CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 21 mai 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s71604A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s2D1013D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .sEBD403CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:6pt } .sD37EA1D5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:8pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCDC5DB60 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s1E2B8B97 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s99FFA883 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9CB19847 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s96FD6997 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC7411871 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sCF155EAA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .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 } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA6765C01 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-11.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFA550501 { width:6.3pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s599F5480 { 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; font-size:10pt } .sD62BB3FA { width:7.11pt; 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .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 } .sDB9EB187 { 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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s72832412 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s4B83E769 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD8909BE6 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4E142D06 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt } .s9538EC41 { height:0pt } .s693B3CF2 { width:28.5pt } .s26507CD6 { width:70.9pt } .s2B0A4443 { width:127.15pt } .s69BF3CF7 { width:68.2pt } .s8E6950B8 { width:0.75pt } .s60C5B6A2 { width:158pt } .s95C3B9D3 { width:112.5pt } .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 SOBCZYŃSKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND (Applications nos. 62765/14 and 2 others – see appended list)   JUDGMENT Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Access to court • Lack of judicial review of President of the Republic’s refusal to appoint junior judges to vacant district court judge posts despite their successful participation in a selection procedure conducted by the National Council of the Judiciary (“NCJ”) • Art   6 §   1 applicable • Genuine and serious dispute over arguable right in domestic law to a fair procedure in the examination of an application for a judicial post, including the right to be protected against arbitrary rejection • Second condition of   Eskelinen   test not met • Denying applicants, who met statutory eligibility requirements, judicial review of the refusal decision, not in the interest of a State governed by the rule of law • Decision did not contain reasons, was not subject to any form of review and bore prima facie appearances of arbitrariness • Essence of applicants’ right of access to a court impaired Art 35 § 1 • Applications introduced within the applicable six-month period following the final decision refusing to entertain the applicants’ complaints • Applicants only became aware of the ineffectiveness of the domestic remedies used after that decision • Novel and unprecedented situation with no relevant case-law indicating the impossibility of appealing against the President’s decision refusing to appoint persons put forward by the NCJ for judicial positions   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 21 May 2026   This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sobczyńska and Others v. Poland, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ivana Jelić , President ,   Raffaele Sabato,   Frédéric Krenc,   Davor Derenčinović,   Alain Chablais,   Artūrs Kučs,   Anna Adamska-Gallant , judges , and Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications against Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) – namely, no.   62765/14 lodged by Ms   Aleksandra Sobczyńska (“the first applicant”), no. 62769/14 lodged by Mr Adrian Klepacz (“the second applicant”), no. 62772/14 lodged by Mr   Rafał Brukiewicz (“the third applicant”) – all of them Polish nationals – on the dates indicated in the appended table; the decision to give notice to the Polish Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications; the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants; the comments submitted by the   Commissioner for Human Rights of the Republic of Poland, and the Polish Judges’ Association Iustitia, who were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; Having deliberated in private on 28 April 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the President of the Republic’s refusal to appoint the applicants to vacant judicial posts – despite their successful participation in a competitive selection procedure conducted by the National Council of the Judiciary – and the absence of any judicial review of that decision. It raises issues under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 2.     Although the case touches upon issues concerning the organisation of the judiciary, the material events took place before the overhaul of the judiciary, which was initiated in 2017 (for an overview, see Wałęsa v.   Poland , no.   50849/21, §§   2 ‑ 4, 23 November 2023). Most notably, all actions undertaken by the National Council of the Judiciary (which conducted the relevant selection procedures) took place before 6 March 2018 ( for details, see Reczkowicz v.   Poland , no. 43447/19, § 14 and §§ 271-78, 22   July 2021) and the composition of the Constitutional Court in the proceedings concerning the applicants did not raise the issues examined by this Court in Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. v.   Poland (no. 4907/18, 7   May 2021). THE FACTS 3.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. 4.     The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Sobczak, subsequently replaced by Ms A. Kozińska-Makowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 5.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. I.         Applications for vacant judicial posts in 2006 6 .     At the relevant time, in 2006, the applicants were working in various district courts (courts of first instance) as junior judges ( asesorzy sądowi ; for details, see paragraphs 40-43 below). 7.     Under the relevant legislation – as in force at the time in question (see paragraph   43 below) – in order to be appointed as a judge, a candidate for the post, as a general rule, had to have served as a junior judge for at least three years. 8 .     In 2006, the applicants applied for vacant posts as district court judges in Słubice, Jelenia Góra and Gliwice, respectively. After being approved by the respective general assemblies of the courts in question and by the National Council of the Judiciary ( Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa – “the NCJ”), in October 2006, June 2006 and February 2007 respectively, the applicants’ applications were forwarded by the NCJ to the President of the Republic, with a motion that they be appointed. II.       Refusal of the President of the Republic to appoint the applicants – decision of 3 January 2008 9.     In August 2007, the NCJ informed the applicants that it had received a letter from the President of the Republic stating that he did not intend to appoint them. 10 .     In November 2007, the applicants requested the President of the Republic to remedy the breach of law ( wezwanie do usunięcia naruszenia prawa ) which, in their view, had resulted from his refusal to appoint them. 11 .     On 16 January 2008, a decision ( postanowienie ) issued by the President of the Republic on 3 January 2008 and refusing to appoint nine candidates (including the applicants) to various positions in the judiciary was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Poland ( Monitor Polski ). No reasons were given for that decision. It was the first time that a President of the Republic had declined to appoint candidates indicated in the motion of the NCJ. III.     Proceedings relating to the refusal by the President of the Republic to appoint the applicants A.    Administrative court proceedings 1.      Complaints alleging inaction on the part of the President of the Republic 12 .     Having received no response to their respective requests (see paragraph 10 above), in January 2008 the applicants lodged complaints with the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court alleging inaction ( skarga na bezczynność ) on the part of the President of the Republic. 13 .     Between 25 February and 17 March 2008, the Regional Administrative Court declared the complaints inadmissible ( odrzucił skargi ). The Administrative Court’s decisions in respect of the matter in question were based on the following grounds: - under the relevant provisions of Article 184 of the Constitution and section 3(2) of the Law on Proceedings before Administrative Courts (“the 2002 Act” – see paragraph 30 below), inaction on the part of the public administration could be the subject of a complaint lodged with an administrative court, provided that the case in question fell within the jurisdiction of that court; - since, in the present case, the applicants sought to challenge the President of the Republic’s use of his competence to appoint judges, their complaints were not subject to review by the administrative courts. The President of the Republic, exercising his competence, was not considered to constitute a public administrative authority. Furthermore, the decisions of the President of the Republic in respect of the matter could not be equated with acts or actions which, like those referred to in section 3(2) of the 2002 Act, were subject to appeal before the administrative court; - the act of appointment conferred judicial authority on a candidate for the post of judge. It gave rise to a public-law relationship between that candidate and the State, which produced its effects mainly in the institutional sphere. Even though the act in question concerned a private individual, it did not fall within the scope of the administrative function; - although, under Article 10 § 2 of the Constitution, the President of the Republic represented the executive power, he was not considered to constitute a body of the public administration. The head of State had specific powers relating to the conduct of public policy and setting the direction of public actions (and overseeing the implementation of such actions). 14 .     The applicants lodged cassation appeals against the respective decisions of the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court, asking the Supreme Administrative Court to discontinue the proceedings in view of the fact that the President of the Republic had – in the meantime – ended the state of inaction by issuing the decision of 3 January 2008. In decisions dated 9 (cases no. I OSK 1873/12 and I OSK 1872/12) and 16 October 2012 (case no. I OSK 1871/12), the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the cassation appeals, terminating the proceedings. 2.      Appeals seeking the annulment of the decision refusing to appoint the applicants 15 .     After the publication of the President’s decision of 3   January 2008 (see paragraph 11 above), the applicants lodged, on 15   February 2008, appeals with the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court, seeking the annulment of the impugned decision on the grounds that it was contrary to the motions issued by the NCJ in their regard and that it was devoid of any reasoning. In their view, the decision in question was contrary to: (i)   Article   179 of the Constitution in conjunction with section 55(1) of the Act on the Organisation of Ordinary Courts ( Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych – see paragraph 27 below), (ii) the following provisions of the Constitution (and the principles derived therefrom): Articles 10 § 2 and 173 (principles underlying the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary from the executive), Articles 32 and 60 (right of equal access to public service), Article 2 (principle of a democratic State governed by the rule of law) and Article 7 (principle of legality), and (iii) Article 107 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (specifying the mandatory components of each administrative decision). 16.     In 2011, the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court declared inadmissible ( odrzucił ) the applicants’ appeals. In doing so, it relied on arguments similar to those set out in the decisions on the inadmissibility of the applicants’ complaints alleging inaction on the part of the President of the Republic (see paragraph   13 above). 17 .     The applicants lodged cassation appeals with the Supreme Administrative Court against the decisions of the Regional Administrative Court. Since, in the meantime, the first two applicants had lodged constitutional complaints with the Constitutional Court (see paragraph   19 below), the proceedings concerning the cassation appeals were suspended. 18 .     Following the conclusion of the above-mentioned proceedings by the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 20 below), the Supreme Administrative Court resumed the proceedings before it and gave decisions dated 9 (cases no. I OSK 1891/12 and I OSK 1882/12) and 16 October 2012 (case no.   I OSK 1887/12) by which it dismissed the cassation appeals lodged by the applicants, thus terminating the proceedings. B.    Constitutional Court proceedings 1.      First set of proceedings – initiated by the first two applicants 19 .     In April 2008, the first and second applicants, A. Sobczyńska and A.   Klepacz (along with one more person who was affected by the presidential decision of 3 January 2008 but who has not lodged an application with this Court) lodged a complaint ( skarga konstytucyjna ) with the Constitutional Court, asking it to declare that section 55(1) of the Act on the Organisation of Ordinary Courts (“the 2001 Act” – see paragraph 27 below) – in so far as it had allowed the President of the Republic not to proceed with their appointment without having to give reasons for his decision (despite the approval of their respective candidacies by the NCJ) – was contrary to the following provisions of the Constitution: Article 32 (principles of equality before the law and non-discrimination), Article 45 § 1 in conjunction with Article   77 §   2 (right of access to a court), and Article 60 (right of equal access to public service). The arguments advanced by the applicants in their respective constitutional complaints were as follows: - the refusal of the President of the Republic to proceed with their respective appointments had constituted an interference with the proper functioning of the judiciary; - the guarantees of the impartiality and independence of the courts and tribunals applied both to their judicial activities sensu stricto and to the procedures for recruiting magistrates; - the above-mentioned contested provision of section 55(1) of the 2001 Act was contrary to the constitutional principle of respect for human dignity. Since only the applications of candidates who had previously satisfied all the conditions for access to the posts to be filled were submitted to the President of the Republic for appointment, it followed that by refusing to appoint the persons concerned by the decision of 3 January 2008, the President of the Republic had called into question their professional abilities and damaged their reputation; - even assuming that the President of the Republic did have the authority to refuse to appoint a candidate to the post of judge, his powers in this regard should have been regulated in greater detail by section 55(1) of the 2001   Act. The fact that, despite its importance for the candidates concerned, the President of the Republic’s decision on this point was not accompanied by any reasoning and was not subject to any appeal was indicative of an obvious shortcoming in the relevant legislation; - the Constitution required that every decision by which the public authorities interfered with individual rights and freedoms be subject to judicial review. Furthermore, given that (in the event of disputes concerning the rights and freedoms of individuals) the Constitution established a presumption in favour of access to courts, any restrictions in that area could only be applied if the Constitution provided express authorisation to that effect. Furthermore, restrictions of that type were only permitted in the event of a conflict between the rights and freedoms in question and a constitutional provision of at least equal importance to those rights and freedoms. It followed from all of the above-noted principles that those of the President of the Republic’s decisions which were administrative in nature and which were decisive for individual rights and freedoms had to be subject to judicial review; - section   55(1) of the 2001 Act was contrary to the principle of equal access to public service that was set out in Article 60 of the Constitution. Since each candidate for the position of judge had to meet the most stringent legal requirements in that regard and since eligible applications were subject to prior review by the general assemblies of the competent courts (and then by the NCJ), the rejection by the President of the Republic of the applications thus selected – on the basis of vague criteria and without any justification – constituted both arbitrary interference by the President in the right of the candidates in question to equal access to public service and clear discrimination against them. 20 .     On   19 June 2012, the Constitutional Court, sitting in plenary session, gave a decision (in case no. SK 37/08) by which it discontinued the proceedings on the grounds that it was inadmissible for it (that is, the Constitutional Court) to deliver a judgment in respect of that case (that is, case no.   SK 37/08) ( umorzył postępowanie ze względu na niedopuszczalność wydania wyroku ). In the reasons for its decision, the Constitutional Court stated the following: - under Article 79 of the Constitution and the principles established in its case-law, its task was to review the constitutionality of laws and not the application of the provisions of the Constitution by public authorities; - the conclusion of case no. Kpt 1/08 (see paragraph 49 below) concerning the exhaustive and exclusive nature of Article 179 of the Constitution (which covered all issues relating to the competence of the President of the Republic in the appointment of judges) implied that all questions that might arise in connection with the President of the Republic’s possible refusal to appoint a candidate to the position of judge fell within the sphere of the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Constitution, and not that of the constitutionality of laws; - the wording of section 55(1) of the 2001 Act was identical to that of Article 179 of the Constitution; - given that, in the case under review, the applicants were seeking to challenge the President of the Republic’s use of the competence conferred on him under Article 179 of the Constitution, their appeals were outside the scope of a constitutional review; indeed, the Constitutional Court did not have jurisdiction to review the application of the Constitution by public authorities or to rule on the alleged inconsistency with the Constitution of the President of the Republic’s practice; - in addition to the above, the complaint relating to the alleged violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court (alleging the incompatibility of section 55(1) of the 2001 Act with Articles 45 § 1 and 77 § 2 of the Constitution) had been premature. On the one hand, the respective cassation appeals of the parties concerned were pending before the Supreme Administrative Court; on the other hand, no established case-law of the administrative courts on the issue was the subject of those appeals. 21 .     Three of the 15 members of the Constitutional Court expressed dissenting opinions, holding, in particular, that – given the importance of the case for the correct application of the principle of a democratic State governed by the rule of law – the Constitutional Court should have ruled on the merits of the case. One of the three dissenting members (Judge P. Tuleja) stated in his dissenting opinion, in particular, that: - the argument put forward by the majority of the Constitutional Court judges that the subject matter of section 55(1) of the 2001 Act and Article 179 of the Constitution was identical had been insufficiently substantiated. The fact that the powers conferred on the President of the Republic under the Constitution with regard to the appointment of judges constituted the exclusive competence of the President did not prevent the manner in which those powers were exercised from being regulated by ordinary legislation. Furthermore, it was clear from the wording of section 55(1) of the 2001 Act that the matter regulated therein was broader than that regulated by Article   179 of the Constitution; - the Constitutional Court had been wrong to rely so heavily on its decision in case no. Kpt 1/08 (see paragraph 49 below). Not only had the latter case differed from the applicants’ case in terms of its subject matter, but the Constitutional Court had itself concluded that there were lacunae in the legislation concerning the appointment of judges by the President of the Republic. It was precisely this aspect that the applicants were seeking to challenge. Furthermore, the legal doctrine on which the majority of the Constitutional Court judges claimed to have based their decision did not corroborate their conclusion regarding the exhaustive and exclusive nature of the provisions in the Constitution itself on all matters relating to the appointment of judges by the President of the Republic; - the applicants had indeed exhausted the remedies necessary to bring the matter before the Constitutional Court. The above-mentioned dissenting judge also made the following statement: “It is legitimate to ask what purpose is served by establishing elaborate criteria for the selection of judges and by creating a multi‑stage procedure for identifying candidates, if at the end of that process the President retains an arbitrary and entirely unconstrained discretion (in particular, unconstrained by statute). How is the constitutional role of the National Council of the Judiciary to be guaranteed if, in practice, the President may initiate a parallel assessment of candidates? The President is not bound by any time‑limit for examining the Council’s motions, and the members of the Council may never learn the reasons for a decision refusing to act upon such a motion. Does Polish law sufficiently safeguard the independence of a judge who may be required to adjudicate on the legal situation of the President – for example, in respect of the obligation to disclose public information – when that judge’s promotion depends on the procedure described above? The competence vested in the President under Article 144 § 3 (17) of the Constitution should serve to limit the influence of the Council of Ministers on the process of appointing judges and to strengthen the independence of the judiciary. To derive, from the nature of that competence, limitations on the principle of statutory exclusivity – where that principle is designed to protect human rights and the separation of powers – would produce the opposite effect: it weakens the protection of human rights and undermines the independence of the judiciary.” 22 .     The above-noted dissenting opinion, which was shared by one of the other dissenting judges, concluded that section 55(1) of the 2001 Act – in so far as it did not require the President of the Republic to give reasons for his decision to refuse to appoint a candidate to the position of judge – was incompatible with Article 60 of the Constitution in conjunction with Articles   32 and 2 thereof. 2.      Second set of proceedings – initiated by all three applicants 23 .     Following the termination of the administrative-court proceedings (see paragraph 18 above), the applicants lodged complaints with the Constitutional Court in 2013, that were essentially the same as those previously brought before it by the first two applicants. 24.     On 12 June 2013, the Constitutional Court, sitting as a single judge, gave decisions (cases no. Ts 36/13, Ts 38/13, Ts 39/13) by which it refused to entertain each complaint ( odmówił nadania biegu skardze ). In the reasoning for its decisions, the Constitutional Court observed that the decisions by which the Supreme Administrative Court (ruling as the court of final instance) had dismissed the respective cassation appeals of the applicants had been adopted in application of the provisions of the 2002 Act (see paragraph 30 below – which concerned the jurisdiction of administrative courts) and not in application of the provisions of section 55(1) of the 2001 Act (the constitutionality of which was contested by the applicants in the proceedings before it). The Constitutional Court also deemed that the complaint concerning the lack of reasoning in the President of the Republic’s decision refusing to appoint the applicants to the position of judge had become time-barred. In that regard, it observed that, since it was clear that that decision was not subject to appeal, the three-month period for lodging a constitutional complaint had begun to run from the date on which the decision in question had been communicated to the parties concerned. Lastly, the Constitutional Court reiterated that it had itself discontinued the proceedings concerning the complaints lodged by the first two applicants (see paragraph   20 above), which were similar to those before it. 25 .     All three applicants appealed, but the Constitutional Court, sitting as a panel of three judges, dismissed the appeals by decisions of 5   March 2014 (served on the representatives of the applicants on 7   March 2014). RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE I.         DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.    Domestic law 1.      Constitutional provisions 26 .     The relevant provisions of the Constitution read as follows: Article 2 “The Republic of Poland shall be a democratic State governed by the rule of law and implementing the principles of social justice.” Article 7 “The organs of public authority shall function on the basis of, and within the limits of, the law.” Article 10 “1. The system of government of the Republic of Poland shall be based on the separation of and balance between the legislative, executive and judicial powers. 2. Legislative power shall be vested in the   Sejm   and the Senate, executive power shall be vested in the President of the Republic of Poland and the Council of Ministers, and judicial power shall be vested in courts and tribunals.” Article 32 “1. All persons shall be equal before the law. All persons shall have the right to equal treatment by public authorities. 2. No one shall be discriminated against in political, social or economic life for any reason whatsoever.” Article 45 § 1 “Everyone shall have the right to a fair and public hearing of his case, without undue delay, before a competent, impartial and independent court.” Article 60 “Polish citizens enjoying full public rights shall have a right of access to public service based on the principle of equality.” Article 77 § 2 “Statutes shall not bar the recourse by any person to a court in pursuit of claims alleging infringement of freedoms or rights.” Article 79 § 1 “In accordance with principles specified by statute, everyone whose constitutional freedoms or rights have been infringed shall have the right to appeal to the Constitutional Court for a judgment on the conformity with the Constitution of a statute or another normative act upon the basis of which a court or organ of public administration has made a final decision on his freedoms or rights or on his obligations under the Constitution.” Article 126 “1. The President of the Republic of Poland shall be the supreme representative of the Republic of Poland and the guarantor of the continuity of State authority. 2. The President of the Republic shall ensure observance of the Constitution, and safeguard the sovereignty and security of the State and the inviolability and integrity of its territory. 3. The President shall exercise his duties within the scope of and in accordance with the principles specified in the Constitution and statutes.” Article 144 “1. The President of the Republic, exercising his constitutional and statutory authority, shall perform official acts. 2. Official acts of the President shall require, for their validity, the signature of the Prime Minister who, by virtue of that signature, accepts accountability therefor to the   Sejm [the lower house of Parliament]. 3. The provisions of paragraph 2 above shall not relate to: ... (17) appointing judges; ...” Article 173 “The courts and tribunals shall constitute a separate power and shall be independent of other branches of power.” Article 174 “The courts and tribunals shall pronounce judgments in the name of the Republic of Poland.” Article 175 § 1 “The administration of justice in the Republic of Poland shall be implemented by the Supreme Court, the common courts, administrative courts and military courts.” Article 177 “The common courts shall implement the administration of justice concerning all matters save for those statutorily reserved to other courts.” Article 178 § 1 “Judges, within the exercise of their office, shall be independent and subject only to the Constitution and statutes.” Article 179 “Judges shall be appointed by the President of the Republic, upon a motion by the National Council of the Judiciary, for an indefinite period.” Article 184 “The Supreme Administrative Court and other administrative courts shall exercise – to the extent specified by statute – supervision over the performance of the public administration. Such supervision shall also extend to judgments on the conformity with statute of resolutions [issued by] organs of local government and regulatory instruments [adopted by] f territorial organs of government administration.” Article 186 “1. The National Council of the Judiciary shall safeguard the independence of courts and judges. 2. The National Council of the Judiciary may lodge an application with the Constitutional Court seeking that that court examine the conformity with the Constitution of normative acts to the extent to which they relate to the independence of courts and judges.” Article 187 “1. The National Council of the Judiciary shall be composed as follows: (1) the First President of the Supreme Court, the Minister of Justice, the President of the Supreme Administrative Court and an individual appointed by the President of the Republic; (2) fifteen judges chosen from among the judges of the Supreme Court, ordinary courts, administrative courts and military courts; (3) four members chosen by the   Sejm   from among its deputies and two members chosen by the Senate from among its senators. 2. The National Council of the Judiciary shall choose, from among its members, a chairperson and two deputy chairpersons. 3. The term of office of those chosen as members of the National Council of the Judiciary shall be four years. ...” 2.      The Act on the Organisation of Ordinary Courts – “the 2001 Act” (a)    Wording applicable to the case of the applicants 27 .     The relevant provision of 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”) – as worded between 12 September 2001 and 5   May 2009 – provided as follows: Section 55 § 1 “Judges of the ordinary courts shall be appointed to judicial office by the President of the Republic of Poland, upon a motion of the National Council of the Judiciary.” (b)    Changes introduced following the events concerning the applicants 28.     The Act of 23 January 2009 on the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution ( ustawa z dnia 23 stycznia 2009 r. o Krajowej Szkole Sądownictwa i Prokuratury ) amended section 55(1) of the 2001 Act (with effect from 5 May 2009) by introducing a requirement that the President of the Republic of Poland appoint judges to ordinary courts within one month of receiving the respective motions from the National Council of the Judiciary. 29 .     By a judgment of 5 June 2012 (case no. K 18/09 – see paragraph   51 below) the Constitutional Court ruled that the above-mentioned amendment was incompatible with Articles 179 and 2 of the Constitution. 3.      The Law on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts – “the 2002 Act” 30 .     Pursuant to section 3(1) of the Law of 30 August 2002 on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts ( ustawa z dnia z dnia 30   sierpnia 2002 r. Prawo o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi – “the 2002 Act”), administrative courts exercise oversight over the activities of the public administration and apply the legal remedies provided for by statute. 31.     Section 3(2) of the 2002 Act specifies the acts and measures undertaken by the public administration that may be challenged before the administrative courts – including: - administrative decisions ( decyzje administracyjne ; section   3(2)1), - various procedural orders ( postanowienia ) made during administrative proceedings (section 3(2)2), and - other acts or measures undertaken by the public administration ( akty lub czynności z zakresu administracji publicznej ) that concern rights or obligations arising from statutory provisions (section   3(2)(4). 32.     Moreover, section 3(2)(8) of the 2002 Act – as applicable at the time relevant for the complaints raised by the applicants – provided that the administrative courts also had jurisdiction to hear complaints against inaction ( bezczynność ) on the part of public authorities in respect of the kind of cases referred to in section   3(2)(1) to (4)   above. 4.      Provisions concerning the NCJ’s role in the appointment procedure 33 .     Under section 2(1) of the Act of 27 July 2001 on the National Council of the Judiciary ( ustawa z dnia 27 lipca 2001 r. o Krajowej Radzie Sądownictwa –“the Act on the NCJ (2001)”) – as applicable at the time in question, the NCJ had authority to perform the tasks set out by statutes, and in particular to: - examine and assess candidates for judicial office at the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court, as well as for judicial posts at the ordinary courts, regional administrative courts, and military courts (section   2(1)2) - submit to the President of the Republic of Poland motions for the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the ordinary courts, the regional administrative courts, and the military courts (section 2(1)(3). 5.      Procedure provided (at the material time) for the appointment of ordinary court judges 34.     The procedure for the selection and appointment of candidates to judicial office in ordinary courts comprised several stages and was governed by the relevant provisions of (i)   the Constitution (Article   144 §   3 (17)), (ii)   the 2001 Act, and (iii) the Act on the NCJ   (2001). 35 .     The procedure began with the publication of a vacancy notice in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Poland ( Monitor Polski ) by the Minister of Justice. Interested candidates who met the eligibility criteria were to submit their applications to the president of the competent court (which depended on the level of jurisdiction at which the vacancy arose) – (section 57 of the 2001 Act). 36 .     Applications deemed admissible were to first be reviewed by the board ( kolegium ) of the competent court (section 57(3) of the 2001 Act), and subsequently by its general assembly of judges ( zgromadzenie ogólne sędziów ). The general assembly was to decide on each application by vote, the results of which were to be transmitted by the president of the competent court to the NCJ (section 58(2)-(3) of the 2001 Act). The Minister of Justice was also to present his or her opinion on each of the candidates (section   58(4) of the 2001 Act). 37 .     The NCJ would then conduct a comprehensive assessment of the candidates (section 60 of the 2001 Act in conjunction with section 2(1) of the Act on the NCJ (2001) – see paragraph 33 above). The assessment would be made on the basis of the documents submitted and of the relevant criteria (including their professional qualifications, experience, and moral integrity – section 61 of the 2001 Act). Following this evaluation, the NCJ would express either a favourable or unfavourable opinion on each applicant. In the event of a favourable opinion, the NCJ was to submit to the President of the Republic a motion that the candidate in question be appointed (section 2(1)3 of the Act on the NCJ (2001)). The NCJ’s opinion would be presented in the form of a resolution adopted in plenary session – in the presence of at least half of its members – by an absolute majority of the votes cast (section 12 of the Act on the NCJ   (2001)). 38.     Under Article 179 of the Constitution and section 55(1) of the 2001 Act (see paragraphs 26-27 above), the President of the Republic would appoint candidates indicated in the motion of the NCJ. 39 .     At the relevant time, a resolution containing the NCJ’s opinion on a candidate did not have to contain any written reasoning and was not subject to any appeal (section 13(1)-(2) of the Act on the NCJ (2001)). 6.      Status of junior judges ( asesorzy sądowi ), as regulated by the 2001 Act at the material time 40 .     At the time in question (that is to say from the adoption of the 2001 Act until 4 March 2009, when the provisions in question were repealed) the status of junior judges ( asesorzy sądowi ) was comprehensively set out in sections   134-36 of the 2001 Act. 41 .     The position of junior judge was open only to candidates who had successfully completed judicial or prosecutorial training ( aplikacja sądowa or aplikacja prokuratorska ) and passed the judicial or prosecutorial examination (section 134(1)). In addition, candidates were required to satisfy the general conditions for judicial office set out in section 61(1)(1)-(4) of the 2001 Act – namely: Polish citizenship; full legal capacity; an impeccable character; and a degree in law. The 2001 Act further provided that the fact that a junior judge had taken and passed the judicial or prosecutorial examination could not serve as a sufficient basis for appointment if more than five years had elapsed since a candidate had taken it – unless the candidate had, in the meantime, carried relevant work in the field of law (of the type specified in section 61(2)-(3)) for at least three years (section   134(2)). 42 .     A candidate for the office of junior judge was required to lodge a request to be appointed ( mianowanie ) with the Minister of Justice (section   134(3)). Such an appointment was a discretionary act on the part of the Minister of Justice. Each candidate was to be required to submit a certificate from the National Criminal Register and a medical certificate confirming fitness to perform judicial duties, in accordance with the rules applicable to candidates for judicial office (section 134(3) in conjunction with section   57). 43 .     Once appointed and sworn in, junior judges would gain the right to perform judicial functions that were essentially the same as those of a fully qualified judge (section 136(2)). In order to be eligible for a (fully independent) judicial office, a junior judge had to perform his or her functions for at least three years (section   61(1)(7)). B.    Domestic practice 1.      Case-law of the Constitutional Court 44.     The issue of judicial appointments has been examined on several occasions by the Constitutional Court – notably within the context of its review of the constitutionality of the 2001 Act and the Act on the NCJ (2001). 45.     In a judgment of 24 October 2007 (case no. SK 7/06), the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional certain provisions of the 2001 Act, on the grounds that junior judges lacked independence from the Minister of Justice (for details, see Henryk Urban and Ryszard Urban v.   Poland , no.   23614/08, §§ 19-24, 30 November 2010). The Constitutional Court found that junior judges could be dismissed at any time during their term by the Minister of Justice, and that no adequate safeguards existed to protect them against the arbitrary exercise of that power. In this regard, the Constitutional Court observed that the possibility for an extrajudicial body – representing the executive and led by a political figure – to influence the career of junior judges was problematic in the light of the requirement of an “independent and impartial tribunal”. 46 .     In a judgment of 29 November 2007 (case no. SK 43/06), the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional certain provisions of the Act on the NCJ (2001) in so far as they conferred upon the NC