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)