CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 avril 2025

.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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 12 May 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 51258/18 Zbyszek CZERWIŃSKI against Poland lodged on 24 October 2018 communicated on 25 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant’s security clearance was revoked in 2012 and he was dismissed from the army in April 2013 on the grounds that he no longer had the required security clearance. At the time, he had the rank of general with thirty years’ experience in the army. The applicant appealed against the revocation of his security clearance by the Head of the Military Counter-Intelligence Service, but the Prime Minister upheld the decision on 15 October 2012. He lodged further appeals, but the Regional Administrative Court (28 February 2013) and the Supreme Administrative Court (16 July 2013) dismissed his appeals. The written reasons for the judgments were not disclosed to the applicant or his lawyer. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court, raising several allegations concerning restrictions on access to the case file, evidence and the written reasons for the judgments, all classified as “secret”. On 23   May 2018, the Constitutional Court ruled that the domestic provisions were incompatible with the Constitution only insofar as they did not provide for the delivery of the written reasons in their non-confidential part. It appears that the applicant was subsequently provided with a part of the reasons of the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment which had not been classified as “secret”; however, in the circumstances of the case, this had no effect on his situation, since the entire administrative file had been classified as “secret”. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings, which concerned his civil rights and obligations, were not fair. He claims that all evidence were classified as secret and not available to him which prevented him from effectively challenging the decision and presenting any counter-evidence; that the principle of equality of arms was not respected and the proceedings were not adversarial; and that the written reasons of the judgments in their quasi entirety were not disclosed to him. The applicant also complains under Article 8 of the Convention that he could not pursue his profession since he lost his job as a result of the withdrawal of his security clearance. He claims that the interference was disproportionate because he had not been informed of the reasons for the withdrawal of his security clearance. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? If so, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular: (a) was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards lack of access to evidence in the case and written grounds for the judgments (see Regner v.   the Czech Republic [GC], no. 35289/11, 19 September 2017)? (b) have the restrictions on the adversarial and equality-of-arms principles affected the very essence of the applicant’s rights and have they been sufficiently counterbalanced by other procedural safeguards?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   The parties are requested to submit copies of the part of the written reasons of the judgments of the administrative courts which had been disclosed to the applicant.