CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 janvier 2024

.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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } Published on 29 January 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 3423/22 Rafał ZIELIŃSKI against Poland and 7 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 9 January 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are lawyers exercising professions of barristers, legal advisers, or public notaries. On the dates indicated in the table they received disciplinary punishments of admonition, fine, suspension, or prohibition to practice their profession. The applicants appealed to the Supreme Court against the decisions of the disciplinary courts. On various dates the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed their appeals. On each occasion the appeal was examined by a panel composed of Disciplinary Chamber’s judges appointed to that Chamber by the President of Poland on 19 September 2018, pursuant to the recommendation (resolution no.   317/2018 of 23 August 2018) 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 the Disciplinary Chamber which examined their cases was not an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court which dealt with the applicants’ cases 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 Reczkowicz v.   Poland , no.   43447/19, 22 July 2021, §§ 225-284, and Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v.   Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, 1 December 2020, §§ 205-290.     APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Applicant Represented by Address Notes 1. 3423/22 Zieliński v. Poland Rafał ZIELIŃSKI   Pan Mecenas Rafał Zieliński Kancelaria Adwokacka Al. Solidarności 94/30 01-016 Warszawa POLAND The applicant is a barrister ( adwokat ). On 20 February 2019 the Warsaw Bar Chamber Disciplinary Court imposed a disciplinary penalty on the applicant (a fine). On 14 September 2019 the Warsaw High Disciplinary Court of the Bar dismissed his appeal. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. On 9 June 2021 the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal sitting as a panel of three judges of the Disciplinary Chamber: T. Przesławski, J   Majchrowski, P.S. Niedzielak (case no. II DK 46/21). The decision was notified to the applicant on 28   June 2021. 2. 12042/22 Cieśla v. Poland Stefan Franciszek CIEŚLA   Pan Stefan Cieśla ul. Chłodna 22a, lok. 9 10 00-891 Warszawa POLAND The applicant is a legal adviser ( radca prawny ). On 19 August 2019 the Warsaw Regional Disciplinary Court of the Regional Chamber of Legal Advisers ( Okręgowy Sąd Dyscyplinarny Okregowej Izby Radców Prawnych ) imposed a disciplinary penalty on the applicant (a fine). His appeal was dismissed on 22 October 2020 by the High Disciplinary Court of the National Chamber of Legal Advisers ( Wyższy Sąd Dyscyplinarny Krajowej Izby Radców Prawnych ). The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. On 14 September 2021 the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed his cassation appeal sitting as a panel of three judges of the Disciplinary Chamber: R. Witkowski, K.   Wytrykowski, P. Zubert (case no. II DK 80/21)   3. 15188/22 Zielińska v. Poland Ilona Elżbieta ZIELIŃSKA   Pani Ilona Zielińska Al. Komisji Edukacji Narodowej 47/180 02-797 Warszawa POLAND The applicant was a public notary. On 23 March 2021 the Warsaw Disciplinary Court of the Notary Chamber ( Sąd Dyscyplinarny Izby Notarialnej ) imposed a disciplinary penalty on the applicant. She was prohibited to practice as a notary. On 21 July 2021 the Higher Disciplinary Court of National Notary Chamber ( Wyższy Sąd Dyscyplinarny przy Krajowej Radzie Notarialnej ) in Warsaw upheld this ruling. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. On 20 January 2022 the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal sitting as a panel of three judges of the Disciplinary Chamber: M. Bednarek, J.   Duś, J. Wygoda (case no. II DK 129/21).   4. 23664/22 Prokop v. Poland Tomasz PROKOP Krzysztof DMOWSKI Pan Mecenas Krzysztof Dmowski ul. Pańska 73 00-827 Warszawa POLOGNE The applicant is a legal adviser. On 13 December 2019 the Warsaw Regional Disciplinary Court of the Regional Chamber of Legal Advisers imposed a disciplinary penalty on the applicant (he was suspended for an unspecified period). The applicant appealed. On 8   June 2021 the High Disciplinary Court of the National Chamber of Legal Advisers amended the first instance decision and suspended the applicant for a period of three years. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.   On 9 February 2022 the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded sitting as a panel of three judges of the Disciplinary Chamber: J. Duś, M. Bednarek, P.S. Niedzielak (case no. II DK 141/21).   5. 31800/22 Leszczyński v. Poland Jacek LESZCZYŃSKI   Pan Jacek Leszczyński ul. Św. Wojciecha 4 55-040 Kobierzyce POLOGNE The applicant is a barrister. On 8 April 2021 the Wrocław Bar Chamber Disciplinary Court imposed a disciplinary penalty on the applicant (suspension for a period of one year). On 28 July 2021 the High Disciplinary Court amended the ruling and suspended the applicant for a period of four years. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. On 15 March 2022 the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal sitting as a panel of three judges of the Disciplinary Chamber: A. Tomczyński, R.   Witkowski, J. Wygoda (case no. II DK 8/22)     6. 34284/22 Jurewicz v. Poland Justyna JUREWICZ   Pani Justyna Jurewicz ul. Nawrot 21 m. 30 90-061 Łódź Poland The applicant is a barrister. On 28 February 2019 the Łódź Bar Chamber Disciplinary Court imposed a disciplinary penalty on the applicant (suspension for a period of two years). On 14 November 2020 the High Disciplinary Court of the Bar dismissed her appeal. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. On 15 March 2022 the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed her cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded sitting as a panel of three judges of the Disciplinary Chamber: A.   Tomczyński, R. Witkowski, J. Wygoda (case   no. II DK 150/21).     7. 41368/22 Buczek v. Poland Paweł BUCZEK   Pan Mecenas Paweł Buczek ul. Nowogrodzka 31 00-511 Warszawa POLOGNE The applicant is a barrister. On 17 September 2018 the Warsaw Bar Chamber Disciplinary Court imposed a disciplinary penalty on the applicant (a fine). The applicant appealed. On 4   February 2021 the Warsaw High Disciplinary Court of the Bar dismissed his appeal. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. On 20 April 2022 the Supreme Court dismissed his cassation appeal sitting as a panel of three judges of the Disciplinary Chamber: P. Zubert, K.   Wytrykowski, M. Bednarek (case no. II DK 138/21).   8. 41404/22 Kapuściński v. Poland Krzysztof KAPUŚCIŃSKI   Pan Krzysztof Kapuściński ul. Buraczana 6a/17 81-587 Gdynia Poland The applicant is a barrister. On 28 April 2017 the Gdańsk Warsaw Bar Chamber Disciplinary Court imposed a disciplinary penalty on the applicant (an admonition, upomnienie ). The applicant appealed. On 12 December 2020 the Warsaw High Disciplinary Court of the Bar dismissed his appeal. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. On 20 April 2022 the Supreme Court dismissed his cassation appeal sitting as a panel of three judges of the Disciplinary Chamber: R. Witkowski, K. Wytrykowski, J. Wygoda (case no. II DK 151/21).