CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 octobre 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 } Published on 4 November 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 51541/19 Konrad SZOŁAJSKI against Poland lodged on 20 September 2019 communicated on 18 October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the applicant’s access to information and his access to a court. The applicant was collecting material for a film documentary that he was directing. On 7 May 2018 the Director of the Sejm Information Centre rejected the applicant’s request for a periodic press pass to the Sejm building (the lower house of the Parliament) on the grounds that the applicant was a not a journalist within the meaning of the 1984 Press Act ( Prawo prasowe ), as he was not a person engaged in editing, creating, or preparing press materials, who was employed by an editorial office or engaged in such activities on behalf of and with the authorisation of the editorial office. The applicant filed an application for reconsideration ( wniosek o ponowne rozpatrzenie sprawy ) with the Sejm’s Speaker. On 12 June 2018 the Director of the Sejm’s Chancellery ( Szef Kancelarii Sejmu ), acting on behalf of the Sejm’s Speaker, refused this application, finding that the applicant was not a journalist under the applicable Polish law given that his documentary was produced by a commercial company. The applicant appealed to the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court, which on 24 October 2018 rejected the appeal as inadmissible in law. The court held that the letter of the Director of the Sejm’s Chancellery sent on behalf of the Sejm’s Speaker did not constitute an administrative decision that could be subject of appeal. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal against this decision. In particular, he complained, relying on the Constitution and the Convention, that he had not had access to a court in order to challenge the decision refusing him access to the Sejm. On 14 March 2019 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the cassation appeal. The court adhered to the reasoning of the Regional Administrative Court. The decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 20 March 2019. The applicant complains that the restrictions imposed on his access to the Sejm building constitute a breach of his rights guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. He further complains, relying on Articles 6, 10 and 13 of the Convention, that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of the refusal of access to the Sejm building. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the applicant’s situation? If so, 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?   2.     Is Article 10 § 1 of the Convention applicable to the applicant’s situation (see, mutatis mutandis , Mándli and Others v. Hungary , no.   63164/16, 26 May 2020)? If so, has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention on account of his exclusion from the Sejm? If so, was that interference justified in terms of Article 10 §   2 (see   Pentikäinen v.   Finland   [GC], no.   11882/10, §§ 87-91, ECHR 2015, and Karácsony and Others v.   Hungary   [GC], nos.   42461/13   and   44357/13, § 133, 17   May 2016, with further references)?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy or a combination of remedies for his complaint under 10 of the Convention, as required by Article 13?