CASE OF GRZĘDA v. POLAND
Hearing: Grzęda v. Poland (no. 43572/18) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2021-05-19 00:00:00)
Application no.: 43572/18
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2022-03-15 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0315JUD004357218
Respondent state: POL
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;35;35-3-a;35-3-b;41
Judges: Alena Poláčková;Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;Georgios A. Serghides;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Síofra O'Leary;Yonko Grozev;Ksenija Turković
Represented by: PIETRZAK M. ; MĄCZKA PACHOLAK M.
Issue: Constitution ; 2001 Act on the National Council of the Judiciary ; 2011 Act on the National Council of the Judiciary ; 2017 Act Amending the Act on the National Council of the Judiciary of 2011 and certain other statutes
Strasbourg case-law cited: Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland [GC], no. 5809/08, 21 June 2016;Alparslan Altan v. Turkey, no. 12778/17, § 102, 16 April 2019;Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 50, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 III;Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, 23 June 2016;Baş v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, § 144, 3 March 2020;Bilgen v. Turkey, no. 1571/07, 9 March 2021;Boulois v. Luxembourg [GC], no. 37575/04, § 91, ECHR 2012;Broda and Bojara v. Poland, nos. 26691/18 and 27367/18, 29 June 2021;Burmych and Others v. Ukraine (striking out) [GC], nos. 46852/13 et al., §§ 120-22, 12 October 2017;Camelia Bogdan v. Romania, no. 36889/18, § 70, 20 October 2020;Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 54, 25 September 2018;Di Giovanni v. Italy, no. 51160/06, §§ 36 37, 9 July 2013;Dzhidzheva-Trendafilova v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 12628/09, 9 October 2012;Eminağaoğlu v. Turkey, no. 76521/12, § 80, 9 March 2021;Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 34, Series A no. 18;Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, 1 December 2020;Gumenyuk and Others v. Ukraine, no. 11423/19, 22 July 2021;Harabin v. Slovakia, no. 58688/11, §§ 118-123, 20 November 2012;Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 58, ECHR 1999 II;Juričić v. Croatia, no. 58222/09, 26 July 2011;Kamenos v. Cyprus, no. 147/07, §§ 82 88, 31 October 2017;Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, § 189, 17 May 2016;Károly Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 56665/09, 14 September 2017;Kövesi v. Romania, no. 3594/19, 5 May 2020;Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 146, ECHR 2000 XI;Kulykov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 5114/09 and 17 others, §§ 118 and 132, 19 January 2017;Loquifer v. Belgium, nos. 79089/13 and 2 others, § 33, 20 July 2021;Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 1398/03, § 92, ECHR 2006 XIV;McElhinney v. Ireland [GC], no. 31253/96, § 33, ECHR 2001 XI (extracts);Mennitto v. Italy [GC], no. 33804/96, § 23, ECHR 2000 X;Molla Sali v. Greece [GC], no. 20452/14, § 149, 19 December 2018;Muhammad and Muhammad v. Romania [GC], no. 80982/12, § 118, 15 October 2020;Naït-Liman v. Switzerland [GC], no. 51357/07, § 106, 15 March 2018;Neves e Silva v. Portugal, 27 April 1989, § 37, Series A no. 153 A;O’Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, § 199, ECHR 2014;Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, §§ 91 and 96, ECHR 2013;Olujić v. Croatia, no. 22330/05, §§ 31-43, 5 February 2009;Paluda v. Slovakia, no. 33392/12, §§ 33-34, 23 May 2017;Paroisse gréco-catholique Lupeni et autres c. Roumanie [GC], no 76943/11, § 71, 29 novembre 2016;Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 149, 20 March 2018;Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, §§ 120-96, 6 November 2018;Reczkowicz v. Poland, no. 43447/19, 22 July 2021;Regner v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 35289/11, 19 September 2017;Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 119, ECHR 2005 X;S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], nos. 35553/12 and 2 others, § 148, 22 October 2018;Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, § 269, 22 December 2020;Sturua v. Georgia, no. 45729/05, § 27, 28 March 2017;Thiam v. France, no. 80018/12, §§ 81-82, 18 October 2018;Tosti v. Italy (dec.), no. 27791/06, 12 May 2009;Tsanova-Gecheva v. Bulgaria, no. 43800/12, 15 September 2015;Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic, 8 April 2021, no. 47621/13;Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007 II;Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. v. Poland, no. 4907/18, 7 May 2021;Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, § 76, 5 April 2018
External sources: Final opinion of 5 May 2017 of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights on Draft Amendments to the Act on the National Council of the Judiciary and Certain Other Acts of Poland;Recommendation by the Committee Ministers of 17 November 2010 on “Judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities” and Appendix (CM/Rec(2010)12);Plan of Action on Strengthening Judicial Independence and Impartiality adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 13 April 2016 at the 1253rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies;Resolution 2188 (2017) of 11 October 2017 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe entitled “New threats to the rule of law in the Council of Europe Member States”;Report of the European Commission for Democracy Through Law on the Independence of the Judicial System Part I: the Independence of Judges, adopted at its 82nd Plenary Session (Venice, 12-13 March 2010, CDL-AD(2010)004);Rule of Law Checklist, adopted by European Commission for Democracy Through Law at its 106th Plenary Session (11-12 March 2016, CDL AD(2016)007);Compilation of opinions and reports of the European Commission for Democracy Through Law concerning courts and judges (CDL-PI (2015)001);Opinion of 11 December 2017 of the European Commission for Democracy Through Law on the Draft [2017 Amending Act], on the Draft (2017 Act on the Supreme Court] proposed by the President of Poland, and on the Act on the Organisation of Ordinary Courts (Opinion no. CDL-AD(2017)031);Opinion no. 10 (2007) of 23 November 2007 of the Consultative Council of European Judges on “the Council for the Judiciary at the service of society”;Magna Carta of Judges (Fundamental Principles) of November 2010 of the Consultative Council of European Judges;Opinion no. 24 of 5 November 2021 of the Consultative Council of European Judges on the Evolution of the Councils for the Judiciary and Their Role in Independent and Impartial Judicial Systems;Opinion of 12 October 2017 of the Bureau of the Consultative Council of European Judges following the request of the Polish National Council of the Judiciary to provide an oipinion with respect to the Draft Act of September 2017 presented by the President of Poland amending the Act on the Polish National Council of the Judiciary and certain other acts (CCJE-BU(2017)9REV);Report of 5 April 2018 of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers on his mission to Poland (UN Human Rights Council, document A/HRC/38/38/Add.1.);Report of 28 June 2019 of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights on her visit to Poland from 11 to 15 March 2019;Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) Addendum to the Fourth Round Evaluation Report on Poland (Rule 34) (22 June 2018)
(Greco-AdHocRep(2018)3);Reasoned proposal of 20 December 2017 of the European Commission to the Council of the European Union (COM/2017/0360);Resolution of 17 September 2020 of the European Parliament on the proposal for a Council decision on the determination of a clear risk of a serious breach of the rule of law by the Republic of Poland (COM(2017)0835 -2017/0360R(NLE));Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969
Conclusion: Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-b) No significant disadvantage;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Access to court;Civil rights and obligations;Determination (civil);Dispute);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE