    Applications concerning independence and impartiality of Polish Supreme


    Court struck out
    In its decisions in the cases of Dudek and Lazur v. Poland and I.G. v. Poland and 19 other applications
    (applications nos. 41097/20, 39577/22, 42668/21 and 19 others) the European Court of Human
    Rights has unanimously struck the applications off its list of cases. The decisions are final.
    The cases concerned proceedings involving the applicants decided by formations of the Polish
    Supreme Court, which they alleged had not been “independent and impartial tribunal[s] established
    by law”. The applications came in the context of the reorganisation of the judicial system in Poland
    in what had been described by many observers as a “rule-of-law crisis”.
    In Dudek and Lazur the Court accepted unilateral declarations by the Government, including an
    admission of a breach of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention and an offer of
    compensation.
    In the other cases, the Court accepted the friendly settlement agreed between the parties.
    As there was no reason to continue examination, the Court struck the applications off its list.
    Currently around 700 cases against Poland on the Court’s docket concern the alleged breach of the
    right to an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law”.

    Principal facts
    The applicants are 22 Polish nationals who live in Poland and abroad.
    Background
    These decisions take place against the background of the reorganisation of the Polish judicial system,
    which has been widely described as the rule-of-law crisis in Poland. The reforms to the justice
    system were carried out between 2018-23.
    For information on how the reforms affected the Polish Supreme Court, in particular in relation to
    the new National Council of the Judiciary and its recommendations for judicial appointments, see
    the Court’s pilot judgment in the case of Wałęsa v. Poland (application no. 50849/21).
    For more information on the rule-of-law crisis and the relevant Court judgments, see Grzęda v.
    Poland, Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. v. Poland, Reczkowicz v. Poland, Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v.
    Poland, Advance Pharma Sp. z o.o v. Poland, and Juszczyszyn v. Poland.
    The current applications
    All of the applicants took cases to the Supreme Court, which had been reorganised with new judges
    appointed by the President of Poland, following recommendations from the National Council of the
    Judiciary.
    In the cases of Mr Dudek and Mr Lazur, they failed to reach a friendly settlement with the
    Government. In June 2024 the Government proposed unilateral declarations – acknowledging a
    violation of Article 6 of the Convention regarding the right to an independent and impartial tribunal
    established by law and offering just satisfaction for the damage caused – and asked that the Court
    strike these applications out. The applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with this
    proposal.
    In the cases of the other 20 applications, the applicants and the Government agreed a friendly
    settlement.

    Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court


    The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on various dates between
    2020-22.
    Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicants complained that the judicial formations of the
    Supreme Court which had examined their cases had not been an “independent and impartial
    tribunal established by law”.
    The decisions were given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:
    Ivana Jelić (Montenegro), President,
    Alena Poláčková (Slovakia),
    Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Poland),
    Lətif Hüseynov (Azerbaijan),
    Péter Paczolay (Hungary),
    Erik Wennerström (Sweden),
    Raffaele Sabato (Italy),

    and also Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar.

    Decisions of the Court


    Unilateral declaration
    In Dudek and Lazur, the Court reiterated that under Article 37 of the Convention it could at any stage
    of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases for the reasons set out in in
    that Article.
    Specifically, Article 37 § 1 (c) enabled the Court to strike a case out of its list if “for any other reason
    established by the Court, it [was] no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
    However, the Court “[had to] continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights
    as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so require[d]”. Striking out of an application
    could happen on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the
    applicant wished the examination of the cases to be continued.
    The Court found that the complaints made by the applicants were of a very serious nature affecting
    the very essence of their right to a fair trial. It noted the context of the rule-of-law crisis in Poland,
    and the reorganisation of the judiciary, and referred to the thorough examination of these issues in
    the relevant Court judgments in that regard (see list above). It reiterated its findings from Wałęsa
    that a series of interrelated systemic problems had amounted to repeated breaches of the
    fundamental principles of the rule of law, separation of powers and the independence of the
    judiciary.
    The Court took note of Mr Dudek’s and Mr Lazur’s argument that striking out these applications
    from the list would prevent them from having the cases reopened before the national courts. In
    respect of Mr Lazur’s criminal conviction, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court, it observed
    that Article 540 § 3 of the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure allowed for the reopening of
    proceedings before the Polish courts if “such a need result[ed] from a ruling (rozstrzygnięcie) of an
    international body acting on the basis of an international agreement ratified by the Republic of
    Poland”. As regards Mr Dudek’s civil case, there was no equivalent procedure set out in law for
    reopening after a ruling of an international court as there was for criminal cases so it had not been

    2
    shown that the applicant would be in a better position if the Court were to give a judgment rather
    than the present decisions. Moreover, it reaffirmed that it was for the contracting States to decide
    how to implement the Court’s judgments, in line with the principle of legal certainty.
    Having regard to this, and to the Government’s admissions and the amount of compensation
    proposed (EUR 10,000 per applicant), the Court considered that it was no longer justified to continue
    the examination of these applications. It therefore struck these applications off its list of cases.
    However, it emphasised that if the Government failed to comply with the terms of their unilateral
    declarations, the applications could be restored to the list under Article 37 § 2.
    Friendly settlements
    As regards the applications in I.G. v. Poland and 19 other applications, the Court took note of the
    friendly settlements reached between the parties – a waiving of any further claims against Poland in
    respect of the facts giving rise to these applications and an undertaking by the Government to pay to
    each of the applicants EUR 10,000 to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as
    costs and expenses. The Court was satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human
    rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and found no reasons to justify a
    continued examination of the applications. It therefore struck the cases out of its list under Article
    39 of the Convention.

    The decisions are available only in English.

    This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,
    judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive
    the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on X
    (Twitter) @ECHR_CEDH.
    Press contacts
    [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08

    We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.


    Neil Connolly (tel: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)
    Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)
    Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)
    Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)
    Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)

    The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member
    States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.

    You might also like