CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 mai 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s3B53EBCA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } Published on 26 May 2026   FIRST SECTION Application no. 14795/17 Bożena ZALEWSKA against Poland lodged on 15 February 2017 communicated on 6 May 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the fairness of criminal proceedings brought against the applicant. In September 2013, the applicant was stopped by the police while driving her car. Two officers later accused her of aggressive behaviour which resulted in her being charged with insulting public officers. In December 2014 the Kłodzko District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) acquitted the applicant. It pointed out several inconsistencies between the testimonies given by the witnesses to the incident. These witnesses included three police officers, including the two alleged victims, a municipal guard and a person who had called the police after seeing the applicant’s car parked in the wrong place. Upon the prosecutor’s appeal, the Świdnica Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) remitted the case. In February 2016 the District Court found the applicant guilty of insulting police officers, sentenced her to 20 hours of unpaid community work per month over a period of six months, and ordered her to apologise to the two officers. The two alleged victims were not heard in person, instead the District Court relied on the transcripts of their statements made during the first hearing. On 17 August 2016 the Regional Court quashed the obligation to apologise to the victims and upheld the remainder of the applicant’s sentence. This judgment was final. Invoking Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the two victims were not heard during the second hearing before the District Court, thereby rendering the proceedings unfair.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against her, within the meaning of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? In particular, has there been a breach of the principle of immediacy given that the trial court panel which convicted her did not hear the victims directly (see Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§   100-118, ECHR   2015; Famulyak v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 30180/11, §§   34 ‑ 39, 26   March 2019; and Chernika v. Ukraine , no. 53791/11, §§ 47-50, 12   March   2020)?