CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 8 octobre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sD8AE9261 { width:36.9pt; display:inline-block } .s756AA39C { width:164.45pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 42668/21 I.G. against Poland and 19 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 8 October 2024 as a Chamber composed of:   Ivana Jelić , President ,   Alena Poláčková,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Péter Paczolay,   Erik Wennerström,   Raffaele Sabato , judges , and Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. 2.     The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Sobczak, and subsequently by Ms A. Kozińska-Makowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of a violation of their right to a hearing by an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” since their civil or criminal cases had been decided by various formations of the Supreme Court composed of judges appointed to that court by the President of Poland, pursuant to the recommendation of the National Council of the Judiciary ( Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa , “the NCJ”) as established under the Amending Act on the NCJ and certain other statutes of 8 December 2017 (“the recomposed NCJ”). 4.     In particular, five applicants who are lawyers had their disciplinary cases examined by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court. In one case the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court examined the applicant’s appeal against the resolution of the recomposed NCJ not recommending him to a vacant judicial post in another court. Finally, fourteen applicants had their civil or criminal cases examined by various formations of the Civil or Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court composed of judges appointed to that court by the President of Poland, on recommendation of the recomposed NCJ. 5.     On various dates in 2024 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicants agreed to waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts giving rise to these applications against an undertaking by the Government to pay to each of the applicants 10,000   euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, to be converted into Polish zlotys at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. The sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertakes to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases. THE LAW 6.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision (Article   42 § 1 of the Rules of Court). 7.     The Court further notes that the issues raised in the present cases have been examined in a series of judgments concerning successive judicial reforms in Poland initiated in 2017 which aimed to weaken judicial independence, starting with grave irregularities in the election of judges to the Constitutional Court in December 2015 (see Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. v.   Poland , no. 4907/18, 7 May 2021) and then, in particular, remodelling the NCJ and setting up new chambers in the Supreme Court (see paragraph   3 above), while   extending the Minister of Justice’s control over the courts and increasing his or her role in matters of judicial discipline (see Grzęda v.   Poland [GC], no. 43572/18, §   358, 15 March 2022). In its pilot judgment in the case of Wałęsa v. Poland , (no. 50849/21, 23 November 2023), the   Court listed several interrelated systemic problems which entailed repeated breaches of the fundamental principles of the rule of law, separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary (ibid . § 324). 8.     The deficiencies in the procedure for the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court, resulting in violations of the applicants’ right to a hearing by an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” protected by Article   6 § 1 of the Convention, have been established in respect of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court (see Reczkowicz v. Poland , no.   43447/19, 22 July 2021), the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs (see Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland , nos. 49868/19 and   57511/19, 8 November 2021) and formations of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court (see Advance Pharma sp. z o.o v. Poland , no. 1469/20, 3   February 2022). 9.     The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the applications. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 7 November 2024.     Ilse Freiwirth   Ivana Jelić   Registrar   President Appendix List of cases: No. Application no. Lodged on Case name Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of the applicant’s declaration Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant/household (in euros)   1. 42668/21 16/08/2021 I.G. v. Poland I. G. 1979 Warszawa Polish   Filip CŁAPKA 5/06/2024 11/06/2024 10,000 2. 45530/21 01/09/2021 Szewczuk v.   Poland Jerzy SZEWCZUK 1962 Zamość Polish   Sebastian KOTUŁA 21/05/2024 21/05/2024 10,000 3. 47767/21 22/09/2021 Chrzanowski v. Poland Daniel CHRZANOWSKI 1992 Sieradz Polish   Monika Małgorzata GĄSIOROWSKA 10/05/2024 14/05/2024 10,000 4. 54808/21 25/10/2021 Nowakowski v. Poland Czesław NOWAKOWSKI 1947 Warszawa Polish Olgierd SWIOSTEK 05/07/2024 8/07/2024 10,000 5. 6026/22 14/01/2022 Bujak v.   Poland Patrycja Magdalena BUJAK 1984 Lublin Polish     Sebastian KOTUŁA 10/05/2024 21/05/2024 10,000 6. 6514/22 20/01/2022 Kowarowski v. Poland Jan KOWAROWSKI 1948 Łasin Wybudowane Polish   Joanna LAZAREK 10/05/2024 21/05/2024 10,000 7. 12042/22 14/02/2022 Cieśla v.   Poland Stefan Franciszek CIEŚLA 1955 Warszawa Polish Karol TRZASKA 19/03/2024 8/04/2024 10,000 8. 13442/22 03/03/2022 Apfelbaum v.   Poland Erika APFELBAUM 1934 LA HAYE French   Agata BZDYŃ 2/07/2024 16/07/2024 10,000 9. 15450/22 16/03/2022 Wieczorek v.   Poland Danuta Zofia WIECZOREK 1933 Chicago Polish Jarosław SZYDLOWSKI 7/08/2024 29/07/2024 10,000 10. 20244/22 12/04/2022 Łakatosz v.   Poland Herchnć ŁAKATOSZ 1963 Poznań Polish   Piotr ŁUCZAK 10/05/2024 20/05/2024 10,000 11. 20745/22 12/04/2022 Włoch v.   Poland Lucyna WŁOCH 1975 Poznań Polish     Piotr ŁUCZAK 10/05/2024 20/05/2024 10,000 12. 28779/22 31/05/2022 Dechnik v. Poland Household   Zuzanna DECHNIK 1947 Biłgoraj Polish Stanisław Andrzej DECHNIK 1946 Biłgoraj Polish Monika Małgorzata GĄSIOROWSKA 02/07/2024 17/07/2024 10,000 Jointly to both applicants 13. 30091/22 10/06/2022 Fras v. Poland Mariusz FRAS 1970 Sosnowiec Polish   Piotr KŁADOCZNY 13/05/2024 25/04/2024 10,000 14. 30617/22 09/06/2022 Zdanowicz v. Poland Aneta ZDANOWICZ 1974 Bialystok Polish   Zbigniew IGNASIAK 26/07/2024 25/07/2024 10,000 15. 31800/22 10/06/2022 Leszczyński v. Poland Jacek LESZCZYŃSKI 1959 Kobierzyce Polish   Joanna MISZCZYSZYN 19/03/2024 22/04/2024 10,000 16. 34284/22 28/06/2022 Jurewicz v. Poland Justyna STASIOŁEK (name changed) 1974 Łódź Polish   Marcin GÓRSKI 26/04/2024 24/04/2024 10,000 17. 39684/22 04/08/2022 Ligenza v. Poland Tomasz LIGENZA 1962 Piła Polish   Monika Małgorzata GĄSIOROWSKA 20/08/2024 17/07/2024 10,000 18. 41368/22 20/08/2022 Buczek v. Poland Paweł BUCZEK 1985 Warszawa Polish   Piotr BARANIAK 19/03/2024 16/04/2024 10,000 19. 41404/22 20/08/2022 Kapuściński v. Poland Krzysztof KAPUŚCIŃSKI 1969 Gdynia Polish   19/03/2024 22/04/2024 10,000 20. 48825/22 11/10/2022 Lewiński v. Poland Daniel LEWIŃSKI 1979 Warszawa Polish   Monika Małgorzata GĄSIOROWSKA 20/08/2024 17/08/2024 10,000