CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 15 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sF2E0A612 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB4B39BDE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; 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 } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sD37EA1D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:9pt } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s57F1263A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .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 } .sD0A217A5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s71220C2D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDBF374D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6B38CF35 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7C9EDFAD { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3BF0B6C7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s81EF3014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s31FAC864 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; list-style-position:inside } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s264C04A0 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt } .sEE6FCDA { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sA7186A9D { width:36.9pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s7B051ABA { width:164.45pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } FIRST SECTION CASE OF BILIŃSKI v. POLAND (Application no. 13278/20)     JUDGMENT   Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Access to court • Inability of district court judge to have recourse to judicial review of his non-consensual transfer between two divisions of the same court, each adjudicating a different area of law • Art   6 applicable under its civil head • In specific case-circumstances, existence of a dispute over the “right” of a member of the judiciary to be protected against arbitrary transfer between the two divisions of the same court • First condition of the Eskelinen test satisfied • Second condition of the Eskelinen test not met since exclusion of a judicial review of the transfer decision not justified on objective grounds in the State’s interest • Lack of independence of the reformed National Council of Judiciary • Insufficient procedural safeguards • Very essence of right of access to court impaired   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 15 January 2026 FINAL   15/04/2026   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Biliński v. Poland, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ivana Jelić , President ,   Erik Wennerström,   Raffaele Sabato,   Davor Derenčinović,   Alain Chablais,   Artūrs Kučs,   Anna Adamska-Gallant , judges , and Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   13278/20) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Polish national, Mr   Łukasz Biliński (“the applicant”), on 23 November 2019; the decision to give notice to the Polish Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning his right of access to a court, fair hearing and subjective right to judicial independence, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant; the comments submitted by the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Republic of Poland, the Judges for Judges Foundation (the Netherlands) jointly with Professor L.   Pech, the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (Poland), and the Polish Judges’ Association Iustitia, all having been granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; Having deliberated in private on 9 December 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case raises issues under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and concerns the transfer of the applicant, who is a judge, between two divisions of the same court against his will, the ensuing proceedings before the National Council of the Judiciary (the “NCJ”), and the lack of judicial review of the NCJ’s resolution in the matter. LEGAL CONTEXT OF THE CASE 2.     The instant application belongs to a series of cases concerning the overhaul of the judiciary which was initiated in 2017 and has been implemented by successive amending laws (for an overview of the Court’s case-law on the matter see   Wałęsa v. Poland , no.   50849/21, §§   2 ‑ 4, 23   November 2023). 3.     The Court has previously given judgment in cases involving various measures taken against judges (both disciplinary and criminal: see Juszczyszyn v. Poland , no.   35599/20, 6 October 2022, for an example of the former, and Tuleya v. Poland , nos. 21181/19 and 51751/20, 6   July 2023, for a case involving both). The instant case differs from the previous ones in so far as it concerns a novel issue of an allegedly arbitrary transfer of the applicant judge between two divisions of one court and the right to judicial review of the decision in that respect. THE FACTS 4.     The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Warsaw. He was represented by Ms M. Mączka-Pacholak, a lawyer practising in Warsaw. 5.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 6.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 7.     In 2005 the applicant qualified as a prosecutor. Between 2006 and 2016 he practised as an advocate. On 3 February 2016 he was appointed a district court judge at the Warsaw-Śródmieście District Court. The applicant was assigned to Criminal Division XI of that court, dealing exclusively with administrative offences ( wykroczenia ). I.         BACKGROUND TO THE CASE 8 .     Between 2018 and June 2019 the applicant examined a few hundred cases involving administrative offences relating to the exercise of freedom of assembly and expression. He ruled, inter alia , in cases relating to counter-demonstrations to a monthly commemorative event for the victims of the 2010 crash of the Polish government plane in Smolensk (“the monthly Smolensk commemoration”, see Siedlecka v. Poland , no.   13375/18, §   1, 31   July 2025) and demonstrations against the then Government’s reforms of the judiciary. 9 .     The applicant’s rulings, in which he referred to the constitutional and Convention standards of freedom of expression and assembly, attracted significant media and public interest. In public debate, the applicant’s rulings were perceived as unfavourable to the Government. Politicians from the ruling party made public statements criticising the applicant’s rulings. 10 .     At the relevant time, the Warsaw-Śródmieście District Court’s President was Judge M. Mitera, appointed to that post in February 2018 by Minister of Justice Z. Ziobro (for background information on the latter, see Wałęsa v. Poland , no. 50849/21, § 13, 23 November 2023). Before that appointment, Judge M. Mitera had been seconded to the Ministry of Justice under Minister Z. Ziobro since 2016. He also served as a member of the recomposed NCJ (for additional context see Wałęsa , cited above, § 4, and the case-law cited therein), between March 2018 and 2022, and as its spokesperson, between April 2018 and January 2021. II.       THE APPLICANT’S TRANSFER 11 .     On 3 December 2018 and 18 January 2019 the applicant requested that the President of the District Court transfer him to another criminal division of that court to enable him to deal with cases other than administrative offences with a view to broadening his qualifications and professional experience. Those requests were not granted. 12 .     On 29 March 2019 the Minister of Justice issued an order abolishing certain divisions in fourteen district courts in Poland, including Criminal Division XI of the Warsaw-Śródmieście District Court (hereinafter referred to as “the District Court”) with effect from 1 July 2019. 13.     On 17 June 2019 the Vice-President of the District Court requested the Board ( Kolegium ) of the Warsaw Regional Court (a higher court) to give its opinion on the applicant’s transfer to Family and Juvenile Division III (“the Family Division”) of the District Court in connection with the abolition of Criminal Division XI, as required by law (see paragraph   39 below). The applicant did not consent to his proposed transfer. On the same day, the applicant requested the Board to adjourn the examination of the case (scheduled for the following day) to enable him to present his observations. 14 .     On 27 June 2019 the President of the District Court informed the applicant that, owing to the abolition of Criminal Division XI and in the absence of an opinion of the Board concerning his transfer, he was to be provisionally transferred to the unit of administrative offences in Criminal Division V of the District Court with effect from 1 July 2019, pending the Board’s opinion. 15 .     On 2 July 2019 the Board decided to postpone giving its opinion on the request for the applicant’s transfer to the Family Division until the Court of Justice of the European Union (“the CJEU”) had given a   preliminary ruling in the joined cases A.K. and Others (nos. C-585/18, C ‑ 624/18 and C ‑ 625/18) concerning, inter alia , the independence of the NCJ. 16 .     On 3 July 2019 the President of the District Court decided to transfer the applicant to the Family Division of that court, with effect from 1   July 2019, in view of the abolition of the Criminal Division XI. The decision did not specify the legal grounds for the transfer. 17.     On the same day the applicant wrote to the President of the District Court requesting an explanation of the decision on his transfer which, in his view, was in manifest breach of section 22a(1) and (4) of the Act of 27   July 2001 on the Organisation of the Ordinary Courts ( ustawa z dnia 27   lipca 2001   r. Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych ; hereinafter “the 2001 Act”) applicable at the relevant time. He also pointed out that a decision on the transfer of a judge could not be taken without an opinion of the Board, and that in his case the Board had postponed giving its opinion. III.     APPEAL TO THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE JUDICIARY AND SUBSEQUENT EVENTS 18 .     On 10 July 2019 the applicant lodged an appeal with the NCJ against the decision on his transfer. He alleged that there had been: 1) a manifest breach of section 22a(1) and (4) taken in conjunction with section 31(1)(4) of the 2001 Act in that the decision on his transfer had been taken without having obtained the necessary opinion of the Board of the Warsaw Regional Court; 2) a breach of section 22a(1) and (4c) of the 2001 Act because the statutory criteria of length of service and specialisation had been disregarded, which further amounted to a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the proceedings, which were of a quasi-disciplinary nature; 3) a breach of Article 178 § 1 of the Constitution, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in that the decision on his transfer had infringed his judicial independence and breached the prohibition on the arbitrary transfer of a judge from one division to another. 19.     The applicant requested the NCJ to postpone the examination of his appeal until the CJEU had given its preliminary ruling in the case mentioned in paragraph 15 above. He also requested that Judge M. Mitera be excluded from the examination of his appeal by the NCJ. 20 .     On 15 and 16 July 2019 the applicant’s lawyers requested permission for them and the applicant to attend the session of the NCJ at which the applicant’s appeal would be examined. They also requested access to the case file. The NCJ replied that it had not decided to summon the applicant or his representative to take part in the session. 21 .     On 18 July 2019 the Polish Commissioner for Human Rights requested that the President of the District Court explain the reasons justifying the applicant’s transfer to the Family Division. The Commissioner noted with concern that: (i) the applicant was the only judge of the abolished Criminal Division to be transferred to the Family Division, with the others joining the ranks of the remaining Criminal Divisions of that court; (ii) at the same time, actions were taken to transfer an experienced judge of the Family Division, against her will, to a Civil Division of the same court; (iii) as submitted by the applicant, other judges of the abolished Criminal Division had shorter judicial experience in that division. In his reply, the President of the District Court stated that the decision bore no connection to the applicant’s exercise of his judicial functions. 22 .     On 22 July 2019 the President of the Warsaw Regional Court annulled the decisions of 27 June and 3 July 2019 on the applicant’s transfer (see paragraphs   14 and 16 above and paragraph 42 below). She found that those administrative actions had been taken without the mandatory opinion of the Board of the Regional Court having been obtained, contrary to section   22a(1) of the 2001 Act (see paragraph 39 below), and as such had been unlawful. The decision of 22 July 2019 was immediately communicated to the President of the District Court. 23 .     On 24 July 2019 the applicant’s lawyer informed the NCJ that the decision of 3 July 2019 had been annulled. She submitted that, in those circumstances, the proceedings concerning the appeal against that decision were devoid of purpose. 24 .     On 25 July 2019 the applicant’s lawyer asked the NCJ that Judges M.   Nawacki and R. Puchalski be excluded from the examination of the applicant’s appeal on account of statements they had made on the internet portal sedziowie.net. In those statements they had presented their views on the statutory conditions justifying a transfer of a judge from one division to another, with Judge R. Puchalski specifically discussing the applicant’s case. 25 .     The NCJ dismissed the applicant’s appeal by a resolution of 25   July 2019, based on section 22a(5) and (6) of the 2001 Act. The applicant’s lawyer was notified of the resolution on 31 July 2019. It did not include any reasons or information on the composition of the panel which had adopted the resolution. It would appear that the NCJ disregarded the decision of the President of the Warsaw Regional Court of 22 July 2019 annulling the impugned decision of 3   July 2019. 26.     On 26 July 2019 the President of the District Court applied to the President of the Warsaw Court of Appeal to have the annulment decision of 22   July 2019 set aside. On 16 September 2019 the President of the Warsaw Court of Appeal informed him that there were no legal grounds for setting aside the annulment decision of 22   July 2019. 27.     Despite the annulment of the applicant’s transfer to the Family Division, he was de facto assigned there. 28.     On 9 October 2019 the applicant was informed of the composition of the NCJ panel which had decided on his appeal after having filed a   request for access to that information under the relevant law. He was informed that the three ‑ member panel that examined his appeal had been composed of Judges M. Nawacki and R. Puchalski (see paragraph 24 above) and Senator S.   Gogacz. 29 .     The applicant remained assigned to the Family Division of the District Court at the time of the latest submissions. He did not submit that the transfer had resulted in a change in his salary. IV.    INTRODUCTION OF THE APPLICATION TO THE COURT 30.     On 23 November 2019 the applicant dispatched a parcel containing the original application form via the Polish State postal operator – Polish Post ( Poczta Polska ). While the parcel appears to have reached France, it was never delivered to the Court. 31.     On 24 February 2020 the Court received a letter from the applicant’s lawyer dated 17 February 2020, describing facts relevant to the application which had arisen since the dispatch of the original application form. 32 .     On 28 February 2020 the Court informed the applicant’s lawyer that no application under the applicant’s name had ever been received and that the applicant should submit a copy of the application with appendices, accompanied by documents confirming the date of the original dispatch of the application form. 33.     On the same day, the applicant’s lawyer lodged a complaint with Polish Post regarding the disappearance of the parcel dispatched on 23   November 2019. 34 .     On 2 March 2020 the applicant’s lawyer sent the Court a parcel containing a copy of the original application with appendices and documents concerning the original dispatch date, including a copy of a postal document confirming the original date of dispatch and a copy of the complaint lodged with Polish Post by the applicant’s lawyer. The parcel reached the Court on 10   March 2020 (and that date was imprinted on the copy of the application form by means of a date stamp). 35 .     On 21 May 2020 Polish Post found the complaint lodged by the applicant’s lawyer on 28 February 2020 to be well-founded, as the original parcel dispatched on 23 November 2019 was considered to have been lost in transit after having arrived in France. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE I.         DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.    Domestic law 1.      Domestic law already summarised 36.     The relevant provisions of the domestic law concerning the functioning of the judiciary and the NCJ were summarised in the Court’s previous judgments in the cases of Reczkowicz v. Poland (no.   43447/19, §§   59-70, 22 July 2021); Advance Pharma sp. z o.o. v. Poland (no.   1469/20, §§   95-104, 3 February 2022); Grzęda v. Poland ([GC], no.   43572/18, §§   64 ‑ 76, 15   March 2022); Juszczyszyn v. Poland (cited above, §§   83 ‑ 94); and Pająk and Others v. Poland (nos. 25226/18 and 3 others, § 22, 24   October 2023). 2.      The Act of 27 July 2001 on the Organisation of the Ordinary Courts (a)    Provisions concerning division of duties, including the assignment of judges to divisions 37 .     The relevant provisions the Act of 27 July 2001 on the Organisation of Ordinary Courts ( ustawa z dnia 27 lipca 2001 r. Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych ; “the 2001 Act”), before 10 August 2018, in so far as relevant provided as follows: Section 22a “1. The ... president of the [relevant] regional court, with respect to [that] regional court and to the district courts operating within [its] judicial circuit, shall determine – no later than at the end of November each year, and following consultation with the board ( kolegium ) of the competent court – the division of duties, which shall specify: (1) the assignment of judges ... to the divisions of the court; (2) the scope of responsibilities of judges ... and the manner in which they participate in the allocation of cases; ... - taking into account the specialisation of judges ... in adjudicating particular types of cases, the need to ensure the proper distribution of personnel across court divisions, the [need to] balance distribution of their responsibilities, and the necessity of guaranteeing the efficient conduct of judicial proceedings. ... 4. The president of the [relevant] court may, at any time, establish a new division of duties, in whole or in part, if justified by the considerations set out in subsection 1. ... 4a. The transfer of a judge to another division of the court requires the judge’s consent. 4b. The transfer of a judge to another division may take place without their consent if: (1) the transfer concerns a division competent to hear cases within the same area of law; (2) no other judge in the division from which the transfer would take place has agreed to be transferred; ... 4c. Subsection 4b points (1) and (2) does not apply to a judge who has been transferred to another division without his or her consent within the previous three years. When transferring a judge without his or her consent in the case referred to in subsection 4b point (2), particular consideration shall be given to the length of service of judges in the division from which the transfer is to take place. 5. Where a judge ... is subject to a change in the division of duties resulting in a modification of their responsibilities – particularly through transfer to another division of the court – they may lodge an appeal ( odwołanie ) with the board of the [relevant] court of appeal within seven days from the date on which they receive their modified duties. 6. The board of the court shall, without delay, adopt a resolution either granting or dismissing the appeal, taking into account the considerations set out in subsection 1. Prior to adopting its resolution, the board shall hear the judge [in question] ..., provided that the appeal includes such a request and the judge ... is able to attend the session of the board. Until such resolution is adopted, the judge ... shall continue to perform their previous duties.” Section 31 “1. The board of the [competent] regional court shall perform the tasks set forth in statute, and in addition: ... 4) it shall issue opinions in [staff] matters concerning ... judges of the regional court [and] judges of the district courts ...” 38 .     The Act of 20   July 2018 amending the Act on the Organisation of Ordinary Courts and Certain Other Acts ( ustawa z dnia 20 lipca 2018 r. o zmianie ustawy - Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych oraz niektórych innych ustaw ), introduced the amendments (which entered into force on 10   August 2018) to the relevant provisions of the 2001 Act, as presented in the following paragraphs. 39 .     The division of duties in district courts was henceforth to be determined by the president of the competent district court (rather than by the president of the regional court), following consultation with the board of the regional court (amending section 22a(1) in conjunction with the unchanged section   31(1)(4) of the 2001 Act, as cited in paragraph   37 above). 40 .     The body competent to hear appeals against changes in the division of duties which result in a modification of a judge’s responsibilities was also changed, with the boards of respective courts being replaced by the NCJ, henceforth the sole competent appellate body. The right to an appeal was explicitly excluded, inter alia, in cases where the transfer concerned a division having jurisdiction over the same type of cases as the judge’s previous division (section 22a(5) of the 2001 Act). 41 .     The appellate procedure (section 22a(6) of the 2001 Act) was also amended. Appeals were now to be lodged through the president of the relevant court that had enacted the contested change, who was obliged to forward the appeal to the NCJ within 14 days, accompanied by a statement of his or her position on the matter. Furthermore, it was expressly provided that the NCJ was not required to provide written reasons for its resolutions on such matters. The former requirement to hear the judge concerned before the adoption of a resolution – where they so requested and were available – was removed. No further appeal lies against the NCJ resolution. (b)    Provisions on administrative supervision by presidents of regional courts 42 .     The relevant provisions of the 2001 Act regarding the administrative supervision, by presidents of regional courts, over the administrative activities of district courts operating within their areas of responsibility, provide as follows: Section 37 “1. The president of the court may delegate tasks pertaining to internal administrative supervision to a judicial inspector, and – subject to section 37c – to the vice-president of the court, the head of division, or, in duly justified cases, to another designated judge ... Persons entrusted with internal administrative supervision shall be entitled to review judicial activities, request explanations and rectification of irregularities, and attend hearings held in camera. ... 3. The president of the court shall annul administrative measures ( czynności administracyjne ) that are unlawful, detrimental to the efficiency of judicial proceedings, or otherwise inappropriate.” Section 37a “2. The president of the regional court shall exercise internal administrative supervision over the administrative activities of the regional court and of the district courts operating within its judicial area.” B.    Domestic practice 1.      Domestic practice already summarised 43.     The relevant domestic practice concerning the functioning of the judiciary and the NCJ was summarised in the judgments in cases of Reczkowicz (§§   71-125) Advance Pharma sp. z o.o. (§§   110-69), Grzęda (§§   77-119) and Juszczyszyn (§§ 95-106), all cited above. 2.      Domestic case-law concerning admissibility of appeals against transfer of judges 44 .     On 25 September 2019 the Supreme Court, in a panel of the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs (the “CERPA”, see Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland , nos.   49868/19 and 57511/19, §§   353-54, 8   November 2021), gave a decision in case no. I NO 42/19 concerning an appeal lodged by a judge against a change in the division of her duties (that is to say, her transfer from a criminal to a civil division of the same court). The appellant alleged that the amendment to the 2001 Act which explicitly excluded the right of appeal against relevant NCJ resolutions (see paragraph   41 above) had been unconstitutional. Nevertheless, applying the impugned new wording of section 22a(6) of the 2001 Act, the CERPA rejected the appeal as inadmissible. 45.     The CERPA of the Supreme Court followed the same approach in its later decisions (e.g. decision of 9 June 2020, case no. I NO 173/19, decision of 8   December 2020, case no. I NO 76/20). II.       INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL A.    Material already summarised 46.     The relevant international material is set out in the judgments of Bilgen v. Turkey (no.   1571/07, §§ 32-38, 9 March 2021); Reczkowicz (cited above, §§   126-76); Advance Pharma sp. z o.o. (cited above, §§   170-225); Grzęda (cited above, §§ 120-67); Juszczyszyn (cited above, §§   107-29) ; and Pająk and Others (cited above, §§   54-79). B.    Council of Europe Venice Commission’s 2017 Opinion on the Draft Act Amending the 2001 Act 47 .     The Opinion on the Draft Act Amending the Act on the National Council of the Judiciary, on the Draft Act Amending the Act on the Supreme Court proposed by the President of Poland and on the Act on the Organisation of Ordinary Courts, which the Venice Commission adopted at its 113 th Plenary Session (Venice, 8-9 December 2017, CDL-AD(2017)031), read, in so far as relevant, as follows: “ 2. Powers of the presidents of the courts 121. As shown above, the [Minister of Justice] has broad powers vis-à-vis court presidents. These powers are particularly important because of the special role played by the court presidents in the Polish judicial system. 122. Article 22 § 1 (1) (b) of the Act (which remained unchanged) provides that the president ‘acts as a superior to judges’ and staff of the court. Presidents of the courts are entitled to dismiss the heads of divisions, their deputies, the heads of sections and inspecting judges – and that may be done despite the opinion of the board of the court (the amended Article 11 § 3). They are competent to assign judges to the divisions and set out their duties (Article 22a § 1 (1)). Presidents of appeal courts have the power [to] issue ‘written remarks’ to lower courts’ presidents concerning ‘errors in the management of the court’, which may entail a financial penalty (Article 37e). 123. Most importantly, court presidents have vast (and loosely defined) power related to the assignment of cases to judges, withdrawing of cases, and altering the composition of the benches. Thus, for example, under Article 45 (which remained unchanged) presidents of the courts may replace a judge hearing a case with another judge, for the sake of the ‘the efficiency of proceedings’. Under the amended Article 47 § 1 a court president may assign one or two additional judges to a case, if this case ‘is likely to last longer’. Under Article 47b (unchanged) the president may alter the composition of a bench ‘if it is impossible to hear the case in the current composition or due to a long-term obstacle to the case being heard in the current composition’ (see §§ 1 and 3). It appears that the presidents may use these powers unchecked. 124. The list of powers enjoyed by the court presidents in Poland may be continued: they order internal inspections covering ‘all activities of the court’, appoint inspecting judges (Article 37), ‘verify the efficiency of proceedings in individual cases’ (Article   37b), etc. 125. In short, in Poland courts presidents have extensive and in a number of instances even excessive powers. This is a source of concern by itself; but this is particularly worrying in the light of the hierarchical system of relations between court presidents of different levels and their subordinate position vis-à-vis the [Minister of Justice]. The Venice Commission reiterates that the [Minister of Justice] is responsible for setting and implementing penal policies and, at the same time, has vast powers vis-à-vis court presidents. In such a model, the [Minister of Justice] may be tempted to use court presidents as a channel to put pressure on the whole judiciary. 126. This danger may be attenuated if the NCJ substitutes for the role hitherto ascribed to the [Minister of Justice]. However, that solution would work only under condition that the NCJ is not itself under the total control of the parliamentary majority, and has a balanced composition, which would require abandoning the reform of the NCJ currently proposed.” C.    European Union Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber) in the case of W.Ż. (Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court – Appointment), C ‑ 487/19, EU:C:2021:798 48 .     Mr W.Ż. was, at the relevant time, a judge adjudicating at the Cracow Regional Court. On 27   August 2018 the President of that court decided to transfer W.Ż. from a second-instance civil division to a first-instance civil division of the court. Mr W.Ż. considered his transfer to be a   de facto   demotion and appealed against this decision to the NCJ. 49.     When the NCJ issued a resolution in which it decided to discontinue the proceedings in W.Ż.’s case, he lodged a further appeal with the Supreme Court (for more details of that case, see Advance Pharma sp. z o.o. , cited above, §§   144-49 and §§   214-16). While the case was pending, the Supreme Court lodged a request with the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. 50 .     On 6 October 2021 the CJEU delivered its judgment ( W.Ż. (Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court – Appointment) , C ‑ 487/19 , EU:C:2021:798) in which it made the following observations concerning the transfer of W.Ż.: “114 Transfers without consent of a judge to another court, or, as is the case in the main proceedings, the transfer without consent of a judge between two divisions of the same court are also potentially capable of undermining the principles of the irremovability of judges and judicial independence. 115 Such transfers may constitute a way of exercising control over the content of judicial decisions because they are liable not only to affect the scope of the activities allocated to judges and the handling of cases entrusted to them, but also to have significant consequences on the life and career of those persons and, thus, to have effects similar to those of a disciplinary sanction. 116 Having examined various international instruments dealing with the issue of judicial transfers, the European Court of Human Rights thus noted that such instruments sought to confirm the existence of a right of members of the judiciary to protection from arbitrary transfer, as a corollary to judicial independence. In that regard, that court inter alia stressed the importance of procedural safeguards and the possibility of a judicial remedy concerning decisions affecting the careers of judges, including their status, and in particular decisions to transfer them without their consent, in order to ensure that their independence is not compromised by undue external influences (see, to that effect, ECtHR, 9 March 2021, Bilgen v. Turkey , CE:ECHR:2021:0309JUD000157107, §§ 63 and 96). 117 In the light of the foregoing, it must be held that the requirement of judicial independence arising from second subparagraph of Article 19(1) [of the Treaty on European Union], read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, requires that the rules applicable to transfer without the consent of such judges present, like the rules governing disciplinary matters, in particular the necessary guarantees to prevent any risk of that independence being jeopardised by direct or indirect external interventions. It follows that the rules and principles recalled in paragraph 113 of the present judgment relating to the disciplinary regime applicable to judges must, mutatis mutandis , also apply so far as concerns such rules concerning transfers. 118 It is thus important that, even where such transfer measures without consent are, as in the context of the case in the main proceedings, adopted by the president of the court to which the judge who is the subject of those measures belongs outside the disciplinary regime applicable to judges, those measures may only be ordered on legitimate grounds, in particular relating to distribution of available resources to ensure the proper administration of justice, and that such decisions may be legally challenged in accordance with a procedure which fully safeguards the rights enshrined in Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter, in particular the rights of the defence. 119 As regards the context of the case in the main proceedings, the [Polish Commissioner for Human Rights], inter alia , submitted to the Court, first, that the transfer decision challenged by W.Ż[.] is considered by the latter to constitute an unjustified demotion, since he was transferred from a civil division of a regional court ruling on appeal to a civil division of the same court ruling at first instance, second, that W.Ż[.] was a member of and spokesperson for the former [NCJ] and was known for having publicly criticised the recent Polish justice reforms and, third, that the president of the court who decided on the transfer at issue in the main proceedings was appointed by the Minister for Justice on a discretionary basis under Article 24(1) of the Law on the organisation of the ordinary courts, as a replacement for the previous president of that court whose term of office was however still ongoing. Noting that the action brought by W.Ż[.] against that transfer decision was discontinued by the resolution at issue, the [Commissioner] also stated, in that context, echoing the doubts expressed by the referring court in that regard, that the new [NCJ] which adopted that resolution did not constitute an independent body. 120 Although it does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court, hearing, as in the case, a request for a preliminary ruling, to confirm the extent to which those circumstances, or certain of them, have in fact been established, it remains, in any event, in order to ensure the possibility of an effective judicial remedy in respect of a decision to transfer a judge without consent, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, necessary for an independent and impartial tribunal established by law to be able, in accordance with a procedure that fully safeguards the rights enshrined in Articles   47 and 48 of the Charter, to review the validity of that decision and that of the decision not to adjudicate of a body such as the [NCJ] concerning the challenge brought against that transfer decision.” THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION as regards the review of the decision on the applicant’s TRANSFER 51 .     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right to safeguard and respect his individual independence by the State authorities and his right to have the decision on his transfer reviewed by an independent and impartial body had not been respected in the proceedings concerning his transfer, both as regards the proceedings held before the NCJ and in so far as there had been no judicial review of the NCJ’s resolution of 25   July 2019 dismissing his appeal against the transfer. The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” Admissibility 1.      Applicability of Article 6 of the Convention, under its civil head, to a dispute concerning a judge’s transfer to another division within one court (a)    The parties’ submissions (i)       The Government’s submissions 52 .     The Government contended that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was not applicable under its civil limb to the proceedings at issue. Firstly, they argued that there was no subjective right for a judge “to hold a specific position in a particular court” under Polish law. Secondly, the Government contended that the right claimed by the applicant was not of civil but of a public-law nature, and thus excluded from the scope of application of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention under the conditions specified in the case of   Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC] (no.   63235/00, ECHR   2007-II). In that context, the Government submitted that both criteria under the Eskelinen test were satisfied as (1) the domestic law expressly excluded judicial review of NCJ resolutions on appeals lodged by judges against the division of their duties, including transfer to other divisions within a court, and (2) this exclusion had been justified on objective grounds in the State’s interest, specifically to ensure the efficient and effective management of judicial personnel. (ii)     The applicant’s submissions 53.     The applicant responded by maintaining that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil limb was applicable to the impugned proceedings. He conceded that domestic law did not provide for a judge’s subjective right to hold a specific position in a particular court but contended that he had never relied upon such a right. Instead, he relied on the right to have his individual independence respected and safeguarded as well as the procedural right of access to a court in case of arbitrary changes to his professional situation, which in his case concerned a transfer to another division within the District Court. Concerning the nature of the right at issue, the applicant referred to the Court’s Eskelinen case-law applying Article 6 of the Convention to various disputes regarding judges. The applicant conceded that the first condition of the Eskelinen test had been met (in so far as no judicial review of the transfer decision was available under domestic law) but disagreed as to the allegedly justified character of the exclusion. In that context, the applicant submitted that he had never contested the need for court presidents to undertake administrative or managerial decisions aimed at ensuring the proper administration of justice, and argued that those decisions, in so far as they pertained to the assigning of judicial duties to individual judges, should be subject to strict review by an independent court. Such review should take into account the observance of procedural rules in order to exclude arbitrariness and any lack of compliance with applicable laws. Against that background, the applicant argued that, in his view, the Government had not only failed to demonstrate any objective reasons which would justify the exclusion of judicial review but, on the contrary, that the following circumstances of his case reinforced the necessity of guaranteeing him the right to a court: (i) the arbitrary appointment of the President of the District Court by the Minister of Justice, (ii) violations of procedure regarding the decision on the applicant’s transfer, and (iii) the examination of his appeal by the recomposed NCJ also being in breach of the applicable laws and the principles of fairness and independence. (iii)    Further submissions from the parties 54 .     In his additional submissions, the applicant relied on what he deemed to be newly discovered factual information regarding his case, namely press articles published on 17 May 2022 which reported that, back in 2019, judges with links to the Ministry of Justice discussed the applicant’s case in a group chat on a messaging application. According to the articles, on 2   March 2019, one member of the group wrote: “Do something about that Biliński.” In response, another member, identified by the journalists as Judge M. Mitera (that is, the President of the District Court – see paragraph   10 above), reportedly replied: “I will transfer him to the Family [Division]... or [rather] to the MoJ [Ministry of Justice]?”. 55.     The applicant submitted that the discussion took place at a time when the applicant was still adjudicating in the Criminal Division XI of the District Court and gave judgments acquitting protesters participating in anti-Government events and assemblies. 56.     Based on the above, the applicant contended that the messages published by the media demonstrated the true motives underlying his transfer. The applicant emphasized that the correspondence took place before the order of the Minister of Justice abolishing Criminal Division XI, in which the applicant adjudicated (see paragraph   12 above). 57.