CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } Published on 16 February 2026   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 19314/22 and 29418/22 Wojciech MACZUGA against Poland and Rafał LISAK against Poland lodged on 1 April 2022 and 6 June 2022 respectively communicated on 29 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern disciplinary measures taken against the applicants – ordinary court judges – in response to their having questioned the validity of the appointment of a court assessor (a junior judge). The applicants sat in a panel of three judges assigned to examine an appeal against a first-instance cumulative judgment ( wyrok łączny ). On 6 September 2019 the panel noted that the challenged judgment had been delivered by a court assessor whose appointment circumstances were unclear and adjourned the case pending clarification on whether his appointment process involved the National Council of the Judiciary (“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 ). Shortly after, the disciplinary officer for ordinary court judges ( Rzecznik Dyscyplinarny Sędziów Sądów Powszechnych , “the disciplinary officer”) initiated disciplinary proceedings against the applicants, considering that their decision undermined the dignity of judicial office. In December 2019 he applied to the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court (“the DCSC”) for the suspension of the applicants from judicial duties and for the reduction of their salaries for the duration of their suspension. In March 2021 the disciplinary officer formally submitted the disciplinary charges against the applicants to the DCSC for trial. Following the abolition of the DCSC in July 2022, the applicants’ suspension and disciplinary cases were transferred to the newly created Chamber of Professional Liability (“the CPL”). The applicants sought to have their cases transferred to the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court and to secure the recusal of certain judges assigned to examine their cases. It appears that all such requests were unsuccessful. In February 2024 the newly appointed disciplinary officer of the Minister of Justice withdrew the applications for a disciplinary trial against the applicants. Accordingly, the CPL, on 28 February 2024 discontinued the disciplinary proceedings, and, on 13 March 2024 discontinued the proceedings concerning the requests for the applicants’ suspension in judicial duties and for the reduction of their salary. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the CPL which heard their disciplinary cases and the requests for their suspension from judicial duties and the reduction of their salaries was not an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law”. Also under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complain about the unreasonable length of the disciplinary and suspension proceedings against them. Relying on Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention they complain about the absence of any effective remedies in that respect. Under Article 8 of the Convention the applicants complain that the disciplinary measures taken against them adversely affected their social standing and reputation and, in consequence, amounted to a breach of the right to respect for their private life. Relying on Article 18 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants also complain that the disciplinary measures taken against them pursued an ulterior motive to intimidate them and other judges, and to deter them from scrutinising the legality of judicial appointments. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Questions concerning the disciplinary measures taken against the applicants :   1.     Can the applicants claim to be victims of a violation of their Convention rights in view of the fact that they were ultimately not suspended from judicial duties and the CPL discontinued the disciplinary proceedings against them?   2.     Was the CPL which dealt with the applicants’ disciplinary and suspension cases “an independent and impartial tribunal established by law”, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, §§ 211-52, 1 December 2020; Reczkowicz v. Poland , no. 43447/19, §§ 216-82, 22 July 2021; and Juszczyszyn v. Poland , no. 35599/20, §§ 192-211, 6 October 2022)?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the disciplinary and suspension proceedings initiated against them? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?   4.     Were the measures imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Article 8 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention (see Juszczyszyn , cited above, §§ 306-38)? Questions concerning the length of the disciplinary and suspension proceedings against the applicants :   5.     Was the length of the disciplinary and suspension proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention?   6.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective remedy to put before the domestic authorities the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the unreasonable length of the disciplinary and suspension proceedings, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?