CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 juillet 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB03BA0D8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sF0CCDA9D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:center } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B422553 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD35422B1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sB217F55E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Published on 26 August 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 56930/21 Paweł BANDURSKI against Poland and 25 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 15 July 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants were parties to various proceedings (civil, criminal, administrative and concerning pre-trial detention [1] ). All except for 2   applicants [2] had their cases examined by courts of first or second instance in a formation including judges seconded to those courts in accordance with a decision of the Minister for Justice pursuant to Article 77 of the Law on the organisation of the ordinary courts ( ustawa o z dnia 27 lipca 2001- Prawo o ustroju sadów powszechnych ). In addition, four applicants had their cases examined by courts of first instance sitting either in a single-judge formation composed of a court assessor [3] (i.e. a trainee judge) or in a panel of three judges including a court assessor [4] . According to the relevant regulations, the court assessors are appointed judges by the President of the Republic of Poland upon recommendation 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 and of the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court including 1) judges seconded to those courts by decision of the Minister for Justice 2) and/or court assessors whose upcoming appointments as judges were dependant on the recommendation of the NCJ which gave rise to a violation of their right to an “independent and impartial tribunal”, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the court which dealt with the applicants’ cases (with the exception of the case of the applicant Nieckarz (see question 2 below)) 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 courts in formations including 1) judges who were seconded to those courts in accordance with a decision of the Minister for Justice 2) and/or court assessors whose upcoming appointments as judges were dependent on the recommendation of the NCJ. 2.     Was the procedure in which the Warsaw Regional Court, on 14 March 2022, extended the applicant’s ( Nieckarz , no. 47791/22) pre-trial detention (case no. VIII Kp 278/22) in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, was the body which examined the case at first instance a “court” within the meaning of this provision? Reference is made to the fact that the applicant’s case was examined by the Warsaw Regional Court sitting in a single judge formation composed of a judge who was seconded to this court in accordance with a decision of the Minister for Justice. ADDITIONAL QUESTION IN Gęsiak v. Poland (no. 38324/22) 3.     Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Rutkowski and Others v. Poland , nos. 72287/10 and 2 others, 7 July 2015)? ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS IN Nieckarz v. Poland (no. 47791/22) 4.     Was the procedure in which the Warsaw Regional Court, on 14 March 2022, extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention (case no. VIII Kp 278/22) in conformity with Article   5 §   4 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms between the applicant and the prosecution respected in the present case notably in terms of access to the case file? 5.     Did the length of the proceedings initiated by the applicant’s appeal against the extension order of 14 March 2022 and concluded by decision of the Warsaw Court of Appeal of 13 May 2022 (case no. II AKz 433/22), comply with the “speed” requirement of Article   5 §   4 of the Convention (see Frasik v. Poland , no. 22933/02, §§ 64-66, ECHR 2010 (extracts))? ADDITIONAL QUESTION IN G.T. v. Poland (no. 16585/23) 6.     Was the formation of the Criminal Chamber 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 Advance Pharma sp. z o.o v. Poland , no.   1469/20, §§ 294-351, 3   February 2022; Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v.   Poland , nos. 49868/19 and 57511/19, §§ 283-359, 8 November 2021, and Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, §§ 205-290, 1   December 2020. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS IN Nawrot v. Poland (no. 36567/23) 7.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings instituted by the applicant under the 2004 Act? 8.     If so, was the court which dealt with the applicant’s complaint under the Act of 17 June 2004 about a 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 ( ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki – “the 2004 Act”) and the judicial panel of the Szczecin Court of Appeal which examined the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the same court of 31 May 2023, 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 applicant’s case was examined by a formation 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. 9.     Did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? Reference is made to the fact that his appeal against the judgment of 10 February 2023 was left unexamined on the ground that it had allegedly not been prepared by a lawyer.   APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by Notes 1. 56930/21 Bandurski v. Poland 12/11/2021 Paweł BANDURSKI 1980 Wrocław Polish Marcin ANDREASIK On 14/02/2020 the Nisko District Court convicted the applicant of drug trafficking as well as trading in pharmaceutical products without a licence, and sentenced him to 3 years’ imprisonment.   On 10/11/2020 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgement (case no. II Ka 148/20). It sat in a panel of three judges, including Mr Tomasz Turbak, who had been seconded to that court in accordance with a decision of the Minister for Justice.   On 18/05/2021 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded. 2. 8180/22 Machnik v. Poland 29/01/2022 Robert MACHNIK 1976 Wodzisław Śląski Polish   On 10/02/2020 the applicant lodged a civil action against the State Treasury, seeking compensation for allegedly excessive length of separate civil proceedings. On 16/10/2020 the Racibórz District Court dismissed the claim (case no. I C 529/20). It sat in a single-judge formation, composed of Mr Marek Łukaszek – a court assessor ( asesor sądowy ), appointed to that court on 04/12/2017.   On 09/09/2021 the Rybnik Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that judgment (case no. II Ca 474/20). It sat in a single-judge formation, composed of Mr Piotr Pukowiec, who had been seconded to that court in accordance with a decision of the Minister of Justice.     3. 10042/22 Nawrot v. Poland 09/02/2022 Krzysztof NAWROT 1981 Siewierz Polish   On 02/03/2015 the applicant lodged a civil action against a newspaper publisher, seeking compensation for alleged defamation. On 30/10/2018 the Warsaw Regional Court partially allowed the applicant’s claim and awarded him 50,000 Polish złotys (PLN; approximately 11,550 euros (EUR)) plus interest.   On 17/06/2020 the Warsaw Court of Appeal reversed the first-instance judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim entirely (case no. I ACa 167/19). It sat in a panel of three judges, including Ms Agnieszka Wachowicz-Mazur, who had been seconded to that court in accordance with a decision of the Minister for Justice.   On 30/06/2021 the Supreme Court refused to entertain the applicant’s cassation appeal (served on 23/08/2021). 4. 13005/22 Wołowiec v. Poland 04/03/2022 Waldemar WOŁOWIEC 1970 Czarne Polish Tomasz MOSKAL On 21/11/2019 the Wrocław Regional Court convicted the applicant of battery resulting in someone’s death and sentenced him to 8 years’ imprisonment (case no. III K 409/18). It sat in a single-judge formation, composed of Ms Dobromira Myszakowska, who had been seconded to that court in accordance with a decision of the Minister for Justice.   On 10/06/2020 the Wrocław Court of Appeal slightly amended the legal characterisation of the applicant’s offences and upheld the sentence.   On 15/09/2021 the Supreme Court quashed the part of the appellate judgment increasing the amount of compensatory damages ( nawiązka ) to be paid to the family of the victim and dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s cassation appeal. 5. 16501/22 Network sp. z o.o. w upadłości v. Poland 21/03/2022 NETWORK SP. Z O.O. W UPADŁOŚCI Tarnów Polish   On 24/09/2020 the Kraków-Śródmieście District Court declared the applicant company insolvent.   On 22/09/2021 the Kraków Regional Court dismissed the applicant company’s appeal against that decision (case no. XII Gz 192/21). It sat in a panel of three judges, including Ms Berenika Rusek, who had been seconded to that court in accordance with a decision of the Minister of Justice. 6. 18085/22 Chrapiński v. Poland 31/03/2022 Michał CHRAPIŃSKI 1990 Warszawa Polish Piotr ZEMŁA On 23/10/2020 the Siedlce District Court convicted the applicant of robbery and sentenced him to 2 years’ imprisonment.   On 12/03/2021 the Siedlce Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment (case no. II Ka 5/21). It sat in a panel of three judges, including Mr Paweł Mądry, who had been seconded to that court in accordance with a decision of the Minister of Justice.   On 05/10/2021 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal against that judgment as manifestly ill-founded.   7. 19669/22 Wydra v. Poland 07/04/2022 Bartłomiej WYDRA 1996 Lipa Polish Krzysztof BEDNARZ On 08/06/2021 the Stalowa Wola District Court convicted the applicant of causing bodily harm to another person and fined him PLN 1,500 (approximately EUR 350).   On 14/12/2021 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court changed the sentence to 1 year’s imprisonment suspended for a probationary period of 3 years (case no. II Ka 237/21). It sat in a single-judge formation, composed of Mr Tomasz Turbak who had been seconded to that court in accordance with a decision of the Minister of Justice. 8. 30230/22 Cudziło v. Poland 06/06/2022 Mariusz CUDZIŁO 1977 Gostynin Polish   On 01/07/2021 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court ordered the seizure of certain objects used by the applicant to commit an offence for which he had been convicted. On 07/09/2021 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal partly quashed that decision and remitted the case.   On 21/10/2021 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court ordered that specific objects be returned to the applicant (case no. II K 70/17). It sat in a single-judge formation, composed of Mr Tomasz Turbak, who had been seconded to that court in accordance with a decision of the Minister of Justice.   On 02/12/2021 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision (served on 07/12/2021). 9. 31079/22 Kandybowicz v. Poland 08/07/2022 Kamil KANDYBOWICZ 1988 Biskupiec Polish   On 10/12/2021 the Olsztyn District Court dismissed a civil claim lodged by the applicant against the State Treasury (case no. I C 1666/21). It sat in a single-judge formation, composed of Mr Michał Kacprzak – a court assessor appointed to that court on 04/12/2017. Mr Kacprzak was appointed a regular judge on 17/01/2022, on recommendation of the new NCJ of 7/09/2021.   On 02/06/2022 the Olsztyn Regional Court amended the first-instance ruling on the costs and expenses to be borne by the applicant and upheld the remainder that judgment.     10. 35876/22 Miłosz v. Poland 08/07/2022 Sylwia MIŁOSZ 1980 Żelistrzewo Polish   On 06/08/2021 the Wejherowo District Court convicted the applicant of misappropriation of a rented car, sentenced her to 1 year’s imprisonment, suspended for a probationary period of 2 years, and fined her PLN 4,000 (approximately EUR 940; case no. II K 28/21). It sat in a single-judge formation, composed of Ms Marta Jaroszewska-Potrykus – a court assessor appointed to that court on 21/09/2017.   On 10/03/2022 the Gdańsk Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment. 11. 38324/22 Gęsiak v. Poland 25/07/2022 Anna Maria GĘSIAK 1965 Warszawa Polish Mateusz Janusz LENART On 28/04/1998 the applicant was arrested on fraud charges. On 15/07/1999 the prosecution service lodged a bill of indictment against her.   On 28/01/2014 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed her length of proceedings complaint under the 2004 Act (case no. II S 1/14).   On 23/06/2015 the Warsaw Regional Court convicted the applicant of several offences, including fraud, sentenced her to 3 years’ imprisonment and fined her PLN 15,000 (approximately EUR 3,500; case no. VIII K 436/03). It sat in a panel composed of one judge, Mr Sławomir Machnio, who had been seconded to that court between 03/02/2004 and 22/06/2006 in accordance with a decision of the Minister of Justice, and two lay judges.   On 20/07/2018 the Warsaw Court of Appeal amended the legal characterisation of the applicant’s offence, reduced the prison sentence to 1 year’s imprisonment and reduced the fine to PLN 10,000 (approximately EUR 2,350; case no. II AKa 358/16). It sat in a panel of three judges, including Ms Anna Kalbarczyk, who had been seconded to that court in accordance with a decision of the Minister of Justice.   On 30/03/2022 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded. 12. 38529/22 Tyl v. Poland 26/07/2022 Ryszard TYL 1952 Wiskitki Polish   On 23/06/2015 the Warsaw Regional Court convicted the applicant of several offences, including fraud, sentenced him to 8 years’ imprisonment and fined him PLN 40,000 (approximately EUR 9,400; case no. VIII K 436/03). It sat in a panel composed of one judge, Mr Sławomir Machnio, who had been seconded to that court between 03/02/2004 and 22/06/2006 in accordance with a decision of the Minister of Justice, and two lay judges.   On 20/07/2018 the Warsaw Court of Appeal amended the legal characterisation of certain offences, acquitted the applicant of one charge, reduced the prison sentence to 3 years’ imprisonment and reduced the fine to PLN 36,000 (approximately EUR 8,450; case no. II AKa 358/16). It sat in a panel of three judges, including Ms Anna Kalbarczyk who had been seconded to that court in accordance with a decision of the Minister of Justice.   On 30/03/2022 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded. 13. 42128/22 Kuchniewski v. Poland 27/07/2022 Andrzej KUCHNIEWSKI 1969 Warszawa Polish   On 23/06/2015 the Warsaw Regional Court convicted the applicant of several offences, including fraud, sentenced him to 6 years’ imprisonment and fined him PLN 30,000 (approximately EUR 7,050; case no. VIII K 436/03). It sat in a panel composed of one judge, Mr Sławomir Machnio, who had been seconded to that court between 03/02/2004 and 22/06/2006 in accordance with a decision of the Minister of Justice, and two lay judges.   On 20/07/2018 the Warsaw Court of Appeal amended the legal characterisation of certain offences, acquitted the applicant of certain charges, reduced the prison sentence to 2 years’ imprisonment and reduced the fine to PLN 25,000 (approximately EUR 5,850; case no. II AKa 358/16). It sat in a panel of three judges, including Ms Anna Kalbarczyk who had been seconded to that court in accordance with a decision of the Minister of Justice.   On 30/03/2022 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded. 14. 42537/22 Wilczyński v. Poland 29/08/2022 Roman WILCZYŃSKI 1961 Szprotawa Polish   On 23/01/2020 the Lubuskie Governor issued a decision authorising a road project. Among other things, it was decided to expropriate two plots of land to which the applicant had perpetual use rights ( użytkowanie wieczyste ). On 26/04/2021 the Minister of Development, Labour and Technology upheld that decision in so far it concerned the applicant’s plots of land.   On 05/10/2021 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s further appeal (case no. VII SA/Wa 1479/21). It sat in a panel of three judges, including Ms Elżbieta Granatowska – a court assessor appointed to that court on 27/04/2021.   On 26/04/2022 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal (served on 12/05/2022). 15. 47791/22 Nieckarz v. Poland 13/09/2022 Jakub NIECKARZ 1982 Warszawa Polish Paweł Wojciech OSIK On 15/12/2021 the applicant was arrested on various charges, including fraud. On 17/12/2021 the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court remanded him in custody. The applicant’s lawyer appealed against the detention order. He argued, inter alia , that he had not had access to the documents based on which the applicant was detained. On 02/02/2022 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the appeal.   On 14/03/2022 the Warsaw Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 14/05/2022 (case no. VIII Kp 278/22). It sat in a single-judge formation, composed of Mr Marcin Waszkiewicz, who had been seconded to that court in accordance with a decision of the Minister of Justice. The applicant appealed. Among other things, he complained that his case had been examined by a judge delegated to a higher court by the Minister of Justice and that neither he nor his lawyer had had sufficient time to examine the documents on which the extension of his detention was based.   On 10/05/2022 the Regional Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 13/06/2022.   On 13/05/2022 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the extension order of 14/03/2022 (case no. II AKz 433/22, served on 19/05/2022).   On 01/06/2022 the applicant was released on bail and placed under police supervision.   16. 51528/22 Ryś v. Poland 20/10/2022 Piotr RYŚ 1982 Bysina Polish Paweł Robert KUSAK On 14/04/2021 the Częstochowa Regional Court convicted the applicant of drug-related offences, sentenced him to 4 years’ imprisonment and fined him PLN 25,000 (approximately EUR 5,900; case no. II K 22/20).   On 27/10/2021 the Katowice Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to 3 years and 6 months in prison and the fine to PLN 22,000 (approximately EUR 5,200; case no. II   AKa 331/21). It sat in a panel of three judges, including Mr Marcin Schoenborn, who had been seconded to that court in accordance with a decision of the Minister of Justice.   On 15/06/2022 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal against that judgment as manifestly ill-founded (served on 23/06/2022). 17. 10464/23 Płodzień v. Poland 27/02/2023 Łukasz PŁODZIEŃ 1989 Nowy Borek Polish   On 30/07/2020 the Rzeszów District Court convicted the applicant of making criminal threats and of destroying property and sentenced him to 10 months’ imprisonment.   On 29/10/2021 the Rzeszów Regional Court amended the legal characterisation of the applicant’s offence, ordered him to compensate for the pecuniary damage suffered by the victim and upheld the prison sentence (case no. III Ka 525/20). It sat in a single-judge formation, composed of Ms Iwona Szalacha, who had been seconded to that court in accordance with a decision of the Minister of Justice.   On 14/09/2022 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded (served on 07/11/2022). 18. 11460/23 Nizioł v. Poland 27/02/2023 Zygmunt Adam NIZIOŁ 1953 Surrey Polish Piotr KARDAS On 20/08/2018 the Warsaw Regional Court convicted the applicant of several white-collar crimes, sentenced him to 4 years’ imprisonment and fined him PLN 400,000 (approximately EUR 94,000).   On 26/02/2020 the Warsaw Court of Appeal amended the legal characterisation of one of the applicant’s offences and increased the prison sentence to 7 years (case no. II AKa 243/19). It sat in a panel of three judges, including Ms Anna Kalbarczyk, who had been seconded to that court in accordance with a decision of the Minister of Justice.   On 27/10/2022 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded (served on 28/11/2022). 19. 13289/23 Jankowski v. Poland 10/03/2023 Jerzy JANKOWSKI 1964 Gdynia Polish Beata ZGLIŃSKA On 30/12/2013 the Gdańsk-Południe District Court acquitted the applicant of two white-collar crimes. On 10/11/2015 the Gdańsk Regional Court upheld that judgment in so far as it concerned the applicant. On 16/02/2017 the Supreme Court quashed the second-instance judgment and remitted the case. On 18/10/2017 the Gdańsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 30/12/2013 and remitted the case for re-examination.   On 10/11/2020 the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of misappropriation of funds, sentenced him to 1   year and 4 months’ imprisonment, suspended for a probationary period of 2 years, and fined him PLN 200,000 (approximately EUR 47,000; case no. IV K 205/18). It sat in a single-judge formation, composed of Mr Damian Dampc, who had been seconded to that court in accordance with a decision of the Minister for Justice.   On 25/05/2022 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment. On 14/11/2022 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded (served on 21/11/2022). 20. 14338/23 Mleczko v. Poland 13/03/2023 Feliksa MLECZKO 1941 Gdańsk Polish Paulina POLAK On 30/12/2013 the Gdańsk-Południe District Court acquitted the applicant of three white-collar crimes. On 10/11/2015 the Gdańsk Regional Court upheld that judgment in so far as it concerned the applicant. On 16/02/2017 the Supreme Court quashed the second-instance judgment and remitted the case. On 18/10/2017 the Gdańsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 30/12/2013 and remitted the case for fresh examination.   On 10/11/2020 the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of aiding and abetting the misappropriation of funds, sentenced her to 1 year and 10 months’ imprisonment, suspended for a probationary period of 2 years, and fined her PLN 10,000 (approximately EUR 2,300; case no. IV K 205/18). It sat in a single-judge formation, composed of Mr Damian Dampc, who had been seconded to that court in accordance with a decision of the Minister for Justice.   On 25/05/2022 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment. On 14/11/2022 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded (served on 24/11/2022). 21. 15585/23 Szymula v. Poland 03/04/2023 Michał SZYMULA 1979 Wojkowice Polish Dobrosława Anna TOMZIK On 22/07/2020 the Katowice Regional Court convicted the applicant of drug-related offences and sentenced him to 6 years’ imprisonment.   On 08/04/2021 the Katowice Court of Appeal slightly amended that judgment but upheld the prison sentence (case no. II AKa 450/20). It sat in a panel of three judges, including Mr Rafał Doros, who had been seconded to that court in accordance with a decision of the Minister for Justice.   On 08/12/2022 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded.     22. 16585/23 G.T.v. Poland 05/04/2023 G. T. 1976 Ksawerów Polish Małgorzata MĄCZKA-PACHOLAK On 07/02/2020 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court convicted the applicant of membership of a criminal group and several tax-related offences and sentenced him to 1 year and 6 months’ imprisonment.   On 30/12/2020 the Łódź Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment (case no. II AKa 214/20). It sat in a panel of three judges, including Mr Paweł Urbaniak, who had been seconded to that court in accordance with a decision of the Minister for Justice.   On 08/12/2022 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded (case no. II KK 404/21). It sat in a panel of three judges, including Mr Antoni Bojańczyk and Mr Marek Siwek, who were appointed to that court by the President of Poland on 10/10/2018, on recommendation of the NCJ (resolution no. 331/2018 of 28/08/2018), and Mr Ryszard Witkowski, appointed to that court by the President of Poland on 19/09/2018, on recommendation of the NCJ (resolution no. 317/2018 of 23/08/2018). 23. 18376/23 Brożyna v. Poland 18/04/2023 Stanisław BROŻYNA 1957 Głuszyca Polish Joanna KOWALIK On 23/02/2022 the Wałbrzych Regional Disciplinary Court for Hunters ( Okręgowy Sąd Łowiecki ) found the applicant guilty of shooting wild boars in the proximity of residential areas and excluded him from the Polish Hunting Association ( Polski Związek Łowiecki ), effectively barring him from hunting.   On 28/06/2022 the Main Disciplinary Court for Hunters ( Główny Sąd Łowiecki ) amended the characterisation of the applicant’s disciplinary offence but upheld the imposed penalty.   On 21/12/2022 the Świdnica Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that judgment (case no. IV Ko 146/22, served on 11/01/2023). It sat in a single-judge formation, composed of Mr Sebastian Kowalski, who had been seconded to that court in accordance with a decision of the Minister for Justice. 24. 26149/23 Orzechowski v. Poland 21/06/2023 Andrzej ORZECHOWSKI 1965 Wörth am Rhein Polish   On 22/03/2021 the Lublin Regional Court convicted the applicant of several criminal offences, including fraud.   On 4/10/2022 the Lublin Court of Appeal upheld that judgment (case no. II AKa 227/21). It sat in a panel of three judges, including Mr Stanisław Olchowy, who had been seconded to that court in accordance with a decision of the Minister for Justice.   On 17/05/2023 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded. 25. 28252/23 Giedrojć v. Poland 03/01/2024 Łukasz GIEDROJĆ 1986 Wronki Polish   On 08/09/2021 the Węgrów District Court convicted the applicant of multiple instances of fraud and sentenced him to 4   years’ imprisonment.   On 29/04/2022 the Siedlce Regional Court amended certain parts of the first-instance judgment and upheld the prison sentence (case no. II Ka 840/21). It sat in a panel of three judges, including Mr Paweł Mądry, who had been seconded to that court in accordance with a decision of the Minister for Justice.   On 26/09/2023 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded. 26. 36567/23 Nawrot v. Poland 14/09/2023 Krzysztof NAWROT 1981 Siewierz Polish   On 30/06/2021 the applicant lodged an action for damages for allegedly unlawful arrest against the State Treasury with the Koszalin Regional Court. The case was initially assigned to Mr Ireneusz Łysiak, who – at the time – was seconded to that court in accordance with a decision of the Minister for Justice.   On 2/03/2022 the Szczecin Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s length of proceedings complaint under the 2004 Act (case no.   II   S 2/22). It sat in a panel of three judges, including Mr Jacek Szreder, appointed to that court by the President of Poland on 06/05/2021, on recommendation of the National Council of the Judiciary (resolution no.   169/2021 of 18/02/2021).   On 10/02/2023 the Koszalin Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for damages (case no. II Ko 91/21). It sat in a single-judge formation, composed of Judge Łysiak.   On 24/03/2023 the applicant appealed against this judgment. On the same day, the Regional Court ordered him to submit an appeal prepared and signed by a lawyer, as required by the relevant procedural rules. The applicant submitted another appeal on 30/03/2023.   On 31/05/2023 the Court of Appeal left the applicant’s appeal unexamined. It determined that the second appeal was also prepared by the applicant and only signed by his lawyer afterwards.   On 26/07/2023 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 31/05/2023 (case no. II AKa 99/23). It sat in a panel of three judges, including Mr Przemysław Żmuda, appointed to that court by the President of Poland on 27/08/2022 on recommendation of the National Council of the Judiciary (resolution no.   415/2022 of 8/06/2022).     [1] Nieckarz (no. 47791/22) [2] Kandybowicz (no. 31079/22) and Milosz (no. 35876/22) [3] Machnik (no.8180/22), Kandybowicz and Milosz [4] Wilczynski (no. 42537/22)