CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juillet 2023

.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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } Published on 28 August 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 2480/22 Ireneusz ŚLIŻEWSKI and Others against Poland and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 10 July 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants were parties to civil proceedings concerning various claims. All the applicants lodged complaints about unreasonable length of the proceedings under the   Law of 17   June   2004 on complaint about breach of the right to have a case examined in an investigation conducted or supervised by a prosecutor and in judicial proceedings without undue delay   (“the 2004 Act”). Their complaints were examined by courts sitting in formations including judges appointed to those courts by the President of Poland pursuant to the recommendations of the National Council of the Judiciary ( Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa , “the NCJ”) as established under the Amending Act on the NCJ and certain other statutes of 8 December 2017 ( ustawa o   zmianie ustawy o Krajowej Radzie Sądownictwa oraz niektórych innych ustaw ; “the 2017 Act”). The applicants complain that their cases were examined by judicial formations of the ordinary courts including newly appointed judges which gave rise to a violation of their right to an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law”, in breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. In addition, the applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about unreasonable length of civil proceedings in their cases, and under Article 13 of the Convention, that they did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in this regard.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings instituted by the applicants under the 2004 Act?   2.     If so, was the court which dealt with the applicants’ complaints under the 2004 Act an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   Reference is made to the fact that the applicants’ cases were examined by formations of ordinary courts composed of judges appointed in the procedure established by the Law of 8 December 2017 Amending the Act on the National Council of the Judiciary. In their replies, the parties are asked to refer to the Court’s judgments in Advance Pharma sp. z o.o v.   Poland , no.   1469/20, 3   February 2022 and Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, §§ 205-290, 1 December 2020.   3.     Was the length of the main set of proceedings complained of in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   In case 2450/22 reference is made to the fact that the period to be taken into consideration started on 18   September 2017 (see Wcisło and Cabaj v.   Poland , nos. 49725/11 and 79950/13, § 173, 8 November 2018).   4.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 6 § 1 concerning the unreasonable length of the main proceedings, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by Notes 1. 2480/22 Śliżewscy v.   Poland 22/12/2021 Ireneusz ŚLIŻEWSKI 1954 Szczecin Polish Andrzej ŚLIŻEWSKI 1951 Szczecin Polish Leszek ŚLIŻEWSKI 1963 Szczecin Polish Ireneusz ŚLIŻEWSKI On 18/09/2017 the applicants’ mother lodged a complaint against an administrative decision of 08/08/2017 by virtue of which her pension had been decreased. Following her death on 26/07/2020, the applicants, acting as her heirs, pursued the case in her stead.   On 09/09/2021 the Szczecin Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ complaint under the 2004 Act about the unreasonable length of proceedings (case no. III S 7/21). It sat in camera in a panel of three judges, including Ms   Gabriela Horodnicka-Stelmaszczuk, appointed to that court by the President of Poland on 28/05/2019, on recommendation of the NCJ (resolution no. 251/2019 of 06/03/2019).   On 18/03/2022 the Szczecin Regional Court dismissed the complaint against the decision of 08/08/2017. The applicants lodged an appeal with the Szczecin Court of Appeal in which they complained about the composition of the regional court.   The main set of proceedings is pending.   2. 47828/22 Nawrot v.   Poland 19/09/2022 Krzysztof NAWROT 1981 Siewierz Polish   On 13/09/2018 the applicant lodged a civil action against his former lawyer with the Katowice Regional Court.   On 01/06/2022 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed his complaint under the 2004 Act about the unreasonable length of proceedings (case no. I S 22/22, served on 15/06/2022). It sat in camera in a panel of three judges, including Ms   Lucyna Morys-Magiera, appointed to that court by the President of Poland on 04/10/2019, on recommendation of the NCJ (resolution no. 625/2018 of 11/12/2018).   The main set of proceedings is pending at the first instance.   3. 48816/22 Lambrych v.   Poland 09/10/2022 Łukasz Piotr LAMBRYCH 1984 Rzekun Polish Monika Małgorzata GĄSIOROWSKA On 16/06/2015 the applicant lodged an action for the annulment of a notarial deed.   On 31/05/2022 the Suwałki Regional Court dismissed his complaint under the 2004 Act about the unreasonable length of proceedings (case no. I S 4/22, served on 18/07/2022). It sat in camera in a panel of three judges, including Ms   Agnieszka Kluczyńska, appointed to that court by the President of Poland on 13/03/2019, on recommendation of the NCJ (resolution no. 83/2019 of 10/01/2019).   The main set of proceedings is pending at the first instance.