CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 mai 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Published on 13 June 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 48530/21 Jacek KASZYŃSKI against Poland lodged on 27 September 2021 communicated on 23 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was a judge at the Bydgoszcz District Court who in 2003 retired on medical grounds ( przeniesiony w stan spoczynku ). On 24   February 2020 the applicant applied to be reinstated to the judicial post previously held relying on his improved state of health. On 16   October 2020 the National Council of the Judiciary (the “NCJ”) decided not to recommend the applicant to be reinstated to the judicial post (resolution no. 811/2020). The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court against the NCJ resolution. On 5 May 2021 the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal (case no. I NKRS 25/21). It sat in a panel of three judges composed of J.L., L.B., and E.S. appointed to that court by the President of Poland on 10   October 2018, on recommendation of the NCJ (resolution no. 331/2018 of 28 August 2018). The applicant complains that his case was examined by the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court which was not an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” within the meaning of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court which dealt with the applicant’s case an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” as required by Article 6 §   1 of the Convention? Reference is made to the Court’s judgments in Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v.   Poland , nos. 49868/19 and 57511/19, 8 November 2021, §§ 283-359 and Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, 1   December 2020, §§   205-290.