CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 novembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s8C440983 { width:110.07pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sE3DA80B3 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 53778/20 Krzysztof Piotr SZCZEPANIAK against Poland and 13 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 7   November 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Georgios A. Serghides , President ,   Erik Wennerström,   Alain Chablais , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy 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 The list of applicants and their representatives is set out in the appended table. 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 complaints were communicated to the Polish Government (“the Government”). On various dates indicated in the appended table, the Court received the 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, subject to an undertaking by the Government to pay them the amounts detailed in the appended table. These amounts will be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, 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 Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. The Court notes that 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 various Chambers of the Supreme Court: the Disciplinary Chamber (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 (see Advance Pharma sp. z o.o v. Poland , no. 1469/20, 3   February 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. The Court has recently examined friendly settlements reached between the parties in identical cases against Poland and considers that its conclusions are directly applicable to the cases under consideration (see I.G. and Others v.   Poland (dec.), no. 42668/21, 8 October 2024). 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. 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 28 November 2024.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Georgios A. Serghides   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX   No. Application no. Date of introduction Case name Applicant’s name Year of birth/ registration Representative’s name and location Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of Applicant’s declaration Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant/household (in euros) [1]     53778/20 17/11/2020 Szczepaniak v. Poland Krzysztof Piotr SZCZEPANIAK 1984   Nowosielski Roman Gdańsk 04/06/2024 19/09/2024 10,000     8916/21 28/01/2021 Bojańczyk v. Poland Klaudyna BOJAŃCZYK 1981   Kamionowski Robert Warsaw 13/06/2024 10/06/2024 10,000     21998/21 21/04/2021 Frąckowiak-Mitura v. Poland Małgorzata FRĄCKOWIAK-MITURA 1971   Siadlak Kinga Dagmara Słupsk 10/04/2024 27/05/2024 10,000     22918/21 20/04/2021 Hetnarowicz-Sikora v. Poland Joanna HETNAROWICZ-SIKORA 1978   Siadlak Kinga Dagmara Słupsk 10/04/2024 27/05/2024 10,000     24398/21 21/04/2021 Odelski v. Poland Hubert ODELSKI 1971   Siadlak Kinga Dagmara Słupsk 23/05/2024 27/05/2024 10,000     25545/21 21/04/2021 Zielonka v. Poland Tomasz ZIELONKA 1973   Siadlak Kinga Dagmara Słupsk 23/05/2024 27/05/2024 10,000     26638/21 12/05/2021 Ejsmont v. Poland Janusz Michał EJSMONT 1977   Paduszyński Piotr Łódź 13/06/2024 13/06/2024 10,000     39887/21 30/07/2021 Salwin v. Poland Pawel SALWIN 1978   Zygmont Bogumił Marcin Warsaw 10/05/2024 07/10/2024 10,000     1510/22 13/12/2021 Michalak v. Poland Łukasz Piotr MICHALAK 1979   Weiss Mariusz Poznań 04/06/2024 20/09/2024 10,000   2809/22 18/12/2021 Szulc v. Poland Household   Piotr SZULC 1947   Wladyslaw SZULC 1941   Gąsiorowska Monika Małgorzata Warsaw 23/05/2024 16/05/2024 10,000 Jointly to both applicants   12691/22 22/02/2022 Nawrot v. Poland Ramona NAWROT 1989       08/07/2024 07/08/2024 10,000   12895/22 10/02/2022 Przedsiębiorstwo Badań i Ekspertyz Środowiska SEPO Sp. z o. o. v. Poland EUROFINS SEPO Sp   z   o.o. (name changed) 2002   Bzdyń Agata Warsaw 23/08/2024 09/092024 10,000   18490/22 05/04/2022 Jaźwiński v. Poland Stanislaw JAŹWIŃSKI 1955   Gąsiorowska Monika Małgorzata Warsaw 28/05/2024 17/05/2024 10,000   28626/22 27/05/2022 Hulsz v. Poland Edmund HULSZ 1947   Szybowska-Zunbulzanbak Katarzyna Gdynia 09/05/2024 05/09/2024 10,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.