FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 15189/10
Adam CICHOPEK against Poland
and 1,627 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 May 2013 as a Chamber composed of:
Ineta Ziemele, President,
Päivi Hirvelä,
George Nicolaou,
Ledi Bianku,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Faris Vehabović, judges,
and Francoişe Elens-Passos, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the applications listed on the appendix,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. A list of all the applicants is set out in the appendix.
A. Background
2. The so-called “public security authorities” (“aparat bezpieczeństwa publicznego” or “organy bezpieczeństwa publicznego), i.e. a Polish communist secret police apparatus, operated in 1944-1990.
The apparatus, which was reshaped several times, consisted of different services and institutions, comprising the political police and special armed forces. It was patterned on the NKVD (Народный комиссариат внутренних дел/Narodnyy Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del, i.e. the Soviet People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs) and the KGB (Комитет государственной безопасности/Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti, i.e. the Committee for State Security) and established (under the supervision of the NKVD) in 1944 with a view to securing Communist rule and combating, suppressing and eliminating groups of political opposition, including the post-war underground resistance against Communism and the Polish Church. In the 1950s these organs were in charge of prisons and labour camps; at that time, they were also competent to conduct criminal investigations under the rules of criminal procedure (see Domalewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 4610/97, ECHR 1999-V).
From 1956 onwards, when the level and nature of repression changed, their tasks involved in the protection of the communist system included, among other things, the control and infiltration of Polish society secured by its own members and through a system of paid or unpaid informers and secret collaborators, denunciation, monitoring of persons in, or cooperating with, the opposition, political opponents, priests and other persons suspected of being in any way associated with anti-communist ideas or critical of the communist party’s programme, its role and members
3. The general information concerning the public security service published on the official website of the Institute of the National Remembrance - Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation (Instytut Pamięci Narodowej – Komisja Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu – “the IPN”)[1] reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“Since 1944 until 1990 the functionaries of the security services constituted “the armed arm of the communist party”. The main goal of the services was to protect the communists from society and to eliminate opposition.
...
First, the Security Services operated within the Ministry of Public Security which was created in summer 1944. The executive staff of the Ministry had been trained in NKVD school in Kuibyshev (USSR). Apart from the central office, the ‘soviet advisers’ were sent to all newly-created regional Offices of Public Security throughout Poland.
The official activity of the Ministry of Public Security started on 1 January 1945 and its wide range of power was not limited by law. The Ministry focused on achieving goals set by the Polish Workers’ Party (PPR) [Polska Partia Robotnicza] and later the Polish United Workers’ Party (PZPR) [Polska Zjednoczona Partia Robotnicza]. At the peak of its expansion in 1953 there were 33,000 functionaries working within the ministry structures. Additionally, a network of 73,000 informers (in the mid 1950s) collaborated with the ministry. The informers were recruited by means of brutal intimidation or promises of financial gain. Nevertheless, some of the informers, especially members of the communist party, volunteered for the work.
Offices of Public Security and their informants kept under surveillance the political parties, national and local public administration, social and religious organisations, factory workers and, in general, social attitudes. One third of adult Poles were registered in the ministry’s files because they constituted ‘a dubious element’.
In 1954 the Ministry of Public Security was replaced by the Ministry of Interior Affairs (MSW) and the Committee of Public Security Affairs. In 1956 the Committee was disbanded and its competences and staff transferred to the Ministry of [the] Interior ....
The Security Service (SB) operated in Poland between 1956 and 1990. The fall of the communist system in Poland in 1989 brought an end to the existence of this political police and organ of terror, which was hostile to Polish society throughout its existence. ...”
4. The Security Service operated through the following main structures: Department I (for intelligence), Department II (for counter-intelligence); Department III (for anti-State activities against the country in the sphere of ideology, culture and education; the tasks involved, inter alia, infiltration of artistic, intellectual, academic, journalist and similar circles, finding secret collaborators within those groups as well as monitoring of targeted persons), Department IV (church and religious associations; the tasks involved infiltration of targeted groups, monitoring etc.), Department V (for protection of industry and anti-State activities in industry and within workers unions and circles), the Office of Foreign Passports (Biuro Paszportów), the so-called Bureau "A" (cipher); Bureau "B" (observation) and Bureau "W" (oversight of correspondence), Bureau “T” (operational techniques). The subordinate units at local level had departments organised in the same way. In 1983-1990 they were organised in regional (wojewódzkie) and district (rejonowe) offices for internal affairs (urzędy spraw wewnętrznych).
5. Following the fall of Communism in Poland, the Security Service was dissolved by virtue of the law of 6 Apri1 1990 on the Office for State Protection (ustawa o Urzędzie Ochrony Państwa) (“the 1990 Act”), a new body responsible for intelligence and counter-intelligence. At that time the Security Service comprised around 30,000 persons, including some 24,000 functionaries. They could be re-employed by the Office for State Protection on condition that they successfully passed a vetting procedure, which some 14,000 officers underwent. 10,439 persons were eventually found suitable for re-employment and 3,595 were vetted negatively and not retained (see also paragraphs 57-62 below).
6. On 23 January 2009 Parliament enacted the Act on amendments to the law on old-age pensions of professional soldiers and their families and to the law on old-age pensions of functionaries of the police, the Internal Security Agency, the Intelligence Agency, the Military Counter-Intelligence Service the Military Intelligence Service, the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau, the Border Guard, the Government Protection Bureau, the State Fire Service, the Prison Service and their families (ustawa o zmianie ustawy o zaopatrzeniu emerytalnym żołnierzy zawodowych oraz ich rodzin oraz ustawy o zaopatrzeniu emerytalnym funkcjonariuszy Policji, Agencji Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego, Agencji Wywiadu, Służby Kontrwywiadu Wojskowego, Służby Wywiadu Wojskowego, Centralnego Biura Antykorupcyjnego, Straży Granicznej, Biura Ochrony Rządu, Państwowej Straży Pożarnej i Służby Więziennej oraz ich rodzin – “the 2009 Act”). The 2009 Act, which entered into force on 16 March 2009, introduced new rules for the calculation of the pensions of former functionaries of the State security service into the law of 18 February 1994 on old-age pensions of functionaries of the police, the Internal Security Agency, the Intelligence Agency, the Military Counter-Intelligence Service, the Military Intelligence Service, the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau, the Border Guard, the Government Protection Bureau, the State Fire Service, the Prison Service and their families (ustawa o zaopatrzeniu emerytalnym funkcjonariuszy Policji, Agencji Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego, Agencji Wywiadu, Służby Kontrwywiadu Wojskowego, Służby Wywiadu Wojskowego, Centralnego Biura Antykorupcyjnego, Straży Granicznej, Biura Ochrony Rządu, Państwowej Straży Pożarnej i Służby Więziennej oraz ich rodzin –“the 1994 Act”). In particular, one of the coefficients relevant for the calculation of pensions of former functionaries was lowered from 2.6% to 0.70% for each year of service with the former communist State security authorities in the period from 1944 to 1990 (see also paragraphs 68-72 below).
For the purposes of the 2009 Act, the State security authorities are those listed in the law of 18 October 2006 on the disclosure of information of documents of the State security authorities in the years 1944-1990 and the content of such documents (ustawa o ujawnianiu informacji o dokumentach organów bezpieczeństwa państwa z lat 1944-1990 oraz treści tych dokumentów – “the 2006 Act” (see also paragraphs 66-67 below).
B. The circumstances of the cases
7. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1. Cichopek v. Poland (no. 15189/10)
8. The applicant, Mr Adam Cichopek, is a Polish national who was born in 1943. He lives in Chrzanów.
9. From 1969 to 1990 the applicant served in the Security Service, holding various posts. Starting as an operational inspector in 1969, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Commandant of the District Office for Internal Affairs (Rejonowy Urząd Spraw Wewnętrznych) responsible for the Security Service. In 1990, on his dismissal from service, he held the rank of major.
10. On 4 November 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration (Dyrektor Zakładu Emerytalno-Rentowego Ministerstwa Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji), pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN (see also paragraphs 70-72 below), issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant’s pension, whereby his benefit was reduced from 3,038.38 Polish zlotys (PLN) to PLN 1,652.60 monthly. According to the applicant, after taxation, the net amount of his current pension was PLN 1,380.87.
11. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision with the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division (Sąd Okręgowy – Wydział Ubezpieczeń Społecznych). He sought to have his previous pension restored, submitting that the impugned decision was based on legal provisions which were incompatible with Articles 2, 10, 31 § 3 and 31 of the Constitution (see also paragraphs 77-84 below) and that it had been contrary to international law.
12. On 23 April 2012 the Regional Court dismissed his appeal as unfounded. Relying on the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 24 February 2010, whereby a challenge to the constitutionality of the 2009 Act had meanwhile been examined and rejected (see also paragraphs 85-106 below), the court held that the relevant provisions of the 2009 Act had been applied correctly in the applicant’s case.
13. The applicant lodged an appeal on 1 June 2012. According to the most recent information supplied by the applicant on 31 December 2012, the proceedings were still pending before the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) and no hearing date had yet been set.
2. Romański and Others v. Poland (no. 24434/10)
14. The application was lodged by eleven Polish nationals: Mr Janusz Romański (“the first applicant”) was born in 1937, Mr Andrzej Gomuliński (“the second applicant”) was born in 1943, Ms Barbara Gomulińska (“the third applicant”) was born in 1944, Ms Janina Męcik (“the fourth applicant”) was born in 1942, Ms Danuta Makuch (“the fifth applicant”) was born in 1945, Mr Lech Męcik (“the sixth applicant”) was born in 1938, Ms Wanda Wacławik (“the seventh applicant”) was born in 1942, Ms Stanisława Fortuna (“the eighth applicant”) was born in 1931, Ms Elżbieta Duda (“the ninth applicant”) was born in 1941, Ms Wiesława Giera (“the tenth applicant”) was born in 1936 and Ms Wiesława Przewrocka (“the eleventh applicant”) was born in 1946. The applicants, except for the fourth applicant who lives in Mysiadło, live in Warsaw. In the proceedings before the Court they were represented by Ms M. Gąsiorowska, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.
15. Except for the first applicant who was positively vetted in 1990, the remaining applicants were not subjected to the vetting procedure (see also paragraph 5 above and paragraphs 57-62 below).
16. On 16 November 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment of the first applicant’s pension, whereby his benefit was reduced from PLN 2,365.95 (gross) to PLN 1,676.76 monthly. After taxation, the net amount of his current pension was PLN 1,399.85.
17. Similar decisions reducing their pensions were issued in respect of the remaining applicants:
– on 22 October 2009 the second applicant’s benefit was reduced from PLN 3,273. 85 (gross) to PLN 1,411.68 (gross). After taxation, the net amount of his current pension was PLN 1,186.63;
– on 29 October 2009 the third applicant’s retirement pension was reduced to PLN 1,370.97 (gross)/PLN 1,308,97 (net); the applicant failed to indicate the previous amount. However, at the same time, payment of this benefit was suspended because she had also the right to a disability pension, which was more advantageous. The amount of her current disability pension was PLN 1,563.70;
– on 9 November 2009 the fourth applicant’s retirement pension was reduced to PLN 1,500.88 (gross); the applicant failed to indicate the previous amount. However, at the same time, payment of this benefit was suspended because she had also the right to a disability pension, which was more advantageous. The amount of her current disability pension was PLN 1,512.99 (gross);
– on 16 October 2009 the fifth applicant’s benefit was reduced to PLN 1,063.69 (gross)/PLN 904.93 (net); the applicant failed to indicate the previous amount;
– on 9 November 2009 the sixth applicant’s benefit was reduced from PLN 3,895.61(gross) to PLN 2,892.73 (gross);
– on 3 November 2009 the seventh applicant’s benefit was reduced from PLN 2,478.47 (net) to PLN 1,766.51 (gross)/PLN 1,472.52 (net);
– on 13 October 2009 the eight applicant’s benefit was reduced to PLN 1,429.74 (gross); the applicant failed to indicate the previous amount;
– on 27 October 2009 the ninth applicant’s retirement pension was reduced from PLN 2,689.44 to PLN 1,243.87 but, at the same time, payment of this benefit was suspended because she had also the right to a disability pension, which was more advantageous. The amount of her current disability pension was PLN 1,344.72;
– on 19 October 2009 the tenth applicant’s old-age pension was reduced from PLN 2,407.22 to PLN 1,687.11;
– on 2 December 2009 the eleventh applicant’s old-age pension was reduced from PLN 1,671.45 to PLN 1,002.79.
18. The applicants on various dates appealed to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division, submitting in essence that the social security authority had misinterpreted the provisions of the 2009 Act and that the impugned decisions were unlawful and contrary to the Constitution and international treaties ratified by Poland. In particular, they relied on Articles 2, 8, 10 30 and 32 of the Constitution, asserting that the legislature had overstepped its competence because it had imposed collective punishment on them, that it had failed to respect the principle of protection of acquired rights and that they were discriminated against on account of their service in the State security authorities. They also invoked Articles 6, 7, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
19. The applicants have not informed the Court about the outcome of the appeal proceedings, except for the second applicant who produced a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision of 23 November 2012, refusing to entertain his cassation appeal against the judgment of the Warsaw Court of Appeal. It emerges from that decision that the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the pension decision on 16 May 2011 and that his appeal against that judgment was dismissed by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 12 January 2012.
3. Giętkowska v. Poland (no. 34213/12)
20. The applicant, Ms Ewa Giętkowska, is a Polish national born in 1954 and living in Serock. In the proceedings before the Court she was represented by Mr S. Pikulski, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.
21. From 16 July 1984 to 1 October 1989 the applicant was employed in the Office of Foreign Passports of the Warsaw District Headquarters of the Civic Militia. From 2 October 1989 to 15 July 2003 she was a policewoman in the Warsaw-Ochota District Police Headquarters and then in the Warsaw-City District Police Headquarters. She worked in the Investigation Department and the Homicide Department. The applicant retired on 15 July 2003.
22. On 19 October 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant’s pension, whereby her benefit was reduced from PLN 3,010 to PLN 2,462.95 monthly. That meant that instead of receiving as before 78.84% of her pension’s basis of assessment, she received 52.80% of that amount.
23. On 12 November 2009 the applicant appealed to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division. The court dismissed her appeal on 7 January 2011. The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment. On 7 July 2011 the Warsaw Court of Appeal rejected the appeal.
24. On 10 October 2011 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal (skarga kasacyjna). The Court of Appeal rejected it as inadmissible on 17 October 2011. The applicant’s further interlocutory appeal (zażalenie) against that decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 3 February 2012.
4. Poniecki v. Poland (no. 57285/12)
25. The applicant is a Polish national, born in 1954 and living in Łódź. In the proceedings before the Court he was represented by Mr T. Srogosz, a lawyer practising in Częstochowa.
26. From 16 April 1976 to 30 May 1999 the applicant was a functionary of the Civic Militia and, after having been positively vetted in 1990, of the Police (Policja). He began his career from a clerk in the field of operational techniques (referent techniki operacyjnej) in the Office of Foreign Passports and, until 31 July 1990, he held various posts in units of Bureau “B” and Bureau “T” of the Security Service (see also paragraph 4 above). In June‑September 1982 the applicant participated in a special course for the Security Service. In 1983-1986 he followed extramural studies at the Legionowo Officer Academy of the Ministry of the Interior (Wyższa Szkoła Oficerska Ministerstwa Spraw Wewnętrznych), an academy which trained officers for the Security Service.
27. On 1 June 1999 the applicant retired and was granted the right to an old-age pension corresponding to 63.19% of its basis of assessment.
28. On 16 November 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant’s pension, whereby his benefit was reduced from PLN 3,318.51 gross to PLN 2,549.03 gross monthly.
29. In a subsequent decision, issued on 17 December 2009, the applicant’s pension was assessed at PLN 2,549.03 gross and PLN 2,104.62 net.
30. The applicant appealed against both decisions to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division. He argued, among other things, that they were in breach of the constitutional principles of non‑discrimination, protection of acquired rights and presumption of innocence, and also incompatible with Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
The court, noting that from 8 January 1978 to 31 July 1990 the applicant had been a functionary of the Security Service, which justified the application of the 2009 Act, and having regard to the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 24 February 2010 (see paragraphs 91-106 below), rejected the appeal on 15 July 2011. The judgment, following the applicant’s further appeal, was upheld by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 5 April 2012. The court stressed that the amount of the applicant’s benefit – even after the reduction – remained higher that the average old-age pension under the general social security scheme.
5. Przybylski v. Poland (no. 32251/10)
31. The applicant is a Polish national born in 1948 and living in Poznań. In the proceedings before the Court he was represented by Mr P. Sowisło, a lawyer practising in Poznań.
32. The applicant was a functionary of the Security Service from 16 December 1973 to 31 March 1990. On the latter date he retired.
33. On 27 October 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant’s pension, whereby his benefit was reduced from PLN 2,163.42 to PLN 1,537.78 monthly.
34. The applicant appealed to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division, arguing that the provisions of the 2009 Act on which the impugned decision was based were unconstitutional. In particular, he alleged a breach of the principles of the protection of acquired rights, the separation and balance of powers, proportionality, equality before the law and non-discrimination.
On 18 April 2011 the Regional Court, relying on the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 24 February 2010, dismissed the appeal. The applicant appealed.
On 22 February 2012 the Warsaw Court of Appeal heard the appeal and partly amended the first-instance judgment, holding that in respect of the period from 1 October 1975 to 1 August 1978, during which the applicant had studied at the Legionowo Officer Academy of the Ministry of the Interior, the relevant coefficient for the pension’s basis of assessment should be 2.6%, not 0.7%.
The applicant has not informed the Court of the current, increased amount of his old-age pension.
6. Weber v. Poland (no. 12248/11)
35. The applicant is a Polish national, born in 1949 and living in Warsaw. In the proceedings before the Court the applicant was represented by Mr D. Sucholewski, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.
36. The applicant was a functionary of the Security Service from 6 December 1976 to 31 July 1990.
On 16 May 1990 the Vetting Commission for Central Personnel gave a positive opinion on the applicant’s suitability for re-employment in the new state security institutions (see also paragraph 5 above and paragraphs 57-62 below). She continued service in the Office for State Protection until 30 June 1998, when she retired.
37. On 16 November 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant’s pension, whereby her benefit was reduced from PLN 2,267.72 to PLN 1,787.64 monthly.
38. On 24 November 2009 the applicant appealed to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division, maintaining that the provisions of the 2009 Act on which the impugned decision was based were unconstitutional. In particular, she alleged a breach of the principles of the protection of acquired rights, the separation and balance of powers, proportionality, equality before the law and non-discrimination. She has not informed the Court of the outcome of the proceedings.
7. Czajka v. Poland (no. 58207/11)
39. The applicant is a Polish national born in 1934 and living in Suwałki. In the proceedings before the Court he was represented by Ms B. Świątkiewicz, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.
40. The applicant was a functionary of the Security Service from 1 May 1960 to an unspecified date in 1990. He held various posts, beginning his career as an operational inspector. On the termination of service he held the rank of lieutenant colonel. The applicant was granted the right to a disability pension on 30 April 1990. He did not undergo the vetting procedure.
41. On 26 October 2009 and 17 December 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant’s pension, whereby his benefit was reduced from PLN 4,365.30 to PLN 2,183.96 gross (1,982.50 net) monthly.
42. The applicant appealed against both decisions to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division, arguing that the provisions of the 2009 Act on which the impugned decision was based were unconstitutional. In particular, he alleged a breach of the principles of the protection of acquired rights, the separation and balance of powers, proportionality, equality before the law, non-discrimination and the right to social security. He submitted that the 2009 Act imposed collective punishment on former functionaries of the Security Service and that they were refused the right to a hearing and could not defend themselves against charges of a criminal nature laid against them in the preamble to that Act. The applicant also invoked Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention.
On 30 May 2011 the Regional Court, relying on the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 24 February 2010 (see paragraphs 91-106 below) dismissed the appeal. The applicant appealed to the Warsaw Court of Appeal. He has not informed the Court of the outcome of the proceedings.
8. Kosiorek v. Poland (no. 44980/12)
43. The applicant is a Polish national, born in 1950 and living in Rogoźnik. In the proceedings before the Court she was represented by Ms A. K. Wojcieszuk-Kwiatkowska, a lawyer practising in Katowice.
44. The applicant was a functionary of the Security Service from 1 January 1970 to 31 May 1987. She held various posts, starting her career as a typist in the Investigation Department of the Katowice Security Service. On the termination of her service, she was a senior clerk in the field of operational techniques. She retired on 23 June 1987.
45. On 4 November 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant’s pension, whereby her benefit was reduced from 52% to 31.15% of the pension’s basis of assessment. This corresponded to PLN 862,70 monthly.
46. The applicant appealed to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division, maintaining that the provisions of the 2009 Act on which the impugned decision was based were unconstitutional and in breach of the Convention.
On 25 May 2011 the Regional Court, relying on the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 24 February 2010 (see paragraphs 91-106 below), dismissed the appeal. The applicant’s appeal against the judgment was heard, and rejected, by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 15 March 2012.
9. Aleksiuk v. Poland (no. 22543/12)
47. The applicant is a Polish national born in 1946 and living in Hajnówka. In the proceedings before the Court he was represented by Ms Z. Daniszewska-Dek, a lawyer practising in Białystok.
48. The applicant was a functionary of the Security Service from 1 November 1970 to 1 September 1975 and from 1 August 1978 to 1 January 1990.
49. On 27 October 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant’s pension, whereby his benefit was reduced from PLN 2,728.87 to PLN 1,509.28 monthly.
50. The applicant appealed to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division, maintaining that the provisions of the 2009 Act on which the impugned decision was based were unconstitutional, that that Act of itself was a form of political repression and revenge based on collective responsibility and that it was in breach of the Convention. He alleged, in particular, a violation of the constitutional principles of the protection of acquired rights, the separation and balance of powers, proportionality, equality before the law and non-discrimination and also invoked Articles 1 and 14 of the Convention.
On 4 May 2011 the Regional Court, relying on the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 24 February 2010 (see paragraphs 91-106 below), dismissed the appeal. The Warsaw Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal against the first-instance judgment on 15 October 2011.
10. Wyszomirska and Others v. Poland (no. 62131/10)
51. The application was lodged by 15 Polish nationals: Ms Renata Wyszomirska (“the first applicant), born in 1946; Ms Ewa Linowska (“the second applicant”), born in 1958, Ms Grażyna Piasny (“the third applicant”), born in 1957; Ms Anna Kończak (“the fourth applicant”), born in 1947, Ms Katarzyna Pilarska (“the fifth applicant”), born in 1935, Ms Ewa Kamińska (“the sixth applicant”), born in 1957; Ms Urszula Kaczorowska (“the seventh applicant”) born in 1944; Mr Zbigniew Wyszomirski (“the eight applicant”) born in 1943; Mr Mariusz Klauzo (“the ninth applicant”), born in 1940; Mr Sławomir Kazimierz Tokarski (“the tenth applicant”) born in 1943; Mr Juliusz Kowalski (“the eleventh applicant”) born in 1950; Mr Stanisław Laskowski (“the twelfth applicant”), born in 1946; Ms Halina Czapska (“the thirteenth applicant”) born in 1961; Ms Ewa Stępniewska (“the fourteenth applicant”) born in 1957 and Ms Teresa Pieńkowska (“the fifteenth applicant”) born in 1951. The applicants, except for the seventh and the twelfth applicants who reside in Legionowo, live in Warsaw. In the proceedings before the Court they were represented by Ms M. Gąsiorowska, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.
52. On 9 October 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment of the first applicant’s pension, whereby her benefit was reduced from PLN 2,015.53 (net) to PLN 1,780.46 (gross)/ PLN 1,484.22 (net) monthly.
53. Similar decisions were issued in respect of the remaining applicants:
– on 12 October 2009 the second applicant’s benefit was reduced to PLN 3,072.16 (gross)/PLN 2,526.67 (net); the pension’s basis of assessment was reduced from 75% to 52.94%. Pursuant to an indexation decision of 12 March 2010, the applicant’s pension was fixed at PLN 2,689.41 (net). The applicant has failed to specify the amount before the decrease but an indexation decision of 4 May 2009, which she produced, stated that her pension was fixed at PLN 3,560.62 (net).
– on 26 February 2010 the third applicant’s benefit was reduced to PLN 3,103.40 (net); she has failed to specify the amount before the decrease. On 16 June 2010 her old-age pension was lowered to PLN 2,455.04 (net) due to the fact that she was in paid employment, which justified a statutory reduction of her social security benefits;
– on 28 October 2009 the fourth applicant’s benefit was reduced from PLN 1,669.85 (net) to PLN 1,100.97 (gross)/PLN 934.88 (net);
– on 23 October 2009 the fifth applicant’s benefit was reduced to PLN 944.38 (gross)/PLN 809.39 (net). The applicant has failed to specify the amount before the decrease;
– on 12 October 2009 the sixth applicant’s benefit was reduced from 4,341.31 (gross) to PLN 3,261.77 (gross); the pension’s basis of assessment was reduced from 75% to 56.35% ;
– on 24 November 2009 the seventh applicant’s benefit was reduced from PLN 2,368.61(gross) to PLN 1,344.31 (gross);
– on 28 October 2009 the eighth applicant’s benefit was reduced to PLN 1,805.61 (gross); according to the applicant, his pension’s basis of assessment was reduced from 75% to 43.53%. He has not specified clearly the amount before the decrease but an indexation decision of 27 February 2009, which he submitted, stated that the net amount of his pension was fixed at PLN 2,557.98 (net) in 2009. In his case, the social security authority issued three decisions: the first of 28 October 2009 (described above), the second of 17 December 2009 specifying the gross (PLN 1,805.61) and net (PLN 1,504.11) amounts of his pension and the third (indexation decision) of 26 February 2010 fixing his pension at PLN 1,699.94 (net);
– on 15 October 2009 the ninth applicant’s benefit was reduced from PLN 2,698.19 (net) to PLN 1,596.77 (gross)/PLN 1,336.06 (net) ;
– on 8 October 2009 the tenth applicant’s benefit was reduced from PLN 3,504.73(gross) to PLN 2,245.65 (gross);
– on 4 November 2009 the eleventh applicant’s benefit was reduced to PLN 1,703.78 (gross). The applicant has failed to state clearly the amount before the decrease but an indexation decision of 27 February 2009, which he submitted, indicated that for 2009 his pension was increased to PLN 1,952.69 (gross)/PLN 1,622.95 (net). Subsequently, by an indexation decision of 26 February 2010, the applicant’s gross pension of PLN 1,782.50 was reduced by PLN 1,336.87 due to the fact that he was in paid employment, which justified a statutory reduction of his old-age benefits. In consequence, the applicant’s pension was fixed at PLN 1,125.55 (net) for 2010.
– on 23 September 2009 the twelfth applicant’s benefit was reduced from PLN 2,321.01 (net) to PLN 1,765.00 (gross)/PLN 1,471.15 (net);
– on 9 October 2009 the thirteenth applicant’s benefit was reduced to PLN 1,742.45 (gross)/PLN 1,453.63; the pension’s basis of assessment was reduced from 45.75% to 35.46%. The applicant has failed to state clearly the amount before the decrease but an indexation decision of 27 February 2009, which she submitted, indicated that her pension was fixed at PLN 2,258.40 (gross)/PLN 1,870.14 (net) for 2009;
– on 13 October 2009 the fourteenth applicant’s benefit was reduced to PLN 1,450.51 (gross)/PLN 1,217.96 (net); the pension’s basis of assessment was reduced from 55.19% to 42.52%. The applicant has failed to state clearly the amount before the decrease;
– on 19 October 2009 the fifteenth applicant’s benefit was reduced from PLN 3,418.28 (gross)/PLN 2,806.63 (net) to PLN 2,954.31 (gross)/ PLN 2,432.42 (net).
54. The applicants, on various dates, appealed to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division, submitting in essence that the social security authority had misinterpreted the provisions of the 2009 Act and that the impugned decisions were unlawful and contrary to the Constitution and international treaties ratified by Poland. In particular, they relied on Articles 2, 8, 10, 30 and 32 of the Constitution, asserting that the legislature had overstepped its competence because it had imposed collective punishment on them, that it had failed to respect the principle of protection of acquired rights and that they were discriminated against on account of their service with the State security authorities. They also invoked Articles 6, 7, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
The applicants have not informed the Court about the outcome of the appeal proceedings.
11. Remaining cases listed in the appendix
55. In the remaining 1,618 cases the applicants, on various dates between September and December 2009, received similar decisions reducing their pensions with effect from 1 January 2010 issued by the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration. As in the cases described above, those decisions were based on section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and information on their employment in the State security authorities received from the IPN.
56. Most applicants contested – unsuccessfully – the decisions before the Warsaw Regional Court. The court, rejecting their appeals, relied on the same grounds as those cited above. Subsequently, the vast majority of the applicants lodged appeals with the Warsaw Court of Appeal. The appeals, except for a few cases where certain parts of the first-instance judgments relating to technical points or mistakes in the calculations were amended, were dismissed (see also paragraphs 12, 30, 34, 42, 46 and 50 above). Certain applicants have failed to inform the Court of the outcome of the appeal proceedings and, as it emerges from the material in the Court’s possession, some cases are still pending before the domestic courts.
C. Relevant domestic law and practice
1. Vetting procedure for former functionaries of the Security Service
(a) The 1990 Act
57. The 1990 Act entered into force on 10 May 1990. It was repealed on 29 June 2002 and replaced by the law of 24 May 2002 on the Internal Security Agency and the Intelligence Agency (ustawa o Agencji Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego oraz Agencji Wywiadu).
Section 129(1) of the 1990 Act read:
“The Security Service shall be dissolved once the Office for State Protection has been set up.”
Section 131 read:
“1. Once the Office for State Protection has been set up, functionaries of the Security Service shall be dismissed from the service by virtue of law.
2. The [preceding] provision shall also apply to functionaries of the Civil Militia (Milicja Obywatelska) who were functionaries of the Security Service on 31 July 1989.”
58. Pursuant to section 132 § 2, the Cabinet was to determine, within ten days following the 1990 Act’s entry into force, the procedure and conditions for admission to service and re-employment of former functionaries of the Security Service. On 21 May 1990 the Cabinet issued Resolution 69 on the procedure and conditions for admitting functionaries of the Security Service to service in the Office for State Protection and other organisational units under the Minister of the Interior, and on their employment in the Ministry of the Interior (uchwała w sprawie trybu i warunków przyjmowania byłych funkcjonariuszy Służby Bezpieczeństwa do służby w Urzędzie Ochrony Państwa i w innych jednostkach organizacyjnych podległych Ministrowi Spraw Wewnętrznych oraz zatrudniania ich w Ministerstwie Spraw Wewnętrznych – “the 1990 Resolution”).
59. Under section 133 of the 1990 Act, functionaries of the former Security Service and Civic Militia who were admitted to service or re-employed in organisational units under the Minister of the Interior preserved continuity of their service or employment.
(b) The 1990 Resolution
60. The 1990 Resolution (which was repealed on 30 March 2001) set up the Vetting Commission for Central Personnel (Komisja Kwalifikacyjna do Spraw Kadr Centralnych) and regional vetting commissions (wojewódzkie komisje kwalifikacyjne). Pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 6, the regional vetting commissions instituted a procedure on an application from a former functionary and gave opinions on candidates. The Vetting Commission for Central Personnel was responsible for the supervision of the process, handling appeals against the regional commissions’ opinions and reporting on the conduct of vetting proceedings to the Cabinet.
61. Pursuant to paragraph 7.1, a regional vetting commission evaluated the usefulness of a candidate for service on the basis of his application, personal files, records of service and other documents supplied. It could also, of its own motion or at the candidate’s request, conduct an interview.
62. Paragraph 8.1 of the 1990 Resolution read as follows:
“A regional vetting commission shall give a positive opinion on a candidate if it is satisfied that he meets the requirements for a functionary of a given service or for an employee of the Ministry of the Interior specified by law and if it is convinced that he has moral standing (kwalifikacje moralne) to perform service, in particular:
1) in the course of his service he has not infringed the law;
2) he has performed his duties in a manner not infringing the rights and dignity of other persons;
3) he has not used his function for unofficial purposes.”
2. The 1994 Act
63. Section 13 of the 1994 Act in the version applicable until 15 March 2009, before the entry into force of the 2009 Act (see paragraph 6 above), read as follows:
“1. The following types of service shall be treated as equivalent to service in the police, the Office for State Protection, the Border Guard, the State Fire Service or the Prison Service:
1) service performed as a functionary of the national police, the State security service, public order and national security authorities, other than service referred to in subsection 2;
2) military service relevant for the determination of the right to a military pension;
3) service performed as a functionary of the Rail Security Guard (Służba Ochrony Kolei) if [the person concerned] was transferred directly to service in the Civic Militia or the Prison Service before 1 April 1955;
4) employment or service in professional units for fire protection and education in firefighter schools, as a member of the Fire Service Technical Corps, or as a functionary of the Fire Service before 31 January 1992.
2. Subsection 1 shall not apply to service performed between 1944 and 1956 as a functionary of the State security service, public order and national security authorities if, in the course of performing his duties, a functionary committed an offence against justice or [offence] infringing the personal rights of a citizen and, in consequence, was dismissed from service in disciplinary proceedings or if criminal proceedings against him were discontinued in view of the minimal degree of social danger of his act, or if he was convicted for an intentional offence by a final judgment of a court.”
64. Section 15(1) of the 1994 Act, in the version applicable until 16 March 2009, read, in so far as relevant:
“The retirement pension of a functionary who remained in service before 2 January 1999 shall amount to 40% of its basis of assessment[2] for the first fifteen years of service and shall be increased by:
1) 2.6% of the basis of assessment – for each subsequent year of service;
2) 2.6% of the basis of assessment – for each year of contributory periods preceding service but not for more than three years from those contributory periods;
3) 1.3% of the basis of assessment – for each year of contributory periods over and above the three year contributory period referred to in subsection 2;
4) 0.7% of the basis of assessment – for each non-contributory year preceding service.”
65. Under the 1994 Act and previous uniformed services pension laws a professional soldier and a functionary of a uniformed service were entitled to a retirement pension after 15 years of service. Accordingly, a condition for the acquisition of pension rights was the requisite period of service, not the reaching of a certain age. The right to a retirement pension under the uniformed services pension scheme as applicable in the past and currently was not linked with the requirement to pay contributions by the person concerned since those pensions were financed from State funds.
3. Definition of “State security authorities” under the 2006 Act
66. The preamble to the 2006 Act reads as follows:
“We hereby recognise that employment or service in the security authorities of the Communist state, or assistance provided to those authorities by an informer, consisting in combating democratic opposition, trade unions, associations, churches and religious organisations, violations of the right to freedom of expression and assembly, the right to life, liberty, property and security of citizens, was inextricably linked with violations of human and civil rights committed in the name of the Communist totalitarian regime.
Having regard to the foregoing and the need to ensure that functions, posts and professions requiring public confidence are held by persons whose conduct shows, and has showed in the past, their honesty, nobility, a sense of responsibility for their words and acts, civil courage and integrity; also having regard to the constitutional guarantees securing to citizens the right to information on persons who have held such positions, have enacted as follows ...”
67. The relevant parts of section 2 of the 2006 Act read as follows:
“1. State security .... authorities, within the meaning of this Act, shall be:
1) the Department of Public Security of the Polish Committee of National Liberation;
2) the Ministry of Public Security;
3) the Committee for Public Security;
4) organisational units subordinate to the authorities mentioned in points 1-3, in particular the units of the Civic Militia in the period up to 14 December 1954;
5) central bodies of the Security Service of the Ministry of the Interior and their subordinate local units in the regional, district, and equivalent Civic Militia headquarters, as well as in the regional, district, and equivalent offices for internal affairs;
6) the Academy of Internal Affairs;
7) the Reconnaissance Unit of the Border Defence Force;
8) the Main Board of the Internal Service of the military units of the Ministry of the Interior and their subordinate sections;
9) the Military Information Corps;
10) the Military Internal Service;
11) Directorate II of the General Staff of the Polish Army;
12) other services of the Armed Forces providing operational intelligence or conducting investigative activities, including those within various armed services and branches and within military districts.
...
3. Within the meaning of this Act the State security service units shall be those units of the Ministry of the Interior which were dissolved by virtue of law upon the reorganisation of the Office for State Security, as well as their predecessors.”
4. The 2009 Act
68. The 2009 Act opens with a preamble, the relevant parts of which read as follows:
“Recognising that the system of communist power was mainly based on a widespread network of State security authorities, which essentially performed the function of a political police, applying unlawful methods and infringing fundamental human rights,
noting that crimes were committed against organisations and persons defending independence and democracy and, at the same time, [their] perpetrators were exempted from responsibility and escaped justice,
seeing that functionaries of the State security service performed their duties without risking their health or life, taking advantage of various economic and legal privileges in exchange for the preservation of the inhuman regime,
...
rewarding the conduct of those functionaries and citizens who, taking a huge risk, took the side of freedom and the injured citizens,
being guided by the principle of social justice which does not permit toleration and reward of lawlessness,
have enacted as follows ...”
69. Section 2 of the 2009 Act introduced a number of amendments to section 13 of the 1994 Act (see paragraph 63 above).
Point 1) in subsection (1) was rephrased as follows:
“Periods of service as a functionary of the Office for State Protection”.
New points 1a) and 1b) were also added to subsection (1):
“1a. Periods of service as a functionary of the Civic Militia, except for service referred to in subsection 2.
1b. Periods of service as a functionary of the State security service referred to in section 2 of the [2006 Act] in accordance with the principles mentioned in section 15b, except for service described in subsection 2.”
70. Section 2 added a new section 13a to the 1994 Act. This provision, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“1. On a request from the relevant pension authority, [the IPN] shall prepare on the basis of personal files in its possession information on the course of service of named functionaries of the State security service referred to in section 2 of [the 2006 Act] and shall transmit it to that authority within four months of receipt of the request.
...
4. Information on the course of service referred to in subsection 1 shall contain;
1) the functionary’s personal data ...
2) an indication of the periods of service in the State security service referred to in section 2 of [the 2006 Act],
3) information whether documents in [the IPN] archives show that during that period the functionary, without his superiors’ knowledge, cooperated and actively supported persons or organisations acting for the Polish State’s independence.”
71. New section 15b was also added. It reads as follows:
“1. For a person who served in the State security authorities referred to in section 2 of [the 2006 Act] and who was in service before 2 January 1999, his pension shall amount to:
1) 0.7% of its basis of assessment – for each year of service in the State security authorities between 1944 and1990;
2) 2.6% of its basis of assessment – for each year of service or periods equivalent to service referred to in section 13 (1) (1-1a) and (2-4).
2. Sections 14 and 15 shall apply accordingly.
3. At a [functionary’s] request, the full period of service in the State security service can be added to the periods referred to in section 13(1) if he can show that before 1990, without his superiors’ knowledge, he cooperated with and actively supported persons or organisations acting for the Polish State’s independence.
4. In the situation mentioned in subsection 3, evidence can comprise information described in section 13 a (1) and, equally, other kinds of proof, in particular a criminal conviction, even if not final, in connection with an activity, [undertaken] without his superiors’ knowledge and consisting of cooperating with and actively supporting persons or organisations acting for the Polish State’s independence when serving in the State security service between 1944 and 1990.”
72. The relevant part of section 3 of the 2009 Act reads as follows:
“2. For persons in respect of whom information referred to in section 13a ... shows that between 1944 and 1990 they worked in the State security service referred to in section 2 of [the 2006 Act] and who on the date of entry into force of this Act receive benefits accorded under [the 1994 Act], the relevant pension authority ... shall of its own motion institute proceedings for the determination of the right to benefits and their amounts. [An] appeal to a court against a decision of the pension authority shall not stop the enforcement of that decision.
3. Payment of benefits determined in accordance with subsection ... (2) shall be made with effect from 1 January 2010.”
5. Retirement pensions under the general social security scheme
73. The rules for the determination of retirement pensions under the general social security scheme are laid down in the law of 17 December 1998 on pension benefits from the Social Insurance Fund (ustawa o emeryturach i rentach z Funduszu Ubezpieczeń Społecznych).
The general system operates on the basis of two schemes, known as “the old scheme” and “the new scheme”.
74. Under the old scheme, which applies essentially only to persons born before 1 January 1949[3], the right to a retirement pension is generally acquired by women aged 60 with at least a twenty-year contributory and/or non-contributory period and men aged 65 years with at least a twenty-five contributory and/or non-contributory period. A retirement pension amounts to 24% of the so-called “base amount” (kwota bazowa) (i.e. 100% of the average salary in Poland[4] in the previous calendar year, reduced by compulsory social insurance contributions deducted from the salary) + 1.3% of the basis of assessment for each contributory year + 0.7% of the basis of assessment for each non-contributory year. The basis of assessment is, to simplify the rules, calculated with reference to the average salary (reduced by social insurance contributions) received by the person concerned in ten years selected from the last twenty years of employment or twenty years chosen by the person concerned.
75. The new scheme is composed of the so called “three pillars” (trzy filary).
The first pillar is managed by the Social Security Board, which is a public institution and the second and the third pillars are managed by private institutions. The third pillar manages supplementary, private pension plans based on voluntary contributions and is not relevant to the present cases.
In the first and second pillars social insurance contributions are compulsory and the scheme applies to persons born after 31 December 1948[5]. The right to a retirement pension is acquired by persons who have reached the statutory retirement age (from 60 to 67 years for women and from 65 years and five months to 67 years for men). The amount of a retirement pension is the equivalent of the total amount of pension contributions after indexation collected since 31 December 1998 and what is known as “initial capital” (contributions collected before 1 January 1999) after indexation, divided by the average life expectancy expressed in months for a person whose age is the same as the retirement age of the person concerned.
76. According to an official communiqué on the minimum statutory pension, issued by the President of the Social Security Board on 16 November 2011 (published in the Official Gazette (Monitor Polski) of 2011 no. 15, item 162), in 2012 the minimum statutory pension was fixed at 728.18 Polish zlotys (PLN).
6. Relevant provisions of the Constitution
77. Article 2 of the Constitution states:
“The Republic of Poland shall be a democratic state ruled by law and implementing the principles of social justice.”[6]
78. Article 10 of the Constitution states:
“1. The system of government of the Republic of Poland shall be based on the separation of and balance between the legislative, executive and judicial powers.
2. Legislative power shall be vested in the Sejm[7] and the Senate, executive power shall be vested in the President of the Republic of Poland and the Council of Ministers, and judicial power shall be vested in courts and tribunals.”
79. Article 18 of the Constitution states:
“Marriage, being a union of a man and a woman, as well as the family, motherhood and parenthood, shall be placed under the protection and care of the Republic of Poland.”
80. Article 30 of the Constitution states:
“The inherent and inalienable dignity of the person shall constitute a source of freedoms and rights of persons and citizens. It shall be inviolable. The respect and protection thereof shall be the obligation of public authorities.”
81. Article 31 § 3 of the Constitution states:
“Any limitation upon the exercise of constitutional freedoms and rights may be imposed only by statute, and only when necessary in a democratic state for the protection of its security or public order, or to protect the natural environment, health or public morals, or the freedoms and rights of other persons. Such limitations shall not violate the essence of freedoms and rights.”
82. Article 32 of the Constitution states:
“1. All persons shall be equal before the law. All persons shall have the right to equal treatment by public authorities.
2. No one shall be discriminated against in political, social or economic life for any reason whatsoever.
83. Article 42 of the Constitution states:
“1. Only a person who has committed an act prohibited by a statute in force at the moment of commission thereof, and which is subject to a penalty, shall be held criminally responsible. This principle shall not prevent punishment of any act which, at the moment of its commission, constituted an offence within the meaning of international law.
2. Anyone against whom criminal proceedings have been brought shall have the right to defence at all stages of such proceedings. He may, in particular, choose counsel or avail himself - in accordance with principles specified by statute - of counsel appointed by the court.
3. Everyone shall be presumed innocent of a charge until his guilt is determined by the final judgment of a court.
84. Article 67 § 1 of the Constitution states:
“A citizen shall have the right to social security whenever incapacitated for work by reason of sickness or disability as well as having attained retirement age. The scope and forms of social security shall be specified by statute.”
7. Constitutional Court’s judgment of 24 February 2010 (case no. K 6/09)
(a) Arguments before the Constitutional Court
(i) The applicant deputies
85. On 23 February 2009 a group of members of Parliament belonging mostly to the Democratic Left Alliance (Sojusz Lewicy Demokratycznej) asked the Constitutional Court (Trybunał Konstytucyjny) to declare that the 2009 Act was in its entirety incompatible with Articles 2, 10, 31 § 3 and 32 of the Constitution. Subsequently, in their pleading of 30 August 2009, they also relied on Articles 18, 30, 42, 45 and 67 § 1 of the Constitution.
86. The main thrust of the very extensive arguments submitted in support of the application, which were made both in writing and at an oral hearing can be summarised as follows.
1) The 2009 Act, drastically reducing the pensions of former functionaries, had deprived some of them of the possibility of living with dignity and consequently was contrary to the principle of respect for human dignity laid down in Article 30 of the Constitution. At the same time, it infringed the very essence of the right to social security set forth in Article 67 § 1 of the Constitution.
2) All the functionaries of the State security service who had been re‑employed after 1990 had undergone a vetting procedure under the 1990 Resolution and had been considered fit for service in the democratic Republic of Poland. They had obtained their pension rights lawfully under the 1994 Act, a law enacted by independent, democratic Poland. The 2009 Act extinguished their rights acquired under a democratic system in an arbitrary fashion and unjustifiably, in breach of the principle of the protection of acquired rights laid down in Article 2 of the Constitution.
3) Vetting and re-employing former functionaries of the State security service constituted a special declaration, made on behalf of the Republic of Poland by the State authorities, that they would be treated on an equal basis with all functionaries of services created after 1990. In turn, the functionaries, under oath, took upon themselves an obligation to serve the nation faithfully and protect the legal order established by the Constitution, and the security of the State and its citizens. They fulfilled their duties; otherwise, they would not have been granted their pensions.
The 2009 Act, enacted some twenty years later, amounted to a breach of this special pact and, consequently, violated the principle of the citizens’ confidence in the State and the laws made by it laid down in Article 2 of the Constitution.
4) The 2009 Act was based on the rule of collective responsibility and presumption of guilt on the part of former functionaries of the State security service. It applied an automatic restriction of pension rights of all former State security service functionaries, notwithstanding their actual individual conduct and the nature of the duties they had performed in the past. As a result, the 2009 Act, drastically lowering the coefficient used for the determination of their pensions, constituted a form of unjustified repression against positively vetted and re-employed functionaries.
This was tantamount to considering service before 1990 a non‑contributory period. In particular, the legislature did not put functionaries on an equal footing with other persons receiving pensions under the general social security scheme, where a coefficient of 1.3% applies, which could give the deceptive appearance of a “withdrawal of privileges”, but placed them in a decisively more disadvantageous position. This constituted a breach of the principle of social justice laid down in Article 2 of the Constitution.
5) The legislature also violated the principle of separation and balance of powers laid down in Article 10 § 1 of the Constitution. It imposed collective punishment on all persons who had been functionaries of the State security service before 1990. The mere fact of service in those authorities was decisive. No legal procedure was available to review the legality, justification, adequacy and proportionality of the sanction imposed. For all practical purposes, the legislature took over the role of the courts of law. In consequence, functionaries were punished collectively, regardless of whether they had indeed been responsible for any acts which were unlawful, infringed human dignity or were morally reprehensible.
6) The 2009 Act was in breach of the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 31 § 3 of the Constitution because it constituted an extremely serious restriction on the pension rights of positively vetted and re-employed functionaries and imposed an excessive burden on them. Moreover, the 2009 Act entirely disregarded the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1096 (1996) on measures to dismantle the heritage of former communist totalitarian systems (“the 1996 PACE Resolution”) and its accompanying guidelines, recommending that that process should be terminated within ten years of the fall of the communist dictatorship (see also paragraph 115 below).
7) The 2009 Act, contrary to the principles of equality before the law and non-discrimination laid down in Article 32 of the Constitution, introduced discrimination between functionaries who had been vetted positively and subsequently re-employed and functionaries who had not served in the State security authorities before 1990. There was no basis for this difference in treatment as both groups had the same characteristics.
87. The deputies also stressed that the legislature had ignored the fact that functionaries of the State security service had performed various duties and that, in particular, many of them had been administrative personnel, had been teachers, secretaries, or drivers or they had dealt with common or economic crime and had not been involved in surveillance of or combat against the opposition. In their view, these persons should not be affected by the 2009 Act. It was profoundly unjust that a functionary who had worked all his professional life in the State security service in a lowly technical or administrative position, not infringing the rights of others, not combating the opposition and not acting for the preservation of the communist regime should now receive a pension of only PLN 600 zlotys[8].
(ii) Other parties
88. The other parties to the proceedings, namely the Sejm, represented by its Speaker (Marszałek) and the Prosecutor General, also submitted extensive arguments.
89. The Speaker of the Sejm asked the Constitutional Court to dismiss the application, stressing, in particular, that the impugned reduction could not be regarded as disproportionate or excessive having regard to the lowest benefits available under the general social security scheme or those received by persons who had been subjected to political repression under the totalitarian system.
90. The Prosecutor General asked the Constitutional Court to dismiss the application in part contesting the reductions in pensions, and to discontinue the proceedings in respect of the remainder.
(b) The ruling
91. The Constitutional Court, sitting in a panel of fourteen judges[9], heard the application on 13 and 14 January and 24 February 2010. It gave judgment on the last of these dates, holding that the contested amendments to the 1994 Act introduced by the 2009 Act were compatible with the Constitution. Five judges voted against the ruling and submitted dissenting opinions (see paragraphs 107-111 below). One of the judges[10] submitted a concurring opinion.
92. The judgment contains very extensive reasoning, which can be summarised as follows.
93. As regards the scope of the constitutional review in the case, the Constitutional Court held that the application would eventually be examined under Articles 2, 10, 30, 32, 42 and 67 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 31 § 3 of the Constitution (see also paragraphs 77-84 above) and, finding that the deputies had not advanced meritorious arguments concerning the other alleged breaches, discontinued the proceedings in that respect.
94. In an introductory part of the judgment the Constitutional Court referred at length to various general issues, such as the Polish Parliament’s resolutions condemning the former communist regime and the de‑communisation laws adopted by Poland. It also had regard to resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in particular, the 1996 PACE Resolution and the Resolution 1481 (2006) on the need for international condemnation of crimes of totalitarian communist regimes (“the PACE 2006 Resolution”; see also paragraphs 115-116 below), as well as to laws and measures affecting pension rights of functionaries of the former communist State security service in other countries (in particular, in Germany, the Czech Republic, Latvia and Romania). It referred to the Court’s case-law on lustration and de-communisation measures and its own jurisprudence on settling accounts with the communist past.
95. The Constitutional Court next referred to the essential features and activities of the communist State security service. This part of the reasoning reads, in so far as relevant, as follows[11]:
“6.2. ... The State security authorities of the Polish People’s Republic and their functionaries safeguarded the communist regime in Poland in the years 1944-89, they preserved the situation in which in Poland there was no liberty and democracy, no market economy and no affiliation with the Western world. [A] direct consequence thereof was a degradation of the country’s civilisation, which was demonstrated by, among other things, a deep disintegration of its economy and financial situation.
The [communist] system was founded on a secret political police apparatus which was extensive in terms of its structure and number [of employees]. The main objective of this apparatus was to preserve and support the communist regime. To this end, functionaries of the State security service of the Polish People’s Republic in the initial period used terror and, routinely, humiliation, surveillance of innocent people, and fabrication of evidence; they violated fundamental human rights and freedoms. The methods they used and the scale and intensity [of their activities] changed over time, but their essence was the same – to support a political regime which was hostile to human rights. In reward, the ruling communist party gave those functionaries practical impunity for abuses of power, promotions that were faster than in other uniformed services, a high remuneration for service, other numerous additional economic and social privileges, and high retirement pension benefits.
6.3. This court does not judge the individual motivations of the tens of thousands of people who chose voluntarily to serve in the State security authorities of the Polish People’s Republic, mostly young men. It is likely that purely professional motivation (service in the secret police) was similar to that which exists today. A considerable difference lies in the object of the choice. In no case does the choice of service in the secret political police of the communist State merit approval, notwithstanding the organisational unit and the grade of the functionary ...
By the closing days of the Polish People’s Republic about 30,000 functionaries were employed by the State security authorities. Today there are in total about 10,000. This is not just one-third of the previous total. The security authorities of the Polish People’s Republic, instead of serving to protect the political, social and economic aspirations of Poles, constituted a highly specialised net of institutions which worked against these aspirations. The “product” that remained after those security authorities had been disbanded is over eighty-six kilometres of files, of which only 850 m are important for national security today and are in the restricted archives of the IPN ...”
96. In respect of the deputies’ argument that the functionaries adversely affected by the 2009 Act had been either positively vetted or not subjected to the vetting procedure, the Constitutional Court held, among other things, that:
“6.4 ...[A]s a result of democratic transformation in Poland the Security Service was ... dissolved. The ... sovereign Polish State needed new services, which would ensure its security and would at the same time act in accordance with the standards of a democratic state ruled by law. There were two possible options: 1) constructing the new services from scratch, and recruiting exclusively persons who had not served in the Security Service, with the prospect of a long period of preparation for their tasks or 2) setting up a new State protection police quickly, taking unavoidably large numbers of former functionaries of the dissolved Security Service, the legislature chose the second option. It meant that former functionaries of the Security Service could be admitted to service in the Office for State Protection.
6.4.1. The object of the vetting procedure was not to issue certificates of good moral standing to functionaries of particular departments of the Security Service ...”
97. A considerable part of the reasoning was devoted to a comparison between pensions under the general social security scheme and the uniformed services system.
In respect of the calculation of pensions under the general rules, it was noted that the system was organised in such a way that an ordinary employee on his retirement received 40% of his salary calculated for a period of ten calendar years chosen by him from the last twenty years preceding his retirement, including contributory and non-contributory periods. The longer the period of employment, the higher the pension. In practice, in order to receive a pension close to half the average salary in the last ten years, a person had to be employed for at least thirty years.
In contrast, a functionary of the uniformed services acquired the right to a pension equal to 40% of his average salary after only fifteen years of service. The average salary of persons insured under the general scheme was 50% that of the uniformed services personnel and this difference was even more marked in comparison to the special services. Accordingly, a pensioner insured in the general scheme received 40% of his average salary for the last ten years for a period of employment which was twice as long.
98. As regards the belated introduction of the new rules and non‑conformity of the 2009 Act with the 1996 PACE Resolution, the Constitutional Court observed, inter alia, the following:
“ ... The lapse of time since the Polish State gained sovereignty in 1989, although not without significance, cannot be a decisive criterion for the evaluation of constitutionality of the regulations adopted by the legislature in order to settle accounts with the former functionaries of the communist regime. There is no provision in the Constitution which would impose a prohibition on enacting such regulations. The Constitution does not set time-limits for the settling of accounts with the past communist regime. It is not within the competence of the Constitutional Court to give an opinion on whether, and if so by when, the legislature of free Poland can introduce such laws ... How much time elapses between the collapse of the communist regime and the adoption of a given law depends on the existence of a configuration of power capable of enacting the law during its parliamentary term. As shown by the examples of Poland and other countries in our region of Europe, as well as certain countries in South America, many years may elapse after the establishment or re‑establishment of democracy before laws are enacted regulating a certain aspect of responsibility for systemic abuses of power ...
8.4. Referring to the argument that the 2009 Act of 23 January 2009 is in ‘flagrant contradiction’ of the 1996 Pace Resolution and of the guidelines to that document ... the Constitutional Court finds that there is no suggestion in those documents that settling of accounts with the communist period should only take place during the first ten years after the overthrow of the dictatorship. Laws on settling accounts have been introduced in various [countries] and in various years over the past two decades, including in recent years ... As the Constitutional Court has noted above, pursuant to § 14 of the 1996 PACE Resolution: ‘In exceptional cases, where the ruling elite of the former regime awarded itself pension rights higher than those of the ordinary population, these should be reduced to the ordinary level’”
99. As regards the argument that an interference with the functionaries’ right to social security was excessive, the Constitutional Court noted that, in essence, the legislature reduced the coefficient of the pension’s basis of assessment from 2.6% to 0.7% only in respect of functionaries of the State security service who were in service before 2 January 1999 and who had been employed for at least fifteen years. Other elements relevant to the assessment of pensions remained unchanged, in particular the right to a pension after fifteen years of service, advantageous calculation of the pensions’ basis of assessment in comparison to the general system, rules and terms regarding indexation, invalidity and survivor pensions benefits, special allowances and increases in pensions due to, for instance, service during the war, combating terrorism, serving in hazardous conditions or in the counter-intelligence service.
In that context, the Constitutional Court also cited various information supplied by the social security authorities, concerning levels of pensions of functionaries as determined under the 2009 Act in comparison to ordinary pensioners. In January 2010 the average pension of the former amounted to 2,558.82 Polish zlotys (PLN), whereas the average pension received under the general social security scheme was PLN 1,618.70. At the material time the minimum statutory pension was PLN 675.10.
In February 2010 the average pension received by former functionaries of the State security service was lowered by PLN 346 and was still higher by 58% than the average pension under the general scheme. Only in respect of ordinary functionaries was the average pension (PLN 1,499.64) slightly lower than under the general scheme. Junior officers received PLN 2,102.12 on average (formerly PLN 2,670.930, senior officers PLN 3,479.67 (formerly PLN 4,156.21) and generals received PLN 8,598.43 (formerly PLN 9,578.41).
100. According to information produced by the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration on 5 February 2010, the board issued 38,563 decisions re-assessing pensions of former functionaries. In 7,227 cases the pensions remained unchanged due to the fact that certain periods of employment, which had not previously been included, were taken into account. In 589 cases the application of the 0.7% coefficient as established by the 2009 Act would have resulted in reducing pensions below the statutory minimum and, therefore, those pensions were increased so as to reach that amount.
In view of the foregoing, the Constitutional Court held that the legislature, being guided by the principle of social justice, pursued the legitimate aim of adjusting the pensions of former functionaries of the State security service to the average level of pensions under the general social security scheme. In consequence, in January 2010 the average pension of a functionary was still higher that the average ordinary pension. This reduction limited, but did not extinguish, the excessive, unjustly acquired generous benefits of former state security functionaries. This demonstrated that the legislature was not seeking revenge but greater social justice.
101. Considering the above circumstances, the Constitutional Court concluded that the impugned provisions were not incompatible with Article 67 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 31 § 3 of the Constitution. It held, inter alia, as follows:
“8.9. The Constitutional Court finds that the legislature did not infringe the essence of the right to social security by introducing the 2009 Act. Although it considers that the reduction in retirement pensions of ... the functionaries of the State security service of the Polish People’s Republic was significant, it nevertheless remained within the margin of appreciation determined by the Constitution. An infringement of [their] right to social security would, in particular, have occurred if the legislature had taken away all their retirement pension rights or reduced their pensions to a level below the social minimum standards. By reducing [their] retirement benefits the legislature not only guaranteed that their benefits would not be lower than the minimum statutory retirement pension under the general social security system ... but also ensured that the amount of [their] average retirement pension under the new provisions remains still significantly higher than the average retirement pension paid under the general social security system.”
102. Rejecting the arguments as to the alleged incompatibility of section 13(1) and (1b) and section 15b of the 1994 Act as introduced by the 2009 Act with Article 30 of the Constitution (the principle of respect for human dignity), the Constitutional Court held:
“9.2. The impugned provisions are neither aimed at depriving the functionaries of security authorities of the minimum means of subsistence, nor at humiliating them. [The] aim is to reduce their retirement pension benefits, which ... stem from the privileged system of social security. As ... already established above .... after the entry into force of the 2009 Act, the average reduced retirement pension of a functionary of the State security authorities ... is still 58% higher than the average retirement pension in the general retirement pension system, and almost four times higher than the minimum statutory retirement pension. In this situation, the legislature under the impugned provisions still provides retired functionaries of the State security authorities .... with adequate, justified and fair social security benefits for the period of their service before 1990 ... In conclusion, the contested provisions conform to Article 30 of the Constitution.”
103. The Constitutional Court further rejected the arguments in respect of the alleged incompatibility of sections 13(1) and (1b) and 15b(1) of the 1994 Act as introduced by the 2009 Act with Article 2 of the Constitution (the principle of citizens’ confidence in the state and the law made by it, the principle of protection of acquired rights and the principle of social justice). The relevant part of the reasoning reads as follows:
“10.2. ... The legislature was entitled – despite the lapse of over nineteen years since the transformation of the system – to introduce provisions reducing retirement pensions for periods of service in the State security authorities ... It does not follow from the constitutional principle of protection of citizens’ confidence in the State and the laws made by it that everyone, regardless of his or her personal circumstances, may assume that the rules governing his social rights will never change to his disadvantage in the future ...
The protection of acquired rights does not mean that those rights are inviolable, and does not exclude the enactment of less advantageous regulations. The Constitutional Court has stressed on many occasions that departure from the principle of protection of acquired rights is permissible, provided it has a basis in other constitutional principles, provisions or values .... According to the well-established jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, the principle of protection of acquired rights does not apply to rights acquired unjustly or dishonourably, nor to rights which lacked a basis in the constitutional order binding at the time of adjudication ...
By enacting the contested provisions the legislature expressed a negative opinion on the activities of ... the security authorities of the communist State, which was confirmed in the course of legislative work and in the preamble to the 2009 Act. In the preamble, the legislature declared it had been guided by the ‘principle of social justice, which does not permit the toleration and reward of lawlessness’. ... As already stated above, the legislature of free Poland has never expressed a single positive opinion on the secret political police of the years 1944-89, and in the years 1989-2009 this opinion has been reflected in laws and adopted resolutions many times. As long as constitutional principles and values are respected, the legislature has the right to draw conclusions from the historical experience of the Polish People’s Republic ...
The applicant seems to suggest that the impugned provisions would conform to the constitutional principle of social justice if the coefficient of the basis of assessment for the retirement pension was 1.3% ... which, in the applicant’s opinion, might give a deceptive appearance of a “withdrawal of privileges”. The 0.7%, however ...placed those affected by it in a position where their pension was significantly lower than in the general retirement pension system, which, according to the applicant, amounts to repression ...
This argument is ill-founded ...
As this court has already found ... the ... 0.7% for every year of service must be assessed taking into account the fact that functionaries of the State security authorities had been receiving remunerations significantly higher than the average salary in Poland .... The amount of the retirement benefit is not determined by the coefficient for the basis of assessment alone (2.6%, 1.3% or 0.7%), but is a result of the “base amount” and other factors, relevant to the establishment of the final amount of the whole benefit ...
This court has already established that, after the 2009 Act’s entry into force, the average reduced retirement pension of a functionary of the State security authorities ... is still 58% higher than the average retirement pension in the general old-age pension system, and almost four times the statutory minimum retirement pension. ...
10.7. In sum, the privileges in respect of retirement pension rights [of the functionaries] have been acquired dishonourably. The aims and methods of ... the State security service of the Polish People’s Republic cannot be considered legitimate. This court finds that service in State institutions and authorities which systemically violated fundamental human rights and the rule of law may not justify claims that privileges acquired before the fall of the regime should be preserved in a democratic state ruled by law.
One of the ways of rewarding [the functionaries] ... for service was, among many other things, providing them with retirement pension privileges. These privileges were preserved by their beneficiaries in free Poland, which was confirmed in the 1994 Act. In 2009, assessing negatively the State security authorities of the Polish People’s Republic, the legislature was able to resort to the abolition or limitation of unjustly acquired retirement pension benefits. ... This court considers that the manner in which the legislature ... reduced unjustly acquired retirement privileges in 2009 was balanced, restrained and proportional.”
104. The argument that the impugned provisions were incompatible with Article 32 of the Constitution (the principle of equality before the law and non-discrimination) because all the functionaries were treated in the same way, despite the fact that most of them had been positively vetted, was likewise rejected. In that regard, the Constitutional Court once again stressed that the positive outcome of the vetting procedure did not mean an approval of service in the former communist secret political police and it did not eradicate the fact that the functionaries concerned had served in that institution voluntarily. All the functionaries were treated in exactly the same way and they were partly deprived of their pension benefits on the same ground, which was the fact that they had served in an institution which had engaged in reprehensible activities over the relevant period. Their service after the cut-off date in 1990 for democratic Poland was treated without discrimination since they acquired the same pension rights as the others, notwithstanding their past.
105. The Constitutional Court found no breach of Article 10 of the Constitution (the principle of division and balance of power) in respect of the allegation that the legislature enacted the 2009 Act in order to impose a collective punishment on the former State security functionaries. It observed that Parliament had not overstepped its competences set out in the Constitution and that the contested provisions were not designed to punish the functionaries collectively but to reduce their pensions to the level of the average pension under the general social security scheme.
106. Lastly, as regards the argument that the contested provisions of the 2009 Act were based on collective responsibility and presumption of guilt since all the functionaries of the State security service were equally considered criminals who did not deserve any rights, the Constitutional Court found that Article 42 of the Constitution (the principles of the right to defence, presumption of innocence, nulla poena sine lege) did not apply in the case. It stressed that this provision concerned only criminal responsibility and criminal proceedings and could not be interpreted extensively. There were no criminal sanctions included in the impugned provisions. Nor did they prejudge criminal guilt of functionaries, and they did not constitute a form of repression.
(c) Dissenting opinions
107. In Judge Jamroz’s view the 2009 Act was in its entirety incompatible with Article 2 and Article 10 of the Constitution. In his dissenting opinion he stated, among other things, the following:
“Changes in the retirement pension system are obviously permissible, and also in certain circumstances justly acquired rights cannot be absolute. However, this needs to be done with respect for constitutional principles, and in particular those in Article 2 of the Constitution ...
The 2009 Act is in breach of Article 10 of the Constitution, since the legislature has imposed collective punishment on all those who were functionaries of the State security authorities before 1990, without considering the conduct of individual functionaries. The decisive factor is the mere fact of serving in the State security authorities of the Polish People’s Republic. In this way the legislature entered the realm of authority which is constitutionally restricted to judicial bodies, without taking any action to check or verify the legitimacy, adequacy, legality, fairness and proportionality of the sanction imposed. As a consequence the legislature, relying on the principle of collective responsibility, has imposed severe punishment, regardless of whether the functionaries are responsible for any unlawful acts which violated human dignity, or whether their actions were morally reprehensible ...
The judgment ... following the intentions of the legislature which have been expressed in the preamble, passes on political and moral judgment regarding the functioning of the State security authorities in the Polish People’s Republic and draws from it legal consequences with regard to constitutional matters. However, I object to the methodology of adjudicating in the name of “pure justice” which has been assumed by the Constitutional Court, which has been inspired by political and moral opinions but has omitted the constitutional principles reflecting contemporary long-standing standards of a democratic state ruled by law established in its jurisprudence ....”
108. Judge Łętowska considered that the Preamble to the 2009 Act was incompatible with Article 2 of the Constitution, that sections 1 and 2 read in conjunction with Article 3 of the 2009 Act were incompatible with Articles 2 and 67 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 31 § 3 of the Constitution and disagreed with the majority with regard to certain general ideas expressed in the reasoning. The relevant parts of her opinion read as follows:
“I do not question the constitutional admissibility (and legitimacy) of reducing retirement pensions for the staff who formed a kind of “Praetorian Guard” of the totalitarian regime, subsequently discredited in the democratic system. I question the way in which it has been carried out. ...
The preamble to the Act first of all stigmatises the persons to whom the reduction of retirement pensions applies and, secondly, specifies the aims of the Act. With regard to the former, it states that, as functionaries of State security authorities, they received pensioner status granted ‘in exchange for the preservation of the inhumane regime’ in which, at the same time, ‘the perpetrators were exempted from responsibility and escaped justice”. These charges contain a strong emotional, moral and legal condemnation. When such a charge is made globally assertion of humiliation is thereby justified.
The mere fact of the above-mentioned stigmatisation of all persons to whom the 2009 Act applies, constitutes, in my view, a breach of the principle of proper legislation (Article 2 of the Constitution), as the scope ratione personae of the Act is broader than the group of persons at whom the Act is aimed, as indicated in the preamble, (deprivation of privileges unjustly acquired during the period of the totalitarian regime). ...
I do not share the view expressed in the judgment that the positive vetting of the staff of the Civic Militia and the Security Service, carried out in 1990, is irrelevant to an assessment of the constitutionality of the 2009 Act. ...
It cannot be assumed (as it has been in the judgment) that nobody guaranteed through the vetting the prospects of a retirement pension under the uniformed services system. The uniformed service brings with it not merely an obligation to perform work and the right to remuneration, but an entire legal status related to that service. The status also includes acquiring (as a continuous process during the period of service) retirement pension entitlements appropriate for uniformed services. That entitlement was granted to the positively vetted persons by allowing them to perform service in the democratic state ... .”
109. Judge Mazurkiewicz stated that the Preamble to the 2009 Act was incompatible with Articles 2 and 10 of the Constitution, that section 1 taken together with section 3(1) and (3) and section 2 taken together with section 3(2) and (3) of the 2009 Act were incompatible with Articles 2, 10, 32 § 2 and Article 67 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 31 § 3 of the Constitution. The relevant passages of his dissenting opinion read as follows:
“The Constitutional Court is a court of law, and not a court passing judgments on history. Respecting the principles of proper legislation is functionally linked with legal certainty and security, as well as with the protection of citizens’ confidence in the State and the laws made by it ... The principle of legal security requires that the legislature respects the existing legal relations. Introducing amendments during the legislative process which are not objectively justified and which divert the previous direction of the legislative process that was set by ... the 1994 Act infringes the principle of a democratic state ruled by law ...
The principle of legality obliges the legislature to formulate laws to be enacted in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution ... The challenged provisions of the 2009 Act are also inconsistent with the constitutional right to social security (Article 67 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 31 § 3 of the Constitution), and the variation in the level of retirement pensions under the uniformed services system: 1) due to the lack of connection between the distinction which has been introduced between pensioners from the uniformed services and the main aim of the statutes on retirement pensions, 2) due to the lack of proportionality of the applied legal solutions and 3) without any justification arising from a possible need for the protection of another, more important, constitutional value – must be regarded as inconsistent with Article 32 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 31 § 3 of the Constitution. ....”
110. Judge Wyrzykowski stated that the preamble to the 2009 Act was incompatible with Articles 2, 10 and 42 of the Constitution and that section 15b of the 1994 Act as introduced by the 2009 Act was incompatible with Article 2 read in conjunction with Articles 67 § 1 and 31 § 3, as it infringed the principle of protection of acquired rights and that it was also incompatible with Articles 10 and 42 of the Constitution.
The dissenting opinion reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“The first problem that arises in connection with the judgment concerns the significance of the passage of time for limitations on the legislature’s activities. The 2009 Act was enacted almost twenty years after the change of the political and social system in Poland. ...
The citizens of the Republic of Poland affected by the 2009 Act had all the reasons to assume that the rules which were binding for the last twenty years would not be changed unless there were new circumstances justifying radical amendment of the legal provisions. ...
The legal fiction introduced by the legislature, namely applying the 0.7% coefficient to the basis of assessment for every year of service in the State security authorities in the years 1944-90, which means that the legislature treats those affected as though they had not worked in that period, cannot be regarded as consistent with the Constitution. [Under the general social security scheme] the 0.7% coefficient applies to persons who have not paid pension contributions ... The functionaries employed in the State security authorities performed work (service) and the application of the fiction in 2009, changing the rules for the calculation of retirement pensions, must be justified in a particularly convincing way. The legislature did not delegalise work (service) [in the State security authorities] or [those] authorities, but only condemned them in the preamble to the 2009 Act ... The application of the 0.7% coefficient is not, by its nature, a revocation of a privilege, but a kind of individually addressed sanction. ...
The preamble to the 2009 Act contains a statement which may be regarded as crucial for understanding the essence of the changes introduced to the rules for the calculation of retirement pension benefits. As the justification for the Act, it is stated that ‘crimes were committed against organisations and persons defending independence and democracy and, at the same time, the perpetrators were exempted from responsibility and escaped justice’. ...
This is not a mere stigmatisation of particular individuals to whom the decisions specifying the new amount of retirement pensions were addressed, but is also about the use of rhetoric which at very least suggests that the adopted statutory solutions concerning retirement pensions are a form of punishment for undetected crimes against organisations and persons defending independence and democracy, and that those crimes were committed by perpetrators who escaped responsibility and justice ...
If behind the legislature’s decision ... is an assumption that the addressees committed crimes and did not bear responsibility for their acts, then this means that the legislature qualifies certain acts. The point is that such qualification should be done by a criminal court, and not by the legislature. Whether a crime has been committed must be determined in the course of court proceedings, and not in the course of the legislative work. There is no doubt that the legislature has infringed Articles 10 and 42 of the Constitution ...”
111. Judge Zdziennicki stated that the 2009 Act taken as a whole was unconstitutional and incompatible with all the provisions cited by the deputies. The relevant parts of his dissenting opinion read as follows:
“The drastic reduction of retirement pensions vis-à-vis their level estimated under the rules previously and currently applicable under the uniformed services retirement pension system constitutes economic repression directed against specific recipients and, it should be stressed, their families. This repression is accompanied .... by penal stigmatisation of pensioners, in the form of describing their service in the Polish People’s Republic as nothing but unlawful activities and continual commission of crimes violating fundamental human rights – all this in order to ‘preserve the inhuman regime’.
In the present case what happened is not a revocation of ‘unjustly acquired privileges’ since ... retirement pensions paid under the uniformed services system are not privileges, and the rules for granting them have always been the same for everyone. The ostensible action conceals the real legislative aim, namely collective repression directed against the functionaries of the State security authorities of the Polish People’s Republic ... by means of a drastic reduction (twenty years after the fall of the communist regime) of the retirement pensions they have so far received. ...
Subjecting certain individuals to ex lege repression (by drastically reducing the retirement pensions which they have so far received) means that the legislative power has decided to substitute itself for the judiciary, although there is a constitutional requirement that guilt and punishment should be determined in court. This amounts to a breach of both the principle of separation of powers (Article 10 of the Constitution) and the constitutional right to a court.
Reducing ex lege pensions already being awarded ... without individual inquiry proceedings, and passing a condemnatory moral judgment with regard to a specific group of citizens, means assigning collective responsibility, which is inadmissible in a democratic state ruled by law (compare Articles 2 and 42 of the Constitution) ...
[The measure] applied leaves no doubt that the 2009 Act has introduced inadmissible, extra-judicial and collective criminal responsibility in respect of persons regarded as former political opponents of the current parliamentary majority. ...”
8. Supreme Court’s resolution of 3 March 2011(case no. II UZP 2/11)
112. On 3 March 2011 the Supreme Court dealt with a legal question submitted in the case of a certain E.C. by the Warsaw Court of Appeal, asking whether the provision of section 15b(2) of the 1994 Act (as amended by the 2009 Act) that stated that section 15 of the 1994 Act should apply accordingly meant that persons who had been functionaries of the State security service preserved the right to a retirement pension equal to 40% of its basis of assessment for the first fifteen years of employment.
113. The Supreme Court ruled that its response to the question would be as follows:
“ For every year of service in [the State security authorities] between 1944 and 1999 the pension should be 0.7% of its basis of assessment (section 15b (1)(1) of the 1994 Act), which means that the amount of the pension calculated exclusively in respect of the period of such service may be lower than 40% of the basis of assessment.”
114. The relevant parts of the reasoning read as follows:
“No ways or means of interpretation of reference to section 15 of the 1994 Act contained in section 15b(2) gives persons who have served in the [State security authorities] any legal possibility or arguments to assert the determination of their pensions on any other basis of assessment than 0.7% for each year of service ... In contrast, the legal provisions under consideration are unambiguously plain, and therefore clear and not requiring any deeper legal analysis. However, having regard to a considerable number of persons who are concerned by ... reductions in pensions, this court has decided to resolve the submitted legal question ...
Taking 40% of the basis of assessment for fifteen years of service as a minimum ... would lead to an inadmissible and unjustified negation of the [2009 Act’s] aim. Chronologically, as a matter of principle, service in the years 1944-90 would correspond to the ‘first’ (initial) years of service giving an entitlement to uniformed services’ pension rights. [An] interpretation that they would preserve at least 40% of the basis of assessment ... would exclude or at least considerably limit ... the rule that their pensions should be calculated with reference to the 0.7% coefficient of the basis of assessment for each year of service in the State security authorities between 1944 and 1990 ...
It should be firmly stressed that the aim of the provisions under consideration, added by [the 2009 Act], was not to deprive pensioners of the rights acquired due to service in the totalitarian State security authorities between 1944 and 1990. [T]he legislature did not take away from them the right to take advantage of the uniformed services’ pension scheme, including for their periods of service in the State security authorities of the Polish People’s Republic, but, in accordance with the constitutional principles of social justice and elementary (ordinary) decency, adjusted the levels of their benefits ... only in respect of periods of service which consisted in betraying the values of independence, freedom and democracy – to the level of benefits under the general social security scheme, without a further (pro futuro) possibility of taking advantage of the privileges unjustly or dishonourably acquired due to service in the totalitarian State security authorities between 1944 and 1990. Including this period in the ‘pensionable service’ under the unformed services’ pension scheme and giving them 0.7% of the basis of assessment calculated in relation to the last, namely in principle the highest monthly salary in their last post, does not in any way discriminate against these persons. On the contrary, this is still a comparable, and even more advantageous [solution] than under the general social security scheme, having regard to the fact that [a pension’s basis of assessment under the general scheme] is determined not with reference to the highest income in one (last) month of employment but to the average basis for social security contributions for ten subsequent calendar years selected from the last twenty years, or twenty calendar years selected from the entire contributory period ....
In that context, the impugned legislation does not constitute any breach of the common principle of equality or proportionality of benefits received under the pension scheme for uniformed services by persons who served in the security authorities of the totalitarian state, who engaged in unlawful and dishonourable acts or methods of political violence against compatriots – in comparison to benefits available under the general social security system.
It is worth noting that the provisions governing pension rights of victims of political repression by the State security service are still less advantageous [Their] periods of imprisonment on political grounds are included in the contributory periods but the relevant coefficient for a pension’s basis of assessment is 0% because of their lack of income ... whereas those who subjected them to that repression are entitled to the 0.7% coefficient ...
Moreover, the 0.7% coefficient calculated with reference to the highest remuneration normally does not differ unfavourably from the 1.3% coefficient of the basis of assessment under the general social security scheme ... having regard to the fact that uniformed services pensions are calculated with reference to a higher (2.6%) or at least equal (1.3%) coefficients of the basis of assessment for periods before or after the termination of service ...
Admission to ... public service in the State security institutions of the democratic state governed by the rule of law restored in Poland after 1990 does not constitute rehabilitation for the time of service in the security structures of the totalitarian state according to the standards of the democratic state ... which does not have the right or duty to maintain the privileges [acquired] on account of unlawful suppression of citizens’ inherent rights and freedoms by the State security service of the totalitarian state. ...
The Supreme Court unequivocally criticises and disqualifies any arguments for maintaining privileges acquired due to, or in connection with, participation in the system of enslavement and political repression by the State security service of the communist totalitarian state ... The privileges so acquired are not protected in a democratic system where there is domestic law, community law and international law, because persons who fight against fundamental human rights, rights of the nation and fundamental freedoms do not have the right or moral authority to assert that their pension privileges must be preserved in respect of the periods when the Polish nation’s aspirations for independence, freedom and democracy were suppressed ...”
D. Relevant Council of Europe’s instruments
1. The 1996 PACE Resolution
115. On 27 June 1996 PACE adopted Resolution 1096 (1996) on measures to dismantle the heritage of former communist totalitarian systems. It reads, in so far as relevant:
“1. The heritage of former communist totalitarian systems is not an easy one to handle. On an institutional level this heritage includes (over)centralisation, the militarisation of civilian institutions, bureaucratisation, monopolisation, and over‑regulation; on the level of society, it reaches from collectivism and conformism to blind obedience and other totalitarian thought patterns. To re-establish a civilised, liberal state under the rule of law on this basis is difficult - this is why the old structures and thought patterns have to be dismantled and overcome. ...
4. Thus a democratic state based on the rule of law must, in dismantling the heritage of former communist totalitarian systems, apply the procedural means of such a state. It cannot apply any other means, since it would then be no better than the totalitarian regime which is to be dismantled. A democratic state based on the rule of law has sufficient means at its disposal to ensure that the cause of justice is served and the guilty are punished - it cannot, and should not, however, cater to the desire for revenge instead of justice. It must instead respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, such as the right to due process and the right to be heard, and it must apply them even to those people who, when they were in power, did not apply them themselves. A state based on the rule of law can also defend itself against a resurgence of the communist totalitarian threat, since it has ample means at its disposal which do not conflict with human rights and the rule of law, and are based upon the use of both criminal justice and administrative measures.
5. The Assembly recommends that member states dismantle the heritage of former communist totalitarian regimes by restructuring the old legal and institutional systems, a process which should be based on the principle(s) of:
i. demilitarisation, to ensure that the militarisation of essentially civilian institutions, such as the existence of military prison administration or troops of the Ministry of the Interior, which is typical of communist totalitarian systems, comes to an end;
ii. decentralisation, especially at local and regional levels and within state institutions;
iii. demonopolisation and privatisation, which are central to the construction of some kind of a market economy and of a pluralist society;
iv. debureaucratisation, which should reduce communist totalitarian over-regulation and transfer the power from the bureaucrats back to the citizens.
6. This process must include a transformation of mentalities (a transformation of hearts and minds) whose main goal should be to eliminate the fear of responsibility, and to eliminate as well the disrespect for diversity, extreme nationalism, intolerance, racism and xenophobia, which are part of the heritage of the old regimes. All of these should be replaced by democratic values such as tolerance, respect for diversity, subsidiarity and accountability for one’s actions.
7. The Assembly also recommends that criminal acts committed by individuals during the communist totalitarian regime be prosecuted and punished under the standard criminal code. If the criminal code provides for a statute of limitations for some crimes, this can be extended, since it is only a procedural, not a substantive matter. Passing and applying retroactive criminal laws is, however, not permitted. On the other hand, the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which at the time when it was committed did not constitute a criminal offence according to national law, but which was considered criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations, is permitted. Moreover, where a person clearly acted in violation of human rights, the claim of having acted under orders excludes neither illegality nor individual guilt. ...
9. The Assembly welcomes the opening of secret service files for public examination in some former communist totalitarian countries. It advises all countries concerned to enable the persons affected to examine, upon their request, the files kept on them by the former secret services. ....
11. Concerning the treatment of persons who did not commit any crimes that can be prosecuted in accordance with paragraph 7, but who nevertheless held high positions in the former totalitarian communist regimes and supported them, the Assembly notes that some states have found it necessary to introduce administrative measures, such as lustration or de-communisation laws. The aim of these measures is to exclude persons from exercising governmental power if they cannot be trusted to exercise it in compliance with democratic principles, as they have shown no commitment to or belief in them in the past and have no interest or motivation to make the transition to them now.
12. The Assembly stresses that, in general, these measures can be compatible with a democratic state under the rule of law if several criteria are met. Firstly, guilt, being individual, rather than collective, must be proven in each individual case - this emphasises the need for an individual, and not collective, application of lustration laws. Secondly, the right of defence, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and the right to appeal to a court of law must be guaranteed. Revenge may never be a goal of such measures, nor should political or social misuse of the resulting lustration process be allowed. The aim of lustration is not to punish people presumed guilty - this is the task of prosecutors using criminal law - but to protect the newly emerged democracy.
13. The Assembly thus suggests that it be ensured that lustration laws and similar administrative measures comply with the requirements of a state based on the rule of law, and focus on threats to fundamental human rights and the democratisation process.
14. Furthermore, the Assembly recommends that employees discharged from their position on the basis of lustration laws should not in principle lose their previously accrued financial rights. In exceptional cases, where the ruling elite of the former regime awarded itself pension rights higher than those of the ordinary population, these should be reduced to the ordinary level. ...”
2. The 2006 PACE Resolution
116. On 25 January 2006 PACE adopted Resolution 1481 (2006) on the need for international condemnation of crimes of totalitarian communist regimes in which it referred, in particular, to its Resolution 1096(1996), cited above (see paragraph 115 above). It read, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“2. The totalitarian communist regimes which ruled in central and eastern Europe in the last century, and which are still in power in several countries in the world, have been, without exception, characterised by massive violations of human rights. The violations have differed depending on the culture, country and the historical period and have included individual and collective assassinations and executions, death in concentration camps, starvation, deportations, torture, slave labour and other forms of mass physical terror, persecution on ethnic or religious grounds, violation of freedom of conscience, thought and expression, of freedom of the press, and also lack of political pluralism. ...
5. The fall of totalitarian communist regimes in central and eastern Europe has not been followed in all cases by an international investigation of the crimes committed by them. Moreover, the authors of these crimes have not been brought to trial by the international community, as was the case with the horrible crimes committed by National Socialism (Nazism).
6. Consequently, public awareness of crimes committed by totalitarian communist regimes is very poor. Communist parties are legal and active in some countries, even if in some cases they have not distanced themselves from the crimes committed by totalitarian communist regimes in the past.
7. The Assembly is convinced that the awareness of history is one of the preconditions for avoiding similar crimes in the future. Furthermore, moral assessment and condemnation of crimes committed play an important role in the education of young generations. The clear position of the international community on the past may be a reference for their future actions. ...
13. Furthermore, [the Assembly] calls on all communist or post-communist parties in its member states which have not yet done so to reassess the history of communism and their own past, clearly distance themselves from the crimes committed by totalitarian communist regimes and condemn them without any ambiguity.
14. The Assembly believes that this clear position of the international community will pave the way to further reconciliation. Furthermore, it will hopefully encourage historians throughout the world to continue their research aimed at the determination and objective verification of what took place.”
COMPLAINTS
117. In the 1,628 cases before the Court the applicants, although they sometimes formulated their Convention grievances in different terms, made the following complaints.
118. They first of all alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention in that the 2009 Act had arbitrarily reduced their pensions to levels that could not be justified by any legitimate aim pursued in the public interest. In that regard, they heavily relied on the arguments put forward by the group of deputies before the Constitutional Court (see paragraphs 85-87 above), essentially repeating their submissions.
They stated that the impugned reductions were disproportionate, unfair and imposed an excessive burden on them. The abrupt and drastic lowering of the coefficient used for the determination of their pensions from 2.6% per year of pensionable employment to a mere 0.7% in respect of the service performed between 1944 and 1990 could not, in their view, be regarded as compatible with that provision.
The Polish State’s interference with their acquired right to a pension – a property right protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – in fact constituted a collective punishment and political repression for their past employment with the former State security authorities, despite the fact they had been either positively vetted or not subjected to the vetting procedure in the democratic Poland of 1990. In their view, admission to the newly‑established State security service or police at that time meant that the authorities had recognised that they had moral qualities required of a member of the uniformed services in a democratic state and, consequently, the right to the status attached to the service, including the full right to benefits accorded under the special retirement pension scheme. Those rights were further recognised in the 1994 Act, under which they had been entitled to the same pensions as functionaries who had not been employed in the State security service between 1944 and 1990.
The applicants also attached importance to the fact that the 2009 Act had been introduced nearly 20 years after the change of the political system of the State. The interference with their property rights was therefore not only excessive but also belated. The State was entitled to introduce laws aimed at settling accounts with the communist past and the communist authorities. This, however, was subject to the condition that such measures, in addition to passing the test of proportionality, were taken in good time.
Also, as confirmed by the 1996 PACE Resolution, laws designed to settle accounts could not be motivated by revenge or amount to collective punishment. In contrast, as emerged from the preamble to the 2009 Act, the State attributed to them collectively, without any consideration being given to their individual actions and conduct, general responsibility for communist repressions, violations of human rights and even crimes of the totalitarian system.
Moreover, the reductions in pensions applied automatically and no regard had been given to the nature of the duties actually performed, the function held or the scope of activities. The 2009 Act operated without any distinction between functionaries who had in reality committed the acts condemned in its preamble or stifled the democratic opposition and those who had merely belonged to the administrative personnel or had been employed in low technical or administrative positions.
In the applicants’ submission, this demonstrated that the aim of reductions was to seek revenge and penalise them on account of their past employment, and not, as declared by the authorities, to pursue the principles of social justice.
119. The applicants next complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 read in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention that they had been subjected to discrimination on the ground of their past employment in the former State security service.
In particular, the years of their employment in that service between 1944 and 1990 were accorded the 0.7% coefficient per year, which under the general social security scheme applied only to non-contributory periods, whereas contributory periods were accorded 1.3%. Those years were treated as non-existent, as if they had not been employed at all. In consequence, they were discriminated against in the enjoyment of their pension rights in comparison to other pensioners in Poland.
120. The applicants also alleged a violation of their right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 and, in particular, a breach of the principle of presumption of innocence laid down in Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.
In that regard, citing the dissenting opinions to the Constitutional Court’s judgment (see paragraphs 107-111 above), they maintained that the preamble to the 2009 Act stated, in unambiguous terms, that all the functionaries of the former State security service had “committed crimes”. They had, accordingly, been charged, presumed guilty and collectively condemned to the payment of a financial penalty without any possibility of being heard by a court and have the criminal responsibility attributed to them determined individually.
121. The applicants also alleged a violation of Article 7 of the Convention, submitting that the radical reductions of their pensions on the ground that they bore collective responsibility for, as stated in the preamble to the 2009 Act, “crimes ... against organisations and persons defending independence and democracy” were tantamount to punishment without law, prohibited by that provision.
122. Invoking Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complained that their right to the protection of their reputation had not been respected because the preamble to the 2009 Act in a general but unequivocal manner assigned to them full responsibility for the crimes, wrongs and injustices of the communist system. In consequence, they had been labelled as persons who had committed morally reprehensible acts, without having any legal or practical means to clear their name and protect their right to good reputation.
123. Furthermore, the applicants alleged a breach of Article 8 read in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention in that they had been discriminated against on the ground of their past employment because they had been collectively attributed negative personal characteristics in the preamble to the 2009 Act.
124. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants maintained that they had been subjected to degrading treatment and severely humiliated.
First, the State had attributed to them without any concrete evidence collective responsibility for acts described in the preamble to the 2009 Act such as “applying unlawful methods, infringing fundamental human rights”, and committing “crimes ... against organisations and persons defending independence and democracy”.
In that respect, they cited the views expressed in the dissenting opinions to the Constitutional Court’s judgment as regards the humiliating nature of the preamble (see paragraphs 107-111 above) and stated that it stigmatised them as persons who had received their pensions not because they had worked but “in exchange for the preservation of the inhumane regime”.
Secondly, the excessive reductions applied under the 2009 Act deprived them of a significant part of their means of subsistence and exposed them to financial hardship. As a result, many of them had been deprived of the possibility to continue to live in dignity.
125. Lastly, under Article 13 read alone and in conjunction with Articles 3, 6 § 1, 6 § 2, 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicants complained that they had no effective remedy to contest collective responsibility and morally reprehensible conduct attributed to them by the preamble to the 2009 Act and the resultant restrictions on their pension rights.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
126. In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides that the present applications should be joined.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
A. Preliminary issues
1. Scope of the Court’s ruling
127. All the present 1,628 cases originated in the same legislation – the 2009 Act – under which pensions of functionaries of the former communist State security authorities were reduced due to the introduction of a less favourable coefficient used for the determination of their pensions in so far as they had been acquired through employment in those authorities between 1944 and 1990. As shown by the facts of the ten cases described above, the same pattern, in terms of the same provisions of substantive law and procedure, applied to each applicant. The pension reductions were predetermined by the contested regulations, which left no room for discretion in their application. The applicants’ complaints are similar and are directed against the legislative provisions of a general character (see paragraphs 117-125 above). In the Court’s view, for the purposes of its ruling, the cases described in detail above demonstrate sufficiently the effects that the 2009 Act had on the asserted Convention rights of the persons affected by the impugned legislation. Accordingly, the conclusions reached below apply to all the cases listed in the appendix (see also paragraph 126 above).
2. Exhaustion of domestic remedies
128. The Court notes that in some cases before it proceedings in which the applicants contested the pension authority’s decisions re-assessing their pensions in accordance with the 2009 Act have not yet terminated. Also, in certain cases the applicants failed to appeal against first-instance judgments or had their appeals rejected on procedural grounds. Some applicants have not informed the Court of the outcome of the proceedings (see paragraphs 8-56 above). However, the Court does not find it necessary to determine in each and every case whether the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies has been complied with since it considers that the applications are in any event inadmissible for the reasons given below.
B. As regards Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
129. The applicants alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, maintaining that under the 2009 Act their pensions had been reduced in a manner incompatible with that provision (see paragraph 118 above).
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 states as follows:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
1. Principles deriving from the Court’s case-law
130. All principles which apply generally in cases concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are equally relevant when it comes to pensions.
To begin with, that Article does not guarantee a right to become the owner of property. By the same logic, it cannot be interpreted as securing a right to a pension of a particular amount. It places no restriction on the Contracting State’s freedom to decide whether or not to have in place any form of social-security scheme, or to choose the type or amount of benefits to provide under any such scheme. If, however, a Contracting State has in force legislation providing for the payment as of right of a pension – whether conditional or not on the prior payment of contributions – that legislation must be regarded as generating a proprietary interest falling within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 for persons satisfying its requirements (see Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 77, with further references, in particular to Stec v. United Kingdom (dec.), nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2005-X and to Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 39, ECHR 2004‑IX; and Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 64, ECHR 2010). The reduction or the discontinuance of a pension may therefore constitute interference with possessions that needs to be justified (see Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 2033/04, 19125/04, 19475/04, 19490/04, 19495/04, 19497/04, 24729/04, 171/05 and 2041/05, § 84, 25 October 2011 with further references, in particular to Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 71, 28 April 2009; and Panfile v. Romania (dec.), no 13902/11, § 15, 20 March 2012).
131. The first and most important requirement of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is that any interference by a public authority with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions should be lawful. Any interference with the enjoyment of the right of property must also pursue a legitimate aim (see Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 147-148, ECHR 2004‑V, with further references and Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], no. 35014/97, §§ 163-164, ECHR 2006‑VIII).
132. Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to appreciate what is in the “public”, or “general”, interest. Under the system of protection established by the Convention, it is thus for the national authorities to make the initial assessment as to the existence of a problem of public concern warranting measures to be applied in the sphere of the exercise of the right of property. Here, as in other fields to which the safeguards of the Convention extend, the national authorities accordingly enjoy a margin of appreciation (ibid.).
133. Furthermore, the notion of “public interest” is necessarily extensive. Finding it natural that the margin of appreciation available to the legislature in implementing social and economic policies should be a wide one, the Court has on many occasions declared that it will respect the legislature’s judgment as to what is “in the public interest” unless that judgment is manifestly without reasonable foundation (see, among many other examples, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 46, Series A no. 98; Broniowski, cited above, § 149; Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 52, ECHR 2006‑VI Carson, cited above, § 61; and Andrejeva, cited above, § 83).
134. Relying on the fundamentally subsidiary role of the Convention, the Court has consistently recognised that the national authorities, having direct democratic legitimation, are in principle better placed than an international court to evaluate local needs and conditions. In matters of general policy, on which opinions within a democratic society may reasonably differ widely, the role of the domestic policy-maker should be given special weight (see, for example, James and Others, cited above, § 46; Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 97 ECHR 2003‑VIII; and Valkov and Others, cited above, § 92 in fine).
135. In its many judgments given in the context of the political changes that commenced in central and eastern Europe in 1989-1990, the Court has stressed that these principles apply equally, if not a fortiori, to the measures adopted in the course of the fundamental reform of the country’s political, legal and economic system in the transition from a totalitarian regime to a democratic State, phenomena which inevitably involve the enactment of large-scale economic and social legislation. Balancing the rights at stake, as well as the interests of the different persons affected by the process of transforming the State, is an exceptionally difficult exercise. In such circumstances, in the nature of things, a wide margin of appreciation should be accorded to the State (see, among other examples, Broniowski, cited above, § 182; Hutten-Czapska, cited above, § 166, with further references; Jahn and Others v. Germany [GC], nos. 46720/99, 72203/01 and 72552/01, § 113 ECHR 2005‑VI; Valkov and Others, cited above § 96; and Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no. 71234/01, § 113, ECHR 2013-...).
136. However, that margin is not unlimited. The Court must be satisfied that there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved by any measures applied by the State. That requirement is expressed by the notion of a “fair balance” that must be struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights. In particular, the Court must ascertain whether by reason of the State interference the person concerned had to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden (see, among many other authorities, Hutten-Czapska, cited above, § 167, with further references).
137. In the assessment of the proportionality of the measures taken by the State in respect of pension rights, an important consideration is whether the applicant’s right to derive benefits from the social insurance scheme in question has been infringed in a manner resulting in the impairment of the essence of his right. The nature of the benefit taken away – in particular, whether it has originated in the special advantageous pension scheme available only to certain groups of persons – may also be taken into account. The assessment would vary depending on the particular circumstances of the case and the applicant’s personal situation; while a total deprivation of entitlements resulting in the loss of means of subsistence would in principle amount to a violation of the right of property, the imposition of a reasonable and commensurate reduction would not (see, among many other authorities, Domalewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34610/97, ECHR 1999‑V; Janković v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X; Schwengel v. Germany (dec.), no. 52442/99, 2 March 2000; Apostolakis v. Greece, no. 39574/07, §§ 41-42, 22 October 2009; Kjartan Ásmundsson, cited above, § 45; Valkov and Others, cited above, § 97; Maggio and Others v. Italy, nos. 46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08 and 56001/08, § 63, 31 May 2011; and Frimu and 4 other applications v. Romania (dec.), no. 45312/11, 7 February 2012, §§ 42-48).
138. The specific issue of the privileged position vis-à-vis pension rights enjoyed by members of the communist elite, political police or armed forces in the post-communist European countries has already been examined by the Court on several occasions (see, for instance, Goretzky v. Germany (dec.) no. 52447/99, 6 April 2000: Lessing and Reichelt v. Germany (dec.) nos. 49646/10 and 3365/11, 16 October 2012; and Schwengel (dec.), Domalewski (dec.) and Janković (dec.) cited above).
In those cases the Court found that the aim of eliminating or reducing unjustified or excessive social security benefits, as pursued by the domestic legislatures, was a legitimate one. In particular, a national legislature is entitled to suppress pecuniary privileges of a political nature awarded to former functionaries by totalitarian regimes. It may do so provided that, as already stated above (see paragraphs 136-137 above), the measures taken are not disproportionate. Under the Court’s case-law, there is no doubt that persons benefitting from such privileges do not have any legitimate expectation that they will preserve their advantageous position in this regard after the transition to a democratic system (ibid.).
2. Application of the above principles in the present cases
(a) Applicable rule of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
139. The measures applied under the 2009 Act resulted in divesting the applicants irrevocably of part of the pensions they had received before and until 1 January 2010 (see paragraph 71-72 above). They constituted an interference with the applicants’ property rights protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Accordingly, the cases fall to be examined under the second sentence of the first paragraph of that provision, setting out exceptions permitting deprivation of “possessions ... in the public interest and subject to conditions provided for by law”.
(b) Principle of lawfulness
140. The impugned measures were applied under the legislation that was adopted by the Polish Parliament. It was subsequently examined by the Constitutional Court for its compatibility with the Constitution and found to be constitutional. Accordingly, the interference with the applicants’ property rights was lawful for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
(c) Principle of legitimate aim in the public interest
141. The aims pursued by the State in relation to the enactment of the 2009 Act have been stated in its preamble, explained extensively in the Constitutional Court’s judgment and also referred to in the Supreme Court’s resolution (see paragraphs 68, 95, 98, 100, 103-104 and 114 above).
The Polish Parliament, having regard to the morally reprehensible role played by the former security service – political police – in preserving the communist system and repressing organisations and persons defending democracy and to the fact that those employed in that service had been accorded various, including economic, privileges, decided that the continuation of their advantageous pension rights could not be reconciled with the principle of social justice (see paragraph 68 above).
The Constitutional Court shared this view. It held that the legislature, guided by that principle, had pursued a legitimate aim of adjusting pensions of former functionaries of the State security service to the level of average pensions under the general social security scheme. It also stressed that the categorically negative evaluation by Parliament of service in the communist State security authorities had been warranted by Poland’s historical experience under the communist rule. Referring to the historical past, it described the essence of the activities of those authorities as, inter alia, “supporting the political regime hostile to human rights” and noted that “[i]n reward, the ruling communist party [had given] functionaries practical impunity for abuses of power, promotions that [had been] faster than in other uniformed services, a high remuneration for service, other numerous economic and social privileges and high old-age pensions”. After a thorough analysis of various relevant political, social and economic factors, the Constitutional Court concluded that the measures adopted complied with the requirements of the constitutional principle of social justice (see, in particular, paragraphs 95, 98, 100 and 103-104 above).
The Supreme Court’s assessment did not differ either; it placed much emphasis on the legitimacy of the reductions, stating that the legislature, in accordance with the principle of social justice had “adjusted the levels of their benefits ... only in respect of periods of service which [had] consisted in betraying the values of independence, freedom and democracy” (see paragraph 114 above).
142. The Court would recall again that in implementing social and economic policies, in particular in the course of the transition from a totalitarian regime to a democratic State, the State authorities enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in deciding what is “in the public interest (see paragraphs 132-135 above).
This necessarily encompasses the passing of de-communisation laws in order to settle accounts with the communist past and remove its relics also in such spheres as social or economic privileges previously accorded to persons belonging to the former elite, uniformed forces including, especially, the political police and its secret collaborators, or others who played crucial roles in safeguarding the undemocratic regime (see Domalewski (dec.), cited above; Janković (dec.), cited above; Schwengel (dec.), cited above; Goretzky (dec.), cited above; Lessing and Reichelt (dec.), cited above; Rasmussen, cited above, §§ 75-76; and Zawisza v. Poland, no. 37293/09, § 36, 31 May 2011, with further references; see also paragraph 115 above).
In this context, it should be stressed that the applicants were functionaries of the State security authorities whose raison d’être was to infringe the most fundamental values on which the Convention is based (see paragraph 95 above).
143. It is a matter of common knowledge that the political transition in the post-communist countries has involved numerous complex, far-reaching and controversial reforms which necessarily had to be spread over time. The dismantling of the communist heritage has been gradual, with each country having its own, sometimes slow, way to ensure that the past injustices are put right and accounts settled. Even though on the collapse of the totalitarian regimes those countries faced similar problems, there is, and there can be, no common pattern for the restructuring of their political, legal or social systems. Nor can any specific time-frame or speed for completing this process be fixed.
Indeed, in assessing whether in a given country, considering its unique historical and political experience, “the public interest” requires the adoption of specific de-communisation measures in order to ensure greater social justice or the stability of democracy, the national legislature empowered with direct democratic legitimation is better placed than the Court (see paragraphs 132-134 above with references to the Court’s case-law). By the same token, the national authorities, having direct knowledge of their country, are entitled to condemn, in the form and at the time chosen by them, past institutions or activities which, as shown by the country’s historical experience, had not respected the principle of democracy, the rule of law and human rights.
144. The Court sees no reason to differ from the evaluation of the Polish Parliament, the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court and accepts that it was legitimate for the State to take measures designed to put an end to pension advantages regarded as unwarranted or acquired unjustly, in order to ensure the greater fairness of the pension system (see also §§ 12 and 14 of the 1996 PACE Resolution cited in paragraph 115 above).
It also endorses the Constitutional Court’s arguments rejecting the assertion that the 2009 Act had served the purposes of revenge and collective punishment (see paragraphs 105-106 above).
A reduction of pension privileges of those who have contributed to the maintenance in power of, or have benefited from, an oppressive regime cannot be regarded as a form of punishment. The pensions in the instant cases were reduced by the national legislature, not because any of the applicants committed a crime or was personally responsible for human rights violations, but because those privileges had been accorded for political reasons as a reward for services considered to be particularly useful for the communist State (see paragraphs 95, 98 and 104-106 above and paragraph 138 above, with references to the Court’s case-law). Indeed, given the reason for which they were granted and the manner in which they were acquired, they cannot but be regarded as manifestly unjust from the point of view of the values underlying the Convention. This being so, the personal guilt or not of persons who benefited from such unjust privileges is not material for the consideration of the issue of compliance with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
145. It remains for the Court to ascertain, from the standpoint of proportionality, whether the Polish authorities struck a “fair balance” between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved.
(d) Principle of “fair balance”
146. The Court notes that the pension scheme for the uniformed services from which the applicants derived their benefits was of a non-contributive character, as it was fully financed by State funds and the beneficiaries did not have to pay contributions in order to receive their pensions (see paragraph 65 above). However, this element is not material for the determination of the applicant’s Convention claims in the present cases, as the protection under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 extends not only contributive but also to non-contributive social security benefits (see paragraph 130 above).
147. The applicants referred to several aspects of the 2009 Act which, in their view, demonstrated that the contested reductions were incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They also attached importance to the fact that the 2009 Act had been introduced belatedly, nearly 20 years after the change of the political system of the State (see paragraph 118 above).
The Court has already held above that one cannot set any specific time‑frame or speed for a State to close the de-communisation process since it depends on the circumstances particular to its historical and political background (see paragraph 143 above). It finds that the Constitutional Court relied on similar considerations in its judgment, holding that there had been no constitutional prohibition on enacting the 2009 Act even after a significant lapse of time (see paragraph 98 above).
Considering the weight attached to the opinion of the domestic policy‑maker in that respect, it is for the national authorities to decide when, regard being had to the demands of the public interest, such measures may be applied (see paragraphs 132-135 with references to the Court’s case‑law).
148. Moreover, the Court cannot but note that the alleged delay on the part of the Polish State in implementing the contested measures did not have any detrimental, retroactive effects on the applicants’ pecuniary rights. In contrast, for those nearly 20 years, they enjoyed their advantageous pension rights and continued to draw their benefits untouched. To that extent, a prompter reduction of pension rates would not have eased the financial prejudice they claim to have suffered.
149. The applicants asserted that the lowering of the coefficient used for the calculation of their pensions from 2.6% applicable to the uniformed services to 0.7% applicable to non-contributory periods under the general pension scheme had been drastic, unfair and disproportionate (see paragraph 118 above).
150. However, the Court finds that, as confirmed by the Constitutional Court’s in-depth analysis comparing the former functionaries’ situation before and after the reductions with the situation of an ordinary pensioner, on the cut-off date of 1 January 2010 the average pension of a functionary had still been higher by 58% than the average ordinary pension. The former amounted to some PLN 2,558 and the latter to some PLN 1,618. It was on average four times higher than the statutory minimum retirement pension (see paragraphs 97 and 99-102 above). This was mostly due to the fact that the salaries of persons insured under the general system were 50% lower than in the uniformed services and that, under the communist regime, remunerations in the State security service had been significantly higher than that of ordinary employees (see paragraphs 97 and 102 above). Moreover, the coefficient used for the calculation of ordinary pensions in respect of contributory periods was, and still is, 1.3%, namely half of the 2.6% applied to the uniformed services (see paragraphs 71-74 above).
The Supreme Court, in its resolution of 3 March 2011, made the same findings (see paragraph 114).
151. Despite the fairly large scale revision of the pensions under the 2009 Act – it concerned over 38,000 persons – in respect of only 589 pensioners was the revised benefit lowered below the statutory minimum which was, however, corrected by increasing the amount to the requisite level (see paragraph 100 above).
Other elements relevant for the determination of the applicants’ pension rights remained unchanged. They retained the 2.6% coefficient for each year of service in democratic Poland, invalidity and survivor pension benefits, as well as special increases and allowances due for service in hazardous conditions. The same terms and rules for pension indexation apply to future increases in their pensions (see paragraph 99 above).
The contested coefficient has to be placed in the wider context of the whole pension system in Poland. As observed by the Supreme Court, the 0.7% coefficient applied to the basis of assessment of their pension still results in a more favourable benefit than under the general scheme. The point of reference for the former functionaries is the last, that is, normally the highest salary at their last post and not, as under the general system, the average salary, reduced by social contributions, received over the selected 10 out of the last 20 years of employment or 20 years chosen by the person concerned. In consequence, the 0.7% coefficient, applied with reference to the highest salary of a former functionary, did not produce effects materially different from the application of the 1.3% coefficient with reference to the average “pensionable” salary available to an ordinary employee (see paragraphs 74-75 and 114 above).
152. The general pattern of reductions described in detail in the Constitutional Court’s judgment and the Supreme Court’s resolution shows that in most cases such reductions did not exceed, roughly, 25-30% (see paragraphs 99-102 and 114 above).
The facts of the selected 10 cases concerning 34 applicants, described above, confirm that conclusion (see paragraphs 8-54). Naturally, the longer the period of employment in the State security service, the greater proportionally was the reduction as manifested in the re-calculated pension. Most applicants had their pensions reduced by 20-30%, but the recalculated amounts were either higher, sometimes considerably so, than the average pension in Poland – PLN 1,618.70 – at the material time, or very close to that sum. Only a few persons received benefits slightly lower than the average pension (see paragraphs 10, 16-17, 22, 28-29, 32-33, 37, 41, 45, 49, 52-53 and 99 above). Only in a few cases did the reductions oscillate around 40-50%; however, these cases concerned persons who apparently had had a long period of service in the communist State security authorities and each of them after the decrease received the amount above, in some cases well above, the statutory minimum pension (see paragraph 10, 17, and 53 above).
153. In the circumstances, the measures complained of cannot be considered as impairing the very essence of the applicants’ pension rights.
It should not be overlooked that, as emphasised by the Supreme Court, in contrast to former State security functionaries who nevertheless retain the 0.7% coefficient for their service in 1944-1990, victims of communist repression in Poland have their imprisonment on political grounds regarded as a pensionable period but are in that respect accorded a 0% coefficient by reason of the lack of income (see paragraph 114 above).
154. Furthermore, the Court does not share the applicants’ view that their pension rights, once acquired, were untouchable and could never be altered. As stated above, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the legislative power of States extends to reducing or varying the amount of benefits provided under a social security scheme. A fortiori, they may remove, in pursuance of the principle of social justice, an existing inequality between privileged pensions accorded to a specific group and perceived as unjust or excessive in comparison with benefits under the general system and with ordinary pensions (see paragraphs 130-138 and 142-143 above).
Similarly, under the Polish Constitution vested rights are protected provided that they were justly acquired. Privileges acquired in violation of principles of justice do not engender a legitimate expectation of unconditional protection (see paragraph 103 above).
The applicants could not therefore legitimately expect that the privileges granted to them under the communist regime would be irrevocable in all circumstances.
155. The contested measures were applied to the former functionaries of the State security service as defined by the Polish legislation. All those persons had benefited not only from a special – uniformed services – pension scheme much more favourable than the general one but also from considerably higher pensionable salaries not available to ordinary citizens who had not been implicated in the work of the communist State security (see paragraphs 95, 97 and 114 above). The fact of service in the above‑mentioned institution, created to infringe human rights protected under the Convention, should be regarded as a relevant circumstance for defining and justifying the category of persons to be affected by the contested reductions of pension benefits. The Court is satisfied that the Polish authorities did not extend the personal scope of these measures beyond what was necessary to achieve the legitimate aim pursued.
156. The Court finds that the applicants in the present cases did not suffer a loss of means of subsistence or a total deprivation of benefits. It is to be noted that, although the contested measures reduced pension privileges especially created for those employed in communist State institutions that served the undemocratic regime, they nevertheless maintained for such persons a scheme more advantageous than the general one. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the Polish State made them bear a “disproportionate and excessive burden” (see paragraphs 136-137 above).
157. It follows that the applications are manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3(a) and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
158. The applicants also alleged violations of several other provisions of the Convention (see paragraph 119-125).
However, the Court considers that the issues raised by the applicants under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, as well as the alleged discrimination – contrary to Article 14 – in comparison with other pensioners in Poland have already been adequately addressed above (see paragraphs 140-155 above).
As regards complaints under Article 6 § 1 (criminal limb), Article 6 § 2 and Article 7, they are evidently incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, since the guarantees invoked by the applicants apply only to criminal proceedings.
As regards Article 13, according to the Court’s established case-law (see, for example, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000‑XI) this provision guarantees a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an “arguable complaint” under the Convention. The applicants’ complaints are either manifestly ill-founded or incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. Article 13 is therefore inapplicable in the present cases.
159. It follows that the remainder of the applications must likewise be rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications,
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Françoise Elens-PassosIneta Ziemele
RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
App. No
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
1.
15189/10
CICHOPEK v. Poland
10/03/2010
A. Cichopek
2.
16970/10
ZDZIECH v. Poland
10/03/2010
L. Zdziech
3.
17185/10
WASILEWSKA-TŁUŚCIK v. Poland
17/03/2010
A. Wasilewska-Tłuścik
4.
18215/10
RAGINI v. Poland
27/03/2010
R. Ragini
5.
18848/10
STRADOMSKI v. Poland
29/03/2010
J. Stradomski
6.
19152/10
PAWLIK v. Poland
02/04/2010
K. Pawlik
7.
19915/10
LUDWICKI v. Poland
06/04/2010
J. Ludwicki
8.
20080/10
JÓZEFOWICZ v. Poland
06/04/2010
Z. Józefowicz
9.
20705/10
KOWALSKI v. Poland
08/04/2010
J. Kowalski
10.
20725/10
KALINOWSKI v. Poland
10/04/2010
M. Kalinowski
11.
21259/10
PAPLACZYK v. Poland
30/03/2010
B. Paplaczyk
12.
21270/10
PRZEPIÓRA v. Poland
22/03/2010
R. Przepióra
13.
21279/10
POLAŃSKI v. Poland
29/03/2010
Z. Polański
14.
21456/10
KORDOWIECKI v. Poland
01/04/2010
Z. Kordowiecki
15.
22603/10
NOWAKOWSKI v. Poland
12/04/2010
K. Nowakowski
16.
22748/10
VARISELLA v. Poland
06/04/2010
A. Varisella
17.
23217/10
FEDEROWICZ v. Poland
20/04/2010
A. Federowicz
18.
23585/10
KOKOCIŃSKI v. Poland
20/04/2010
T. Kokociński
19.
23604/10
BRAŃSKA and BRAŃSKI v. Poland
23/04/2010
W. Brańska
J. Brański
M. Gąsiorowska
20.
23991/10
SZUMSKA and Others v. Poland
19/04/2010
A. Jarzyło
Z. Karnenska
B. Kaszkur-Lejewska
H. Lipińska
W. Lipiński
R. Matysiak-Siery
H. Oleksy
M. Ostrowska
L. Pańczyk
N. Pańczyk
D. Prugar
B. Pupar
I. Sowińska
B. Suska
B. Szumska
M. Gąsiorowska
21.
24190/10
OLSZYNA v. Poland
26/04/2010
B. Olszyna
22.
24268/10
CELENIK v. Poland
19/04/2010
H. Celenik
M. Gąsiorowska
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
23.
24434/10
ROMAŃSKI and Others v. Poland
19/04/2010
E. Duda
S. Fortuna
W. Giera
B. Gomulińska
A. Gomuliński
D. Makuch
J. Męcik
L. Męcik
W. Przewrocka
J. Romański
W. Wacławik
M. Gąsiorowska
24.
24572/10
RYDZEWSKI v. Poland
12/04/2010
S. Rydzewski
25.
25029/10
STUDNIAREK v. Poland
27/04/2010
W. Studniarek
26.
25155/10
KAPUŚCIŃSKA v. Poland
15/04/2010
J. Kapuścińska
27.
25616/10
PIETRZAK v. Poland
26/04/2010
Z. Pietrzak
28.
26067/10
DANILUK v. Poland
20/04/2010
T. Daniluk
29.
26798/10
KUPCZAK v. Poland
26/04/2010
A. Kupczak
30.
27153/10
PIETURA v. Poland
10/05/2010
T. Pietura
31.
27257/10
WRZESZCZ v. Poland
10/05/2010
R. Wrzeszcz
32.
27494/10
KUTEK v. Poland
12/05/2010
M. Kutek
33.
27536/10
TURZYNIECKA v. Poland
11/05/2010
K. Turzyniecka
34.
27594/10
MARKIEWICZ v. Poland
14/05/2010
J. Markiewicz
35.
27986/10
GLOC v. Poland
12/05/2010
Z. Gloc
36.
28084/10
MACKIEWICZ v. Poland
12/05/2010
S. Mackiewicz
37.
28296/10
BOCZKOWSKI v. Poland
19/04/2010
C. Boczkowski
38.
28516/10
RESZCZYŃSKI v. Poland
17/05/2010
R. Reszczyński
39.
28530/10
PAWLONKA v. Poland
07/05/2010
E. Pawlonka
40.
28586/10
SASIN v. Poland
07/05/2010
T. Sasin
41.
28587/10
SZUSTER v. Poland
04/05/2010
J. Szuster
42.
28726/10
ANDRZEJEWSKI v. Poland
02/05/2010
W. Andrzejewski
M. Gąsiorowska
43.
28796/10
KUSY v. Poland
18/05/2010
K. Kusy
44.
28872/10
GRZEGORCZYK v. Poland
16/05/2010
E. Grzegorczyk
45.
28976/10
HARASIMIUK and Others v. Poland
02/05/2010
B. Gowin
W. Gowin
L. Harasimiuk
M. Harasimiuk
K. Lange
G. Nowak-Szalecka
D. Rzepoluch
R. Rzepoluch
K. Trzykowski
W. Wolski
A. Zareba
M. Gąsiorowska
46.
29112/10
MICKIEWICZ v. Poland
11/05/2010
W. Mickiewicz
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
47.
29368/10
ŁACH and Others v. Poland
20/05/2010
Z. Garbaczewski
G. Góralewska-Łach
W. Jabłoński
T. Jakubczyk
B. Kąkol
W. Krawczyk
J. Łach
M. Marianowski
Z. Paluch
A. Piętek
G. Rejman
R. Skwirowski
M. Gąsiorowska
48.
29543/10
BERGER v. Poland
17/05/2010
R. Berger
49.
29725/10
WYDRA v. Poland
19/05/2010
M. Wydra
50.
29727/10
BEDNARZ v. Poland
21/05/2010
C. Bednarz
51.
29746/10
WIDŁAK and Others v. Poland
25/05/2010
W. Czapski
W. Grzejszczak
M. Karpiński
K. Korczyński
W. Mioduchowski
J. Stawikowska-Widłak
J. Wasiak
W. Widlak
L. Zaniewicz
A. Zgudczyńska
M. Gąsiorowska
52.
29852/10
PIĄTEK v. Poland
24/05/2010
R. Piątek
53.
29864/10
BLOCH v. Poland
17/05/2010
A. Bloch
54.
30019/10
TWERD v. Poland
24/05/2010
Z. Twerd
55.
30055/10
KSIĄŻKA v. Poland
25/05/2010
C. Książka
R. Książka
56.
30062/10
KUŁAKOWSKA v. Poland
25/05/2010
I. Kułakowska
57.
30070/10
KALISZ v. Poland
28/05/2010
S. Kalisz
58.
30154/10
BLOCH v. Poland
17/05/2010
M Bloch
59.
30156/10
STEFANIAK v. Poland
25/05/2010
A. Stefaniak
60.
30166/10
BANCERZ v. Poland
27/05/2010
M. Bancerz
61.
30180/10
SYSŁO v. Poland
14/05/2010
E. Sysło
62.
30201/10
JÓŹWIK v. Poland
27/05/2010
T. Jóźwik
63.
30250/10
JANOTA v. Poland
27/05/2010
M. Janota
64.
30262/10
DYDUŁA v. Poland
28/05/2010
H. Dyduła
65.
30269/10
MAĆKOWIAK v. Poland
27/05/2010
S. Maćkowiak
66.
30284/10
DYSZCZYK v. Poland
26/05/2010
J. Dyszczyk
67.
30299/10
UCHMAN v. Poland
24/05/2010
Z. Uchman
68.
30311/10
JASTRZĘBSKI v. Poland
24/05/2010
A. Jastrzębski
M. Gąsiorowska
69.
30312/10
GOŁĄB v. Poland
19/05/2010
M. Gołąb
70.
30384/10
KOMAN v. Poland
17/05/2010
J. Koman
71.
30423/10
OGÓREK v. Poland
26/05/2010
A. Ogórek
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
72.
30430/10
DUSZCZYK v. Poland
26/05/2010
P. Duszczyk
73.
30433/10
DOMAGAŁA v. Poland
25/05/2010
I. Domagała
74.
30437/10
BOHATYREWICZ v. Poland
28/05/2010
T. Bohatyrewicz
75.
30438/10
GOŁĘBIOWSKI v. Poland
19/05/2010
M. Gołębiowski
76.
30445/10
DUBINIEC v. Poland
25/05/2010
C. Dubiniec
77.
30681/10
ALEKSANDROWICZ and Others v. Poland
18/05/2010
M. Aleksandrowicz
D. Błażejewska
P. Błażejewski
L. Górski
K. Iwanicka
G. Żmuda
L. Żmuda
M. Gąsiorowska
78.
30820/10
KWIECIEŃ and Others v. Poland
31/05/2010
W. Kwiecień
W. Raszka
T. Rudna-Krawczyk
M. Gąsiorowska
79.
30961/10
BOCZEK v. Poland
31/05/2010
S. Boczek
M. Gąsiorowska
80.
31205/10
OZIMEK v. Poland
31/05/2010
T. Ozimek
81.
31249/10
BIAŁEK v. Poland
25/05/2010
M. Białek
82.
31383/10
MALISZ v. Poland
01/06/2010
K. Malisz
83.
31392/10
WAŁDOCH v. Poland
26/05/2010
B. Wałdoch
84.
31412/10
PLESZEWSKI v. Poland
01/06/2010
F. Pleszewski
85.
31445/10
PIOTROWSKI v. Poland
24/05/2010
K. Piotrowski
86.
31453/10
POLAK v. Poland
26/05/2010
C. Polak
87.
31472/10
ŻYGADŁO v. Poland
26/05/2010
M. Żygadło
88.
31622/10
KUŁAKOWSKI v. Poland
01/06/2010
Z. Kułakowski
89.
31636/10
KOSSARZECKI v. Poland
02/06/2010
F. Kossarzecki
90.
31835/10
JASIŃSKI v. Poland
02/06/2010
A. Jasiński
91.
31852/10
PRZEWOŹNIAK v. Poland
25/05/2010
A. Przewoźniak
92.
31930/10
ŚCISŁY v. Poland
01/06/2010
K. Scisly
93.
31941/10
SZYPIELEWICZ v. Poland
24/05/2010
J. Szypielewicz
94.
31957/10
SKIBA v. Poland
25/05/2010
W. Skiba
95.
32022/10
KRIGER v. Poland
26/05/2010
W. Kriger
P. Sowisło
96.
32031/10
IGNACIUK v. Poland
25/05/2010
A. Ignaciuk
97.
32035/10
NOWICKI v. Poland
25/05/2010
W. Nowicki
P. Sowisło
98.
32165/10
KOLADO v. Poland
26/05/2010
T. Kolado
P. Sowisło
99.
32204/10
MACIĄŻEK v. Poland
25/05/2010
W. Maciążek
100.
32219/10
MRÓZ v. Poland
26/05/2010
M. Mróz
P. Sowisło
101.
32236/10
GROCHOCKA v. Poland
28/05/2010
T. Grochocka
102.
32240/10
JAKOBSON v. Poland
04/06/2010
E. Jakobson
103.
32251/10
PRZYBYLSKI v. Poland
26/05/2010
L. Przybylski
P. Sowisło
104.
32315/10
MANIECKI v. Poland
25/05/2010
A. Maniecki
P. Sowisło
105.
32321/10
SOBKOWIAK v. Poland
26/05/2010
Z. Sobkowiak
P. Sowisło
106.
32323/10
PIOTROWSKI v. Poland
04/06/2010
M. Piotrowski
107.
32412/10
SOJDA v. Poland
07/06/2010
J. Sojda
108.
32554/10
PTAK v. Poland
04/06/2010
K. Ptak
109.
32618/10
OZIMEK-GAŁKIEWICZ v. Poland
02/06/2010
U. Ozimek-Gałkiewicz
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
110.
32754/10
TKACZYK v. Poland
08/06/2010
K. Tkaczyk
111.
32793/10
MACHERZYŃSKI v. Poland
08/06/2010
T. Macherzyński
112.
33289/10
KUŹNIAREK v. Poland
08/06/2010
S. Kuźniarek
113.
33297/10
KOZŁOWSKI v. Poland
28/05/2010
F. Kozłowski
114.
33305/10
TULEYA v. Poland
10/06/2010
L. Tuleya
115.
33312/10
ŻUKOWSKI v. Poland
26/05/2010
B. Żukowski
116.
33322/10
WALUŚKIEWICZ v. Poland
03/06/2010
J. Waluśkiewicz
117.
33344/10
ZIĘBA v. Poland
07/06/2010
P. Zięba
118.
33460/10
CZEŚNIK v. Poland
03/06/2010
J. Cześnik
119.
33635/10
MACUTKIEWICZ v. Poland
08/06/2010
E. Macutkiewicz
120.
33916/10
GOLCEW v. Poland
07/06/2010
W. Golcew
121.
33922/10
DYNAROWICZ v. Poland
10/06/2010
W. Dynarowicz
122.
33941/10
DOMINIAK v. Poland
08/06/2010
W. Dominiak
123.
34070/10
ROSZKOWSKA v. Poland
10/06/2010
M. Roszkowska
124.
34153/10
WÓJCIK v. Poland
08/06/2010
R. Wójcik
125.
34168/10
FILINGIER v. Poland
09/06/2010
B. Filingier
126.
34185/10
PLUCIŃSKI v. Poland
10/06/2010
J. Pluciński
127.
34204/10
HYHS v. Poland
09/06/2010
A. Hyhs
128.
34229/10
MALISZEWSKI v. Poland
04/06/2010
A. Maliszewski
129.
34237/10
MRÓZ v. Poland
15/06/2010
M. Mróz
130.
34289/10
BORYSEWICZ v. Poland
16/06/2010
J. Borysewicz
131.
34290/10
LANKIEWICZ v. Poland
07/06/2010
S. Lankiewicz
132.
34293/10
LEWANDOWSKI v. Poland
07/06/2010
K. Lewandowski
133.
34294/10
BORYCKI v. Poland
16/06/2010
J. Borycki
134.
34297/10
WENTEL v. Poland
17/06/2010
M. Wentel
135.
34298/10
ŁUKASZEK v. Poland
01/06/2010
W. Łukaszek
136.
34347/10
JABŁOŃSKI v. Poland
14/06/2010
M. Jabłoński
137.
34435/10
DEC v. Poland
17/06/2010
Z. Dec
138.
34444/10
DZIĘCIOŁ v. Poland
17/06/2010
G. Dzięcioł
139.
34467/10
SOCHACKI v. Poland
09/06/2010
L. Sochacki
140.
34515/10
SITKIEWICZ v. Poland
08/06/2010
R. Sitkiewicz
141.
34533/10
MAĆKOWIAK v. Poland
16/06/2010
J. Maćkowiak
142.
34553/10
KRIEGEL v. Poland
09/06/2010
M. Kriegel
143.
34565/10
TOMCZAK v. Poland
15/06/2010
D. Tomczak
144.
34571/10
TOMCZAK v. Poland
15/06/2010
B. Tomczak
145.
34684/10
SZYPIELEWICZ v. Poland
24/05/2010
R. Szypielewicz
146.
34691/10
SZAMOTA v. Poland
14/06/2010
W. Szamota
147.
34728/10
SOBIESKI v. Poland
15/06/2010
J. Sobieski
148.
34735/10
STRĄCZYŃSKI v. Poland
16/06/2010
S. Strączyński
149.
34758/10
SOJCZYŃSKI v. Poland
16/06/2010
W. Sojczyński
150.
34761/10
SAKOWICZ v. Poland
17/06/2010
L. Sakowicz
151.
34794/10
ŁUKA v. Poland
16/06/2010
B. Łuka
152.
34861/10
SAWICKI v. Poland
18/06/2010
Z. Sawicki
153.
34985/10
PIEKARCZYK v. Poland
17/06/2010
J. Piekarczyk
154.
35015/10
JAWORSKI v. Poland
18/06/2010
K. Jaworski
155.
35198/10
SEMLA v. Poland
18/06/2010
M. Semla
156.
35207/10
ZAJĄC v. Poland
18/06/2010
L. Zając
157.
35217/10
BĘBEN v. Poland
16/06/2010
K. Bęben
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
158.
35223/10
BROJEWSKI v. Poland
15/06/2010
W. Brojewski
159.
35265/10
BUCZEK v. Poland
18/06/2010
H. Buczek
160.
35694/10
SZULC v. Poland
11/06/2010
M. Szulc
161.
36145/10
OSTÓJ v. Poland
22/06/2010
W. Ostój
162.
36261/10
MAŁYSZCZYK v. Poland
21/06/2010
L. Małyszczyk
163.
36277/10
MOSKALIK v. Poland
10/06/2010
R. Moskalik
164.
36320/10
MATEŃKO v. Poland
23/06/2010
B. Mateńko
165.
36321/10
BOCHENEK v. Poland
14/06/2010
J. Bochenek
166.
36364/10
BANAŚ v. Poland
21/05/2010
J. Banaś
167.
36396/10
OSEK v. Poland
14/06/2010
J. Osek
168.
36535/10
SNADY v. Poland
21/06/2010
J. Snady
169.
36539/10
SZULIM v. Poland
17/06/2010
J. Szulim
170.
36559/10
SMULSKI v. Poland
17/06/2010
H. Smulski
171.
36563/10
SZULCZYŃSKI v. Poland
17/06/2010
E. Szulczyński
172.
36567/10
STOLARSKA v. Poland
18/06/2010
A. Stolarska
173.
36619/10
TOMASZEWSKI v. Poland
21/06/2010
P. Tomaszewski
174.
36637/10
KUKAWKA v. Poland
21/06/2010
J. Kukawka
175.
36642/10
POSPIECH v. Poland
21/06/2010
M. Pospiech
176.
36644/10
KOSAKOWSKI v. Poland
24/06/2010
J. Kosakowski
177.
36645/10
NIEDŹWIEDŹ v. Poland
21/06/2010
Z. Niedźwiedź
178.
36647/10
LEWANDOWSKI v. Poland
23/06/2010
T. Lewandowski
179.
36650/10
KABAŁA v. Poland
22/06/2010
M. Kabała
180.
36653/10
ROSZKOWSKI v. Poland
24/06/2010
M. Roszkowski
181.
36654/10
RYBICKI v. Poland
17/06/2010
J. Rybicki
182.
36661/10
PIASECZYŃSKA v. Poland
14/06/2010
A. Piaseczyńska
183.
36666/10
KAMIŃSKA v. Poland
15/06/2010
A. Kamińska
184.
36805/10
DUDEK v. Poland
22/06/2010
A. Dudek
185.
36809/10
DUSZCZYK v. Poland
16/06/2010
Z. Duszczyk
186.
36945/10
GÓRNY v. Poland
18/06/2010
S. Górny
187.
37161/10
CIESIELSKI v. Poland
21/06/2010
J. Ciesielski
188.
37196/10
CHUDZIŃSKI v. Poland
21/06/2010
J. Chudziński
189.
37214/10
ZIELIŃSKI v. Poland
16/06/2010
W. Zieliński
190.
37239/10
WAŃKOWICZ v. Poland
25/06/2010
Z. Wańkowicz
191.
37242/10
ZATOŃSKI v. Poland
28/06/2010
K. Zatoński
192.
37340/10
MARCZYK v. Poland
28/06/2010
R. Marczyk
193.
37410/10
J. v. Poland
30/06/2010
J.
194.
37634/10
BARYS v. Poland
29/06/2010
C. Barys
195.
37640/10
BARCZAK v. Poland
30/06/2010
S. Barczak
196.
37644/10
STRAŚ v. Poland
29/06/2010
E. Straś
197.
37656/10
BYCZEK v. Poland
30/05/2010
A. Byczek
198.
37669/10
PAŹDZIOR v. Poland
29/06/2010
S. Paździor
199.
37676/10
WÓJCIK v. Poland
25/06/2010
B. Wójcik
200.
37680/10
STOWARZYSZENIE EMERYTÓW I RENCISTÓW POLICYJNYCH v. Poland
29/06/2010
Stowarzyszenie Emerytów i Rencistów Policyjnych
T. Koncewicz
201.
37684/10
ŁUCZAK v. Poland
29/06/2010
A. Łuczak
202.
37686/10
ZAWISTOWSKA v. Poland
30/06/2010
A. Zawistowska
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
203.
37690/10
ZALEWSKA v. Poland
30/06/2010
H. Zalewska
204.
37695/10
ZATOŃSKA v. Poland
28/06/2010
W. Zatońska
205.
37700/10
ZAWISTOWSKI v. Poland
30/06/2010
J. Zawistowski
206.
37701/10
SOBAŃSKI v. Poland
01/07/2010
Z. Sobański
207.
37706/10
SKRZYPEK v. Poland
29/06/2010
C. Skrzypek
208.
37837/10
DUDEK v. Poland
28/06/2010
J. Dudek
209.
37851/10
DOROS v. Poland
29/06/2010
J. Doros
210.
37966/10
KOPCZYŃSKI v. Poland
28/06/2010
J. Kopczyński
211.
37975/10
TARNAWSKA v. Poland
30/06/2010
A. Tarnawska
212.
37979/10
KOZARSKI v. Poland
28/06/2010
J. Kozarski
213.
37983/10
KACPRZYŃSKI v. Poland
01/07/2010
B. Kacprzyński
214.
37987/10
DYLEWSKA v. Poland
25/06/2010
I. Dylewska
215.
37992/10
KASPRZAK v. Poland
29/06/2010
J. Kasprzak
216.
38003/10
KOZARSKA v. Poland
28/06/2010
K. Kozarska
217.
38011/10
URBAN v. Poland
24/06/2010
A. Urban
218.
38013/10
KARWOWSKI v. Poland
28/06/2010
R. Karwowski
219.
38060/10
TANANO v. Poland
28/06/2010
B. Tanano
220.
38140/10
KRASUSKA v. Poland
29/06/2010
I. Krasuska
221.
38144/10
KAŹMIERCZAK v. Poland
01/07/2010
B. Kaźmierczak
222.
38358/10
ŚCIEGIENKA v. Poland
30/06/2010
M. Ściegienka
223.
38561/10
MAŁEK and Others v. Poland
05/07/2010
T. Brodzki
S. Małek
B. Musiał
J. Ołowski
W. Piątkowski
H. Podgórski
S. Powichrowski
A. Siłuch
J. Słupek
M. Gąsiorowska
224.
38685/10
MATULEWICZ v. Poland
02/07/2010
F. Matulewicz
225.
38807/10
STACHOWSKI v. Poland
24/06/2010
W. Stachowski
226.
38892/10
MAGDZIAK v. Poland
05/07/2010
J. Magdziak
227.
38939/10
SEKUŁA v. Poland
28/06/2010
J. Sekuła
228.
38994/10
BĄCZEK v. Poland
21/06/2010
A. Bączek
229.
39585/10
KOPRUCKI v. Poland
05/07/2010
M. Koprucki
230.
39621/10
KLIMOWICZ v. Poland
02/07/2010
K. Klimowicz
231.
39632/10
KWIATKOWSKI v. Poland
24/06/2010
W. Kwiatkowski
232.
39691/10
KAUS v. Poland
02/07/2010
J. Kaus
233.
39951/10
KOKOT v. Poland
02/07/2010
S. Kokot
234.
40137/10
ROSIŃSKA v. Poland
05/07/2010
G. Rosińska
235.
40150/10
RACZKOWSKI v. Poland
05/07/2010
M. Raczkowski
236.
40182/10
ANTKOWIAK v. Poland
21/06/2010
J. Antkowiak
237.
40204/10
GRYCUK v. Poland
05/07/2010
Z. Grycuk
238.
40206/10
GRYCUK v. Poland
05/07/2010
J. Grycuk
239.
40211/10
GÓRSKI v. Poland
02/07/2010
H. Górski
240.
40372/10
BŁASZKIEWICZ v. Poland
06/07/2010
W. Błaszkiewicz
241.
40436/10
RATAJCZAK v. Poland
26/05/2010
M. Ratajczak
P. Sowisło
242.
40466/10
RYMUSZKA v. Poland
02/07/2010
R. Rymuszka
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
243.
40510/10
CZAPIEWSKI v. Poland
10/06/2010
S. Czapiewski
244.
40514/10
ZWIERZYCKI v. Poland
22/06/2010
S. Zwierzycki
245.
40517/10
NOWAKOWSKA-RAJCA v. Poland
30/06/2010
H. Nowakowska-Rajca
246.
40564/10
STANIEK v. Poland
09/07/2010
A. Staniek
247.
40677/10
POŻAROWSZCZYK v. Poland
13/07/2010
S. Pożarowszczyk
248.
40714/10
KISZKA v. Poland
16/07/2010
J. Kiszka
249.
40720/10
KORALEWICZ v. Poland
15/07/2010
J. Koralewicz
250.
40754/10
ŁĄGIEWKA v. Poland
13/07/2010
B. Łągiewka
251.
40770/10
KONIECZNY v. Poland
06/07/2010
S. Konieczny
252.
40813/10
KUBISZTAL v. Poland
08/07/2010
T. Kubisztal
253.
40818/10
KENIG v. Poland
12/07/2010
J. Kenig
254.
40823/10
TRZNADEL v. Poland
09/07/2010
T. Trznadel
255.
40870/10
SZMANIA v. Poland
15/07/2010
B. Szmania
256.
40880/10
HORBACZEK v. Poland
11/06/2010
M. Horbaczek
257.
40884/10
MAŁKIEWICZ v. Poland
13/07/2010
Z. Małkiewicz
258.
40887/10
MACIEJEWSKI v. Poland
15/07/2010
G. Maciejewski
259.
40907/10
RAJCA v. Poland
30/06/2010
J. Rajca
260.
40939/10
NIEDBAŁA v. Poland
22/06/2010
Z. Niedbała
261.
40976/10
WALOTEK v. Poland
23/06/2010
E. Walotek
262.
41183/10
POLKIEWICZ v. Poland
29/06/2010
W. Polkiewicz
263.
41196/10
WALASZEK v. Poland
10/07/2010
Z. Walaszek
264.
41229/10
CZERWIEC v. Poland
08/07/2010
J. Czerwiec
265.
41245/10
ZIEMIEWICZ v. Poland
21/06/2010
C. Ziemiewicz
266.
41260/10
ZON v. Poland
07/07/2010
R. Zon
267.
41622/10
OSTROWICKA v. Poland
08/07/2010
B. Ostrowicka
268.
41650/10
ORATOR v. Poland
06/07/2010
W. Orator
269.
41655/10
BARANOWSKA v. Poland
03/07/2010
I. Baranowska
270.
41662/10
FRUNZE v. Poland
09/07/2010
J. Frunze
271.
41678/10
ĆWIKLIŃSKA v. Poland
20/07/2010
A. Ćwiklińska
272.
41682/10
ŻOŁĄDKIEWICZ v. Poland
22/06/2010
J. Żołądkiewicz
P. Sowisło
273.
41803/10
ŁABĘCKI and Others v. Poland
13/07/2010
J. Banach
K. Cieślak
S. Cyrta
A. Kieler
J. Łabęcki
J. Madej
H. Makowska
W. Michalak
W. Panasiuk
G. Skurski
M. Śliwiński
P. Sosinowicz
S. Szeruda
L. Wolski
B. Zieliński
M. Gąsiorowska
274.
41854/10
KOTLAREK v. Poland
22/06/2010
Z. Kotlarek
P. Sowisło
275.
42185/10
MAJEWSKI v. Poland
12/07/2010
S. Majewski
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
276.
42416/10
RZEPCZYŃSKA v. Poland
16/07/2010
C. Rzepczyńska
277.
42419/10
RATAJCZAK v. Poland
20/07/2010
M. Ratajczak
278.
42426/10
RAKOWSKA-GROOS v. Poland
22/07/2010
R. Rakowska-Groos
279.
42517/10
MATUSZCZYK v. Poland
29/06/2010
S. Matuszczyk
280.
42519/10
DUDZIAK v. Poland
19/07/2010
A. Dudziak
281.
42524/10
MALISZEWSKI v. Poland
12/07/2010
S. Maliszewski
282.
42544/10
SITKOWSKI v. Poland
19/07/2010
J. Sitkowski
283.
42571/10
SIWIEC v. Poland
19/07/2010
B. Siwiec
284.
42616/10
SKÓRA v. Poland
15/07/2010
R. Skóra
285.
42628/10
GNIECIECKA v. Poland
16/07/2010
E. Gnieciecka
286.
42629/10
HOLI and Others v. Poland
30/06/2010
K. Debudaj
A. Gorgol
W. Gorgol
W. Holi
M. Jagielski
H. Jaksa
A. Kowalik
Z. Łasoń
J. Leks
T. Łukasik
J. Mokry
Z. Olkuski
W. Szczepański
T. Wolczuk
D. Sucholewski
287.
42828/10
RAKOWSKI v. Poland
26/07/2010
S. Rakowski
288.
42830/10
MAŁKUSZEWSKI v. Poland
20/07/2010
W. Małkuszewski
289.
42876/10
GRĄZ v. Poland
23/07/2010
H. Grąz
290.
43251/10
CHLASZCZAK v. Poland
26/07/2010
R. Chlaszczak
291.
43295/10
WALECZEK v. Poland
17/07/2010
K. Waleczek
292.
43451/10
KENG v. Poland
26/07/2010
J. Keng
293.
43561/10
WIŚNIEWSKI v. Poland
27/07/2010
Z. Wiśniewski
E. Mazurek
294.
43641/10
BUDZYŃSKI v. Poland
27/07/2010
S. Budzyński
295.
43649/10
FAJFROWSKI v. Poland
23/07/2010
A. Fajfrowski
296.
43651/10
BOROWSKI v. Poland
13/07/2010
K. Borowski
297.
43653/10
BIELA v. Poland
20/07/2010
S. Biela
298.
43657/10
BIAŁY v. Poland
22/07/2010
W. Biały
299.
44138/10
KOZIK v. Poland
29/07/2010
E. Kozik
300.
44382/10
NEWEL v. Poland
02/08/2010
S. Newel
301.
44474/10
ADAMSKI v. Poland
26/07/2010
K. Adamski
302.
44515/10
SUCHOLEWSKI v. Poland
28/07/2010
L. Sucholewski
303.
44556/10
GADZIŃSKI v. Poland
02/08/2010
M. Gadziński
304.
44560/10
WOJTYNIAK v. Poland
02/08/2010
W. Wojtyniak
305.
44564/10
BERNE v. Poland
02/08/2010
J. Berne
306.
44565/10
ORZYŁOWSKI v. Poland
30/07/2010
J. Orzyłowski
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
307.
44598/10
BIEŚ and Others v. Poland
22/07/2010
A. Bieś
W. Fonfara
H. Jasik
A. Starchurski
M. Gąsiorowska
308.
44688/10
RUNOWSKI v. Poland
02/08/2010
T. Runowski
309.
44805/10
SANOCKI v. Poland
02/08/2010
M. Sanocki
310.
44972/10
PROTASEWICZ v. Poland
02/08/2010
I. Protasewicz
311.
45235/10
MARCZEWSKI v. Poland
03/08/2010
B. Marczewski
312.
45499/10
SKIKIEWICZ v. Poland
03/08/2010
M. Skikiewicz
313.
45503/10
TARCZEWSKI v. Poland
28/07/2010
M. Tarczewski
314.
45515/10
GRZYWACZ v. Poland
04/08/2010
S. Grzywacz
315.
45535/10
STACHOWIAK v. Poland
05/08/2010
K. Stachowiak
316.
45542/10
BUDZIŁO v. Poland
30/07/2010
W. Budziło
317.
45575/10
JABŁOŃSKI v. Poland
30/07/2010
R. Jabłoński
318.
45722/10
KAROLCZYK v. Poland
03/08/2010
T. Karolczyk
319.
45729/10
KOWALSKI v. Poland
26/07/2010
M. Kowalski
320.
45731/10
NOWICKI v. Poland
29/07/2010
C. Nowicki
321.
45736/10
NIEMIRA v. Poland
02/08/2010
W. Niemira
322.
45750/10
PIŃSKI v. Poland
06/08/2010
R. Piński
323.
45761/10
NALEPA v. Poland
06/08/2010
S. Nalepa
324.
45792/10
RAKSZEWSKA v. Poland
30/07/2010
W. Rakszewska
325.
45888/10
PODEDWORNY v. Poland
02/08/2010
Z. Podedworny
326.
45938/10
PANKIEWICZ v. Poland
28/07/2010
Z. Pankiewicz
327.
45961/10
LASEK v. Poland
04/08/2010
S. Lasek
328.
45982/10
CIURKO v. Poland
15/06/2010
J. Ciurko
329.
45996/10
BALCEREK v. Poland
30/07/2010
M. Balcerek
330.
46040/10
KUCHARSKA v. Poland
06/08/2010
E. Kucharska
331.
46044/10
KACPRZYŃSKI v. Poland
06/08/2010
S. Kacprzyński
332.
46153/10
STRYCZYŃSKA-JANICKA v. Poland
30/07/2010
J. Stryczyńska-Janicka
333.
46164/10
GAJEWSKI v. Poland
07/08/2010
Z. Gajewski
334.
46169/10
DZIEWIRZ v. Poland
06/08/2010
H. Dziewirz
335.
46175/10
RANIEWICZ v. Poland
06/08/2010
W. Raniewicz
336.
46187/10
GONTAREK v. Poland
09/08/2010
Z. Gontarek
337.
46198/10
ALZAK v. Poland
03/08/2010
K. Alzak
338.
46560/10
ŚWITAŁA v. Poland
11/08/2010
H. Świtała
339.
46561/10
SUROWIEC-SMÓŁKO v. Poland
09/08/2010
G. Surowiec-Smółko
340.
46828/10
ZUBIŃSKI v. Poland
06/08/2010
Z. Zubiński
341.
46834/10
SKOWRON v. Poland
13/08/2010
E. Skowron
342.
46876/10
BRĄŻKIEWICZ v. Poland
11/08/2010
A. Brążkiewicz
343.
46933/10
NIESSNER v. Poland
10/08/2010
S. Niessner
344.
47135/10
JANAS-SKÓRKIEWICZ v. Poland
11/08/2010
B. Janas-Skórkiewicz
345.
47179/10
ŚWITAŁA v. Poland
11/08/2010
D. Świtała
346.
47211/10
SKULSKI v. Poland
11/08/2010
Z. Skulski
347.
47226/10
ŚWIĘCH v. Poland
12/08/2010
R. Święch
348.
47371/10
PISARSKI v. Poland
10/08/2010
J. Pisarski
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
349.
47633/10
NALBORCZYK v. Poland
12/08/2010
J. Nalborczyk
350.
47963/10
MANTAY v. Poland
14/08/2010
J. Mantay
351.
47987/10
GÓRSKI v. Poland
09/08/2010
S. Górski
352.
48030/10
DRYŃKOWSKI v. Poland
11/08/2010
M. Dryńkowski
353.
48034/10
GROBELNY v. Poland
12/08/2010
Z. Grobelny
354.
48041/10
GNIECIECKI v. Poland
07/08/2010
M. Gnieciecki
355.
48047/10
KORONOWSKI v. Poland
04/08/2010
J. Koronowski
356.
48053/10
KOŹBIELSKI v. Poland
12/08/2010
Z. Koźbielski
357.
48094/10
KRUPSKI v. Poland
13/08/2010
W. Krupski
358.
48109/10
SZCZEPANEK v. Poland
12/08/2010
Z. Szczepanek
359.
48117/10
STEC v. Poland
11/08/2010
L. Stec
360.
48129/10
SOBOLEWSKA v. Poland
09/08/2010
U. Sobolewska
M. Gąsiorowska
361.
48285/10
MATERNICKI v. Poland
17/08/2010
M. Maternicki
362.
48323/10
KISIEL v. Poland
14/08/2010
A. Kisiel
363.
48328/10
SZTYLER v. Poland
17/08/2010
J. Sztyler
364.
48341/10
SAMOTIUK v. Poland
15/08/2010
R. Samotiuk
365.
48362/10
PIETRYKOWSKI v. Poland
17/08/2010
G. Pietrykowski
366.
48364/10
PŁUŻAŃSKI v. Poland
16/08/2010
M. Płużański
367.
48365/10
RÓG v. Poland
16/08/2010
J. Róg
368.
48390/10
SAWICKI v. Poland
17/08/2010
B. Sawicki
369.
48446/10
NADWORSKI v. Poland
15/08/2010
J. Nadworski
370.
48768/10
MADEJ v. Poland
19/08/2010
T. Madej
371.
48836/10
STRZELEC v. Poland
12/08/2010
W. Strzelec
372.
48837/10
ŚWIĄTEK v. Poland
12/08/2010
E. Świątek
373.
48843/10
KAMIŃSKI v. Poland
10/08/2010
R. Kamiński
374.
48862/10
KIESIEWICZ v. Poland
17/08/2010
B. Kiesiewicz
375.
48878/10
KUNCER v. Poland
19/08/2010
T. Kuncer
376.
48898/10
BŁASIK v. Poland
16/08/2010
W. Błasik
377.
48982/10
RUTKOWSKI v. Poland
18/08/2010
K. Rutkowski
378.
48990/10
PLISZCZUK v. Poland
19/08/2010
M. Pliszczuk
379.
49002/10
BUKOWSKI v. Poland
17/08/2010
I. Bukowski
380.
49005/10
WNUK v. Poland
17/08/2010
R. Wnuk
381.
49008/10
WOŹNICA v. Poland
16/08/2010
A. Woźnica
382.
49010/10
OLKIEWICZ v. Poland
17/08/2010
J. Olkiewicz
383.
49015/10
BILIŃSKI v. Poland
12/08/2010
W. Biliński
384.
49017/10
ZAWADZKI v. Poland
13/08/2010
T. Zawadzki
385.
49022/10
ĆWIK v. Poland
29/06/1938
H. Ćwik
386.
49034/10
PISKORSKI v. Poland
18/08/2010
M. Piskorski
387.
49038/10
BRZOZOWSKI v. Poland
19/08/2010
L. Brzozowski
388.
49043/10
PINDLOWSKI v. Poland
20/08/2010
C. Pindlowski
389.
49045/10
BOLESŁAWSKI v. Poland
19/08/2010
M. Bolesławski
390.
49047/10
PROSKURA v. Poland
18/08/2010
J. Proskura
391.
49048/10
PARYLAK v. Poland
20/08/2010
J. Parylak
392.
49049/10
NIZNER v. Poland
11/08/2010
U. Nizner
393.
49053/10
TOMASIK v. Poland
17/08/2010
L. Tomasik
394.
49144/10
WASAK v. Poland
10/08/2010
A. Wasak
395.
49154/10
WRÓBEL v. Poland
19/08/2010
K. Wróbel
396.
49160/10
ZDROJEWSKI v. Poland
16/08/2010
F. Zdrojewski
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
397.
49179/10
SPIEGOLSKA v. Poland
20/08/2010
G. Spiegolska
398.
49200/10
MICHALEWICZ v. Poland
20/08/2010
L. Michalewicz
399.
49204/10
MATUSZEWSKI v. Poland
16/08/2010
T. Matuszewski
400.
49220/10
CZARNECKI v. Poland
12/08/2010
J. Czarnecki
401.
49224/10
BRZEZEK v. Poland
18/08/2010
M. Brzezek
402.
49225/10
BŁAŻEJEWSKI v. Poland
19/08/2010
A. Błażejewski
403.
49226/10
PĘCHERZEWSKI v. Poland
17/08/2010
S. Pęcherzewski
404.
49236/10
LASKA v. Poland
16/08/2010
W. Laska
405.
49237/10
BIERNACKA v. Poland
20/08/2010
T. Biernacka
406.
49242/10
LISICKI v. Poland
10/08/2010
R. Lisicki
407.
49301/10
MAGDZIARZ v. Poland
19/08/2010
D. Magdziarz
408.
49312/10
CZEMPLIŃSKI and MALINOWSKI v. Poland
10/08/2010
G. Czempliński
W. Malinowski
M. Gąsiorowska
409.
49328/10
SAWKA v. Poland
18/08/2010
S. Sawka
410.
49375/10
DĘBSKI v. Poland
20/08/2010
J. Dębski
411.
49376/10
BIELAWIAK v. Poland
16/08/2010
E. Bielawiak
412.
49378/10
BISZCZAK v. Poland
16/08/2010
S. Biszczak
413.
49381/10
OPAŁKA v. Poland
20/08/2010
L. Opałka
414.
49417/10
DANIEL v. Poland
20/08/2010
H. Daniel
415.
49441/10
SZCZERBICKI v. Poland
17/08/2010
E. Szczerbicki
416.
49450/10
ŚLIWA v. Poland
09/08/2010
E. Śliwa
417.
49466/10
DOMSKI v. Poland
12/08/2010
J. Domski
418.
49474/10
GROCHOWSKI v. Poland
09/08/2010
J. Grochowski
419.
49563/10
ŚWIĘTALSKI v. Poland
24/08/2010
K. Świętalski
420.
49568/10
STEFAŃSKI v. Poland
23/08/2010
R. Stefański
421.
49571/10
MAŚNICA v. Poland
23/08/2010
J. Maśnica
422.
49582/10
MIODUSZEWSKA v. Poland
24/08/2010
M. Mioduszewska
423.
49807/10
KRÓL v. Poland
24/08/2010
L. Król
424.
49855/10
NATOŃSKI v. Poland
19/08/2010
W. Natoński
425.
49971/10
KWIECIŃSKI v. Poland
18/08/2010
B. Kwieciński
426.
49981/10
NOWACKI v. Poland
23/08/2010
L. Nowacki
427.
50026/10
KWIECIEŃ v. Poland
16/08/2010
R. Kwiecień
428.
50118/10
TURA v. Poland
25/08/2010
A. Tura
429.
50183/10
KIJANKA v. Poland
23/08/2010
I. Kijanka
430.
50448/10
HARAJ v. Poland
17/08/2010
R. Haraj
431.
50473/10
PRZYBYSZEWSKI v. Poland
26/08/2010
Z. Przybyszewski
432.
50493/10
PRZYBYSZEWSKA v. Poland
26/08/2010
B. Przybyszewska
433.
50510/10
PROKOP v. Poland
07/08/2010
J. Prokop
434.
50519/10
LESIÓW v. Poland
19/08/2010
W. Lesiów
435.
50552/10
JOPERT v. Poland
21/08/2010
W. Jopert
436.
50570/10
KUKUŁA v. Poland
18/08/2010
E. Kukuła
437.
50584/10
KSIĄŻEK v. Poland
23/08/2010
W. Książek
438.
50627/10
UMIĘCKI v. Poland
23/08/2010
A. Umięcki
439.
50636/10
GRANICZNY v. Poland
23/08/2010
J. Graniczny
440.
50666/10
KISIEL v. Poland
20/08/2010
M. Kisiel
441.
50685/10
CIUPEK v. Poland
26/08/2010
H. Ciupek
442.
50692/10
KLUZ v. Poland
20/08/2010
A. Kluz
443.
50698/10
KORNECKI v. Poland
20/08/2010
J. Kornecki
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
444.
50710/10
BUJAS v. Poland
21/08/2010
J. Bujas
445.
50725/10
WIERZYŃSKI v. Poland
25/08/2010
E. Wierzyński
446.
50730/10
CHRZANOWSKI v. Poland
18/08/2010
K. Chrzanowski
447.
50731/10
BUKOWIECKI v. Poland
23/08/2010
S. Bukowiecki
448.
50770/10
KARBOWIAK v. Poland
27/08/2010
H. Karbowiak
449.
50783/10
STOLARCZYK v. Poland
26/08/2010
M. Stolarczyk
450.
50787/10
STALEWSKI v. Poland
23/08/2010
R. Stalewski
451.
50793/10
SZCZYGIEŁ v. Poland
22/08/2010
B. Szczygieł
452.
50798/10
SZYMONIAK v. Poland
23/08/2010
H. Szymoniak
453.
50808/10
SOŁDEK v. Poland
22/08/2010
M. Sołdek
454.
50809/10
OBROK v. Poland
18/08/2010
R. Obrok
455.
50832/10
BARAŃSKI v. Poland
19/08/2010
K. Barański
456.
50854/10
BALAZY v. Poland
18/08/2010
E. Balazy
457.
50875/10
BEKSA v. Poland
23/08/2010
A. Beksa
458.
50920/10
FORMA v. Poland
19/08/2010
S. Forma
459.
50922/10
BAŁBATUN v. Poland
23/08/2010
A. Bałbatun
460.
50923/10
ŻAK v. Poland
23/08/2010
S. Żak
461.
50928/10
WARCZYGŁOWSKI v. Poland
19/08/2010
R. Warczygłowski
462.
50930/10
FILIPIAK v. Poland
30/08/2010
M. Filipiak
463.
51403/10
KRYNICKA-TAROCIŃSKA v. Poland
20/08/2010
K. Krynicka-Tarocińska
464.
51454/10
LANG v. Poland
19/08/2010
W. Lang
465.
51497/10
BUCHAJCZYK v. Poland
23/08/2010
S. Buchajczyk
466.
51501/10
RADKO v. Poland
30/08/2010
C. Radko
467.
51575/10
BAROW v. Poland
02/09/2010
T. Barow
468.
51762/10
STEC v. Poland
24/08/2010
T. Stec
469.
51896/10
SEREK v. Poland
23/08/2010
L. Serek
470.
51925/10
SZYKNY v. Poland
20/08/2010
K. Szykny
471.
52083/10
STRĄCZKOWSKA v. Poland
28/08/2010
B. Strączkowska
472.
52087/10
MIRA v. Poland
27/08/2010
H. Mira
473.
52089/10
STEC and Others v. Poland
02/09/2010
K. Leja
J. Nowicki
R. Stec
M. Gąsiorowska
474.
52347/10
SKOREK v. Poland
02/09/2010
A. Skorek
475.
52447/10
SZEWC v. Poland
12/08/2010
J. Szewc
476.
52461/10
ANDRZEJEWSKI v. Poland
16/08/2010
G. Andrzejewski
477.
52467/10
GOŁASZEWSKI v. Poland
19/08/2010
Z. Gołaszewski
478.
52471/10
SAWICKI v. Poland
19/08/2010
R. Sawicki
479.
52495/10
KALICIAK v. Poland
27/08/2010
E. Kaliciak
480.
52780/10
RÓŻAŃSKI v. Poland
30/08/2010
E. Różański
481.
52867/10
SZCZEPANEK v. Poland
03/09/2010
W. Szczepanek
482.
53348/10
KINA-WROŃSKI v. Poland
08/09/2010
W. Kina-Wroński
483.
53358/10
WOJCIECHOWSKI v. Poland
31/08/2010
B. Wojciechowski
484.
53473/10
ŚWIERCZEWSKI v. Poland
13/09/2010
J. Świerczewski
485.
53549/10
BARYŁA v. Poland
27/08/2010
K. Baryła
486.
53629/10
OTMIANOWSKI v. Poland
05/09/2010
Z. Otmianowski
487.
53775/10
KAMIŃSKI v. Poland
01/09/2010
J. Kamiński
488.
53776/10
TOTA v. Poland
13/09/2010
M. Tota
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
489.
54267/10
GARSZTKA v. Poland
10/09/2010
S. Garsztka
490.
54348/10
GÓRCZYŃSKI v. Poland
01/09/2010
J. Górczyński
491.
54977/10
STĘPIEŃ v. Poland
13/09/2010
M. Stępień
492.
55602/10
BERENDT v. Poland
24/08/2010
M. Berendt
493.
55616/10
OLSZLEGER v. Poland
10/09/2010
K. Olszleger
P. Gerhardy
494.
55633/10
ORNOCH v. Poland
21/09/2010
M. Ornoch
495.
55871/10
OGRZYŃSKI v. Poland
20/09/2010
A. Ogrzyński
496.
55894/10
KUBINA v. Poland
21/09/2010
J. Kubina
497.
55901/10
BRENDZEL v. Poland
16/09/2010
D. Brendzel
498.
56076/10
URBAŃSKI v. Poland
07/09/2010
Z. Urbański
499.
56202/10
KOSTYRA v. Poland
20/09/2010
I. Kostyra
500.
56261/10
SKONIECZNY and Others v. Poland
23/09/2010
S. Janusiewicz
Z. Kozłowski
J. Skonieczny
A. Zawicki
J. Ziółkowski
M. Gąsiorowska
501.
56400/10
BYLINOWSKI v. Poland
17/09/2010
J. Bylinowski
502.
56517/10
PADUSZYŃSKI v. Poland
24/09/2010
M. Paduszyński
503.
56993/10
JANKOWSKI v. Poland
30/09/2010
W. Jankowski
504.
57584/10
SZLAMA v. Poland
28/09/2010
E. Szlama
505.
57599/10
BIGOSIŃSKA v. Poland
01/10/2010
J. Bigosińska
506.
57680/10
KUŚNIERZ v. Poland
30/09/2010
E. Kuśnierz
507.
57839/10
GARGOL-KOWALCZYK v. Poland
29/09/2010
B. Gargol-Kowalczyk
508.
57972/10
WIŚNIOWSKA v. Poland
30/09/2010
R. Wiśniowska
509.
58013/10
KĘPIŃSKI v. Poland
01/10/2010
A. Kępiński
510.
58782/10
PASZKIEWICZ v. Poland
30/09/2010
L. Paszkiewicz
511.
58826/10
PAWLICKI v. Poland
28/09/2010
Z. Pawlicki
512.
58908/10
FAL v. Poland
29/09/2010
M. Fal
513.
58983/10
DOBROGOSZCZ v. Poland
01/10/2010
J. Dobrogoszcz
514.
59137/10
KOWIESKI v. Poland
04/10/2010
J. Kowieski
515.
59151/10
MILCZAREK v. Poland
07/10/2010
J. Milczarek
516.
59227/10
GŁOWACKI v. Poland
25/05/2010
Z. Głowacki
P. Sowisło
517.
59924/10
TERCZEWSKI v. Poland
07/10/2010
K. Terczewski
518.
60192/10
NIEWĘGŁOWSKI v. Poland
05/10/2010
K. Niewęgłowski
519.
60198/10
LEONOWICZ v. Poland
09/10/2010
Z. Leonowicz
520.
60269/10
PLEBAN v. Poland
09/10/2010
E. Pleban
521.
60277/10
ROŻYBOWSKI v. Poland
09/10/2010
K. Rożybowski
522.
60289/10
ROŻYBOWSKA v. Poland
08/10/2010
G. Rożybowska
523.
61189/10
BĄK v. Poland
13/10/2010
W. Bąk
524.
61392/10
SZYMAŃSKI v. Poland
09/10/2010
A. Szymański
525.
61397/10
POHL v. Poland
11/10/2010
J. Pohl
526.
61517/10
HAGNO v. Poland
15/10/2010
T. Hagno
527.
61684/10
DURCZYŃSKI v. Poland
14/10/2010
R. Durczyński
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
528.
62074/10
SUSZCZEWSKI and Ohers v. Poland
04/10/2010
S. Czeszak
J. Dolecki
B. Łukasik
L. Nowicki
S. Pytlarz
Z. Ryszawa
W. Siewert
W. Suszczewski
S. Szczepaniak
K. Zawalska
M. Gąsiorowska
529.
62100/10
CHYLAK v. Poland
18/10/2010
S. Chylak
530.
62131/10
WYSZOMIRSKA and Others v. Poland
04/10/2010
H. Czapska
U. Kaczorowska
E. Kamińska
M. Klauzo
A. Kończak
J. Kowalski
S. Laskowski
E. Linowska
G. Piasny
T. Pieńkowska
K. Pilarska
E. Stępniewska
S. Tokarski
R. Wyszomirska
Z. Wyszomirski
M. Gąsiorowska
531.
62911/10
BARTCZAK-MALESZKA v. Poland
20/10/2010
U. Bartczak-Maleszka
532.
63202/10
STAROŃ v. Poland
11/10/2010
W. Staroń
533.
63241/10
JÓŹWIAK v. Poland
13/10/2010
Z. Jóźwiak
P. Sowisło
534.
63336/10
WUDARSKA v. Poland
23/10/2010
W. Wudarska
535.
63538/10
BOGDANOWICZ v. Poland
22/09/2010
E. Bogdanowicz
536.
63542/10
BOGDANOWICZ v. Poland
22/09/2010
P. Bogdanowicz
537.
63561/10
SZĄBARA v. Poland
21/10/2010
W. Sząbara
538.
64671/10
WIŚNIEWSKA v. Poland
02/11/2010
B. Wiśniewska
M. Wiśniewski
539.
64895/10
BRODZISZ v. Poland
02/11/2010
E. Brodzisz
540.
64930/10
ZABIELSKI v. Poland
08/10/2010
S. Zabielski
M. Gąsiorowska
541.
64983/10
ŁADA v. Poland
26/10/2010
H. Łada
542.
66597/10
GUTRAL v. Poland
08/11/2010
K. Gutral
543.
66828/10
KALBARCZYK v. Poland
09/11/2010
Z. Kalbarczyk
544.
66992/10
HAJDUK v. Poland
29/10/2010
J. Hajduk
545.
67010/10
IWANIEWICZ v. Poland
09/11/2010
H. Iwaniewicz
546.
67694/10
BOSEK v. Poland
13/11/2010
T. Bosek
547.
68151/10
RATAJCZAK v. Poland
29/10/2010
S. Ratajczak
548.
68266/10
KRASICKI v. Poland
03/11/2010
R. Krasicki
549.
69277/10
STĘPIEŃ-ALZAK v. Poland
19/11/2010
M. Stępień-Alzak
550.
70315/10
MIZERA v. Poland
24/11/2010
S. Mizera
551.
70418/10
MIKOŁAJCZYK v. Poland
13/11/2010
W. Mikołajczyk
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
552.
70435/10
BOGUSZEWSKA v. Poland
23/11/2010
H. Boguszewska
553.
70507/10
ŁOBATIUK v. Poland
07/11/2010
B. Łobatiuk
554.
70701/10
NIEDŹWIECKI v. Poland
08/11/2010
J. Niedźwiecki
555.
71638/10
WIŚNIEWSKI v. Poland
25/11/2010
J. Wiśniewski
556.
72090/10
WÓJCIK v. Poland
20/11/2010
J. Wójcik
557.
72137/10
NOWAK v. Poland
08/11/2010
J. Nowak
558.
72206/10
NOWAKOWSKI v. Poland
15/11/2010
M. Nowakowski
559.
72288/10
ŁAPUSZEK v. Poland
01/12/2010
H. Łapuszek
560.
72290/10
IWICKA-KAMIŃSKA v. Poland
22/11/2010
M. Iwicka-Kamińska
561.
72297/10
PRUSZYŃSKI v. Poland
24/11/2010
P. Pruszyński
M. Gąsiorowska
562.
72361/10
LAMBER v. Poland
22/11/2010
B. Lamber
563.
72668/10
DUDEK v. Poland
01/12/2010
Z. Dudek
564.
72683/10
GÓRALCZYK v. Poland
01/12/2010
H. Góralczyk
565.
73014/10
CHUDZIŃSKI v. Poland
02/12/2010
L. Chudziński
566.
73037/10
KRUPOWICZ v. Poland
06/12/2010
J. Krupowicz
567.
73286/10
JANIUK v. Poland
07/12/2010
A. Janiuk
568.
73421/10
GWIAZDA v. Poland
07/12/2010
W. Gwiazda
569.
73599/10
TOLAK v. Poland
07/12/2010
R. Tolak
570.
73617/10
SILUK v. Poland
06/12/2010
M. Siluk
571.
73626/10
RACZYŃSKA v. Poland
07/12/2010
J. Raczyńska
572.
74045/10
KWIATKOWSKI v. Poland
03/12/2010
W. Kwiatkowski
D. Sucholewski
573.
74437/10
BINKOWSKI v. Poland
08/12/2010
J. Binkowski
574.
74830/10
WEREMCZUK v. Poland
15/12/2010
T. Weremczuk
575.
74930/10
DOLECKI v. Poland
06/12/2010
J. Dolecki
576.
74942/10
GRZYBOWSKI v. Poland
14/12/2010
A. Grzybowski
577.
75007/10
LIPIEC v. Poland
29/11/2010
S. Lipiec
578.
75125/10
NOWACKI v. Poland
14/12/2010
A. Nowacki
579.
416/11
GŁOMSKI v. Poland
03/12/2010
B. Głomski
580.
442/11
MOSEK v. Poland
29/12/2010
S. Mosek
581.
803/11
OGORZELEC v. Poland
21/12/2010
K. Ogorzelec
582.
890/11
BORTKIEWICZ v. Poland
08/12/2010
A. Bortkiewicz
583.
972/11
KOLBOWICZ v. Poland
21/12/2010
M. Kolbowicz
584.
982/11
KRASUSKI v. Poland
06/12/2010
I. Krasuski
585.
1097/11
OPALA v. Poland
28/12/2010
E. Opala
586.
1199/11
LASKOWSKI v. Poland
23/12/2010
L. Laskowski
587.
1228/11
LUBASIŃSKI v. Poland
16/12/2010
C. Lubasiński
588.
1761/11
CHOCIESZYŃSKI v. Poland
13/12/2010
T. Chocieszyński
589.
2708/11
BŁAZIAK v. Poland
05/01/2010
M. Błaziak
590.
3116/11
WEBER v. Poland
15/12/2010
R. Weber
D. Sucholewski
591.
3131/11
WEJNER v. Poland
05/01/2011
W. Wejner
592.
3615/11
STACHOWIAK v. Poland
30/12/2010
R. Stachowiak
593.
3623/11
SZCZYGIEŁ and ZAJĄC v. Poland
02/01/2011
W. Szczygieł
A. Zając
M. Gąsiorowska
594.
3772/11
PUK v. Poland
10/01/2011
K. Puk
595.
4921/11
WÓJCIK v. Poland
11/01/2011
A. Wójcik
596.
5034/11
PIETRZAK v. Poland
21/12/2010
J. Pietrzak
M. Gąsiorowska
597.
5071/11
ROGOWSKI v. Poland
24/12/2010
M. Rogowski
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
598.
5610/11
MUSZAŁKIEWICZ v. Poland
10/01/2011
W. Muszałkiewicz
599.
5750/11
POLAK v. Poland
19/01/2011
H. Polak
600.
5821/11
KOSTRZEWSKI v. Poland
18/01/2011
G. Kostrzewski
601.
6110/11
KAMIENIAK v. Poland
18/01/2011
K. Kamieniak
602.
6418/11
CYLWIK v. Poland
18/01/2011
J. Cylwik
603.
6633/11
SNARSKI v. Poland
13/01/2011
W. Snarski
604.
6677/11
SOCHA v. Poland
20/01/2011
W. Socha
605.
6785/11
STĘPIEŃ v. Poland
25/01/2011
S. Stępień
606.
6901/11
ZDYBICKI v. Poland
24/01/2011
M. Zdybicki
607.
7142/11
KWASEK v. Poland
21/01/2011
J. Kwasek
608.
7193/11
MACHNIK v. Poland
28/01/2011
A. Machnik
609.
7226/11
ŁADNO v. Poland
18/01/2011
W. Ładno
610.
7301/11
SEN v. Poland
18/01/2011
P. Sen
611.
7348/11
BAKA-ORGANIŚCIAK v. Poland
19/01/2011
K. Baka-Organiściak
612.
7380/11
KAŃCZUGOWSKI v. Poland
26/01/2011
H. Kańczugowski
613.
7435/11
NYCH v. Poland
28/01/2011
M. Nych
614.
7558/11
GĘDZIOROWSKI v. Poland
25/01/2011
C. Gędziorowski
615.
7564/11
GÓRNA v. Poland
27/01/2011
L. Górna
616.
7569/11
GÓRNY v. Poland
27/01/2011
K. Górny
617.
7578/11
GODLEWSKI v. Poland
28/01/2011
K. Godlewski
618.
7649/11
GAJDAMOWICZ v. Poland
24/01/2011
T. Gajdamowicz
619.
7737/11
ROCZNIAK v. Poland
29/01/2011
A. Roczniak
620.
7742/11
RYCAJ v. Poland
28/01/2011
R. Rycaj
621.
7842/11
CIEBIEŃ v. Poland
25/01/2011
J. Ciebień
622.
7915/11
WOJTYSIAK v. Poland
24/01/2011
S. Wojtysiak
623.
8079/11
SZUMSKI v. Poland
07/01/2011
F. Szumski
624.
8802/11
KLEPUSZEWSKI v. Poland
25/01/2011
A. Klepuszewski
625.
9064/11
BUCZAK v. Poland
29/01/2011
Z. Buczak
626.
9726/11
CZEMPORA v. Poland
01/02/2011
M. Czempora
627.
9925/11
KOSOWSKI v. Poland
07/02/2011
W. Kosowski
628.
10011/11
ŚPIEWAK v. Poland
04/02/2011
L. Śpiewak
629.
10072/11
GDANIEC v. Poland
25/01/2011
K. Gdaniec
630.
10094/11
KISIEL v. Poland
04/02/2011
T. Kisiel
631.
10112/11
ŚMIGIEL v. Poland
07/02/2011
M. Śmigiel
632.
10117/11
ŚLIWIŃSKI v. Poland
26/01/2011
W. Śliwiński
M. Gąsiorowska
633.
10273/11
ŁYP v. Poland
04/02/2011
J. Łyp
634.
10360/11
KORDEK v. Poland
31/01/2011
W. Kordek
635.
10445/11
PIĄTKOWSKA v. Poland
11/02/2011
M. Piątkowska
636.
10635/11
PRUSZYŃSKI v. Poland
09/02/2011
S. Pruszyński
637.
11187/11
WICHER v. Poland
01/02/2011
B. Wicher
638.
11705/11
OLEJNIK v. Poland
04/02/2011
A. Olejnik
639.
11848/11
BIAŁEK v. Poland
05/02/2011
H. Białek
640.
11880/11
BARAŃSKI v. Poland
03/02/2011
M. Barański
641.
12004/11
BUFAN-GOCYK v. Poland
16/02/2011
J. Bufan-Gocyk
642.
12008/11
MIASKOWSKI v. Poland
17/02/2011
S. Miaskowski
643.
12248/11
WEBER v. Poland
14/02/2011
M. Weber
D. Sucholewski
644.
12383/11
KADAJ v. Poland
17/02/2011
R. Kadaj
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
645.
12845/11
PIECHOTA v. Poland
17/02/2011
M. Piechota
646.
12852/11
ROMAN v. Poland
17/02/2011
W. Roman
647.
13012/11
DOGIEL v. Poland
22/02/2011
M. Dogiel
648.
13016/11
KURPIEWSKI v. Poland
21/02/2011
S. Kurpiewski
649.
13018/11
KRZYŻANOWSKI v. Poland
21/02/2011
J. Krzyżanowski
650.
13034/11
ADAMCZEWSKA-WAGNER v. Poland
17/02/2011
Z. Adamczewska-Wagner
651.
13589/11
ŁESAK v. Poland
22/02/2011
B. Łesak
652.
13622/11
JAREMEK v. Poland
09/02/2011
J. Jaremek
M. Gąsiorowska
653.
13745/11
KOSNO v. Poland
18/02/2011
L. Kosno
654.
13758/11
LESKI v. Poland
24/02/2011
S. Leski
655.
13906/11
NOWICKI v. Poland
23/02/2011
E. Nowicki
656.
13940/11
RYCOMBEL v. Poland
08/02/2011
J. Rycombel
657.
13988/11
SIADAK v. Poland
23/02/2011
M. Siadak
658.
13991/11
SAJEWSKI v. Poland
23/02/2011
R. Sajewski
659.
14029/11
STACHOWIAK v. Poland
23/02/2011
W. Stachowiak
660.
14042/11
OLĘDZKI v. Poland
25/02/2011
J. Olędzki
661.
14483/11
DOGIEL v. Poland
23/02/2011
E. Dogiel
662.
14708/11
GOCYK v. Poland
21/02/2011
A. Gocyk
663.
14718/11
GOROŃSKI v. Poland
21/02/2011
M. Goroński
664.
15855/11
SOSNOWSKI v. Poland
10/02/2011
S. Sosnowski
665.
16672/11
JANISZEWSKI v. Poland
03/03/2011
J. Janiszewski
666.
16696/11
SZADY v. Poland
02/03/2011
R. Szady
667.
16768/11
KULEJ v. Poland
22/02/2011
K. Kulej
668.
17611/11
HAWRYŁO v. Poland
07/03/2011
E. Hawryło
669.
17615/11
HAWRYŁO v. Poland
07/03/2011
E. Hawryło
670.
17722/11
PASZKOWSKA-GABRYSZAK v. Poland
14/03/2011
Z. Paszkowska-Gabryszak
671.
18059/11
MŁYŃCZAK v. Poland
14/03/2011
W. Młyńczak
672.
18266/11
LORENC v. Poland
16/03/2011
A. Lorenc
673.
18451/11
PŁOTKOWIAK v. Poland
10/03/2011
R. Płotkowiak
674.
18727/11
GONERA v. Poland
03/03/2011
M. Gonera
675.
18743/11
ŻYCZYCA v. Poland
15/03/2011
Z. Życzyca
676.
18750/11
GORZELANY v. Poland
07/03/2011
J. Gorzelany
677.
18801/11
MAŁECKI v. Poland
18/03/2011
Z. Małecki
678.
18827/11
LANGE v. Poland
14/03/2011
R. Lange
679.
18871/11
KANIECKI v. Poland
07/03/2011
J. Kaniecki
680.
18885/11
KASPRZAK v. Poland
14/03/2011
M. Kasprzak
681.
18921/11
JANUS v. Poland
18/03/2011
D. Janus
682.
18955/11
PISKOREK v. Poland
16/03/2011
R. Piskorek
683.
19187/11
SAK v. Poland
14/03/2011
S. Sak
684.
19440/11
SOSZYŃSKI v. Poland
22/03/2011
M. Soszyński
685.
19515/11
ŁYSAKOWSKI v. Poland
23/03/2011
J. Łysakowski
686.
19527/11
BEREZECKI v. Poland
14/03/2011
S. Berezecki
687.
19633/11
WITKOWSKI v. Poland
03/03/2011
P. Witkowski
688.
20406/11
JANUSZEWSKI v. Poland
21/03/2011
A. Januszewski
689.
20410/11
MAIK v. Poland
21/03/2011
A. Maik
690.
20492/11
OZYP v. Poland
20/03/2011
T. Ozyp
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
691.
20776/11
MATUSZEWSKI v. Poland
16/03/2011
P. Matuszewski
692.
20927/11
GAŁĄZKA v. Poland
24/03/2011
Z. Gałązka
693.
21018/11
SZEWCZYK v. Poland
16/03/2011
J. Szewczyk
694.
21400/11
KOCOT v. Poland
14/03/2011
E. Kocot
M. Gąsiorowska
695.
21401/11
KOWAŃSKA v. Poland
20/03/2011
A. Kowańska
696.
22361/11
ZIAJKO v. Poland
30/03/2011
J. Ziajko
697.
22418/11
KUBISZ v. Poland
31/03/2011
P. Kubisz
698.
22425/11
KABALA v. Poland
29/03/2011
L. Kabala
699.
22434/11
KWIECIŃSKI v. Poland
30/03/2011
W. Kwieciński
700.
22994/11
TRACZYK v. Poland
04/04/2011
W. Traczyk
701.
23168/11
OLSZEWSKI v. Poland
03/12/2010
W. Olszewski
702.
23251/11
SAK v. Poland
08/04/2011
T. Sak
703.
23294/11
WOŚ v. Poland
07/04/2011
M. Woś
704.
23397/11
PRĄTNICKI v. Poland
06/04/2011
M. Prątnicki
705.
24193/11
SULIKOWSKI v. Poland
11/04/2011
J. Sulikowski
706.
24336/11
ZARĘBSKI v. Poland
06/04/2011
M. Zarębski
707.
24560/11
KLAJA v. Poland
13/04/2011
H. Klaja
708.
24966/11
ROGALSKI v. Poland
14/04/2011
J. Rogalski
709.
25218/11
MARZEC v. Poland
15/04/2011
J. Marzec
710.
25376/11
DEPTUSZEWSKI v. Poland
09/04/2011
E. Deptuszewski
711.
25378/11
KACZOROWSKI v. Poland
08/04/2011
R. Kaczorowski
712.
25792/11
MUSIDLAK v. Poland
19/04/2011
J. Musidlak
713.
25800/11
MOTAŁA v. Poland
20/04/2011
A. Motała
714.
26081/11
MICHNO v. Poland
22/04/2011
J. Michno
715.
26101/11
ŻERLAK v. Poland
15/04/2011
A. Żerlak
716.
26483/11
CIASTOWICZ v. Poland
15/04/2011
K. Ciastowicz
717.
26847/11
KRUSZYŃSKI v. Poland
14/04/2011
W. Kruszyński
718.
27662/11
SOCHA v. Poland
15/04/2011
S. Socha
719.
27694/11
BARANKIEWICZ v. Poland
28/04/2011
Z. Barankiewicz
720.
27695/11
MILKA v. Poland
27/04/2011
T. Milka
721.
27763/11
STACHOWICZ v. Poland
13/04/2011
H. Stachowicz
722.
27850/11
ŁONIEWSKA v. Poland
26/04/2011
I. Łoniewska
723.
28185/11
SKOREK v. Poland
26/04/2011
E. Skorek
724.
28232/11
PUTKOWSKI v. Poland
22/04/2011
A. Putkowski
725.
28927/11
SKAWIŃSKI v. Poland
28/04/2011
F. Skawiński
726.
29000/11
KAMIENIAK v. Poland
26/04/2011
J. Kamieniak
727.
29029/11
KOTARSKI v. Poland
02/05/2011
A. Kotarski
728.
29265/11
MAZIK v. Poland
27/04/2011
A. Mazik
729.
29500/11
HOSZKIEWICZ v. Poland
28/04/2011
W. Hoszkiewicz
730.
29502/11
SAWICKI v. Poland
06/05/2011
J. Sawicki
731.
29816/11
DOLINIAK v. Poland
05/05/2011
Z. Doliniak
732.
29917/11
KUCZYK v. Poland
28/04/2011
S. Kuczyk
733.
29983/11
KWIECIŃSKI v. Poland
05/05/2011
L. Kwieciński
734.
30021/11
KURZACZ v. Poland
28/04/2011
A. Kurzacz
P. Sowisło
735.
30323/11
SKUPIŃSKI v. Poland
09/05/2011
Z. Skupiński
736.
30743/11
OCHMAŃSKI v. Poland
06/05/2011
Z. Ochmański
737.
30900/11
BĘDKOWSKI v. Poland
05/05/2011
J. Będkowski
738.
30921/11
KAPUŚCIŃSKI v. Poland
09/05/2011
S. Kapuściński
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
739.
30923/11
KOZIEŁ v. Poland
12/05/2011
J. Kozieł
740.
30966/11
MUSZALSKA v. Poland
11/05/2011
T. Muszalska
741.
30977/11
JAROS v. Poland
09/05/2011
M. Jaros
742.
31156/11
SADOWSKI v. Poland
11/05/2011
J. Sadowski
743.
31185/11
PUKIS v. Poland
06/05/2011
S. Pukis
D. Sucholewski
744.
31352/11
GUTKIEWICZ v. Poland
13/05/2011
I. Gutkiewicz
745.
31358/11
GODZIŃSKA v. Poland
03/05/2011
W. Godzińska
746.
31382/11
GŁOWIŃSKI v. Poland
06/05/2011
K. Głowiński
747.
31407/11
GRABOWSKI v. Poland
11/05/2011
B. Grabowski
748.
31414/11
DOMINOWSKI v. Poland
11/05/2011
W. Dominowski
749.
31427/11
DESKA v. Poland
10/05/2011
S. Deska
750.
31582/11
WILK v. Poland
04/05/2011
A. Wilk
751.
32080/11
SMAGA v. Poland
16/05/2011
W. Smaga
752.
32331/11
TRYBUS v. Poland
13/05/2011
J. Trybus
753.
32431/11
ŚLĘCZEK v. Poland
17/05/2011
B. Ślęczek
754.
32483/11
ZUBALA v. Poland
17/05/2011
S. Zubala
755.
32484/11
NAWROCKI v. Poland
17/05/2011
S. Nawrocki
756.
32538/11
LESZCZYŃSKI v. Poland
29/04/2011
M. Leszczyński
757.
32559/11
LISOWSKI v. Poland
05/05/2011
W. Lisowski
758.
32601/11
BIGAJ v. Poland
16/05/2011
A. Bigaj
759.
32714/11
JURECZKO v. Poland
23/05/2011
R. Jureczko
760.
33089/11
WASILEWSKA v. Poland
16/05/2011
H. Wasilewska
761.
33190/11
KACZMAREK v. Poland
18/05/2011
D. Kaczmarek
762.
33872/11
CHUDY v. Poland
23/05/2011
J. Chudy
763.
33957/11
DOBRZYŃSKA v. Poland
26/05/2011
E. Dobrzyńska
764.
34223/11
KACZOR v. Poland
26/05/2011
L. Kaczor
765.
34280/11
PLEŚNIARSKI v. Poland
27/05/2011
C. Pleśniarski
766.
34284/11
PIASECZYŃSKI v. Poland
24/05/2011
J. Piaseczyński
767.
34830/11
PRESSLER v. Poland
30/05/2011
J. Pressler
768.
34944/11
ZMARZŁA v. Poland
28/05/2011
D. Zmarzła
769.
34953/11
SOŁTYSIAK v. Poland
31/05/2011
L. Sołtysiak
770.
34991/11
STUDZIŃSKI v. Poland
31/05/2011
F. Studziński
771.
35014/11
KUJAWA v. Poland
24/05/2011
W. Kujawa
772.
35018/11
KLECZYK v. Poland
31/05/2011
S. Kleczyk
773.
35046/11
NAPIERAŁA v. Poland
30/05/2011
Z. Napierała
774.
35499/11
CYCHOWSKA v. Poland
03/06/2011
D. Cychowska
775.
35508/11
WÓJCIK v. Poland
23/05/2011
M. Wójcik
776.
35527/11
WOJNARSKI v. Poland
25/05/2011
Z. Wojnarski
777.
36632/11
PATRZAŁEK v. Poland
10/06/2011
J. Patrzałek
778.
37162/11
WALKOWICZ v. Poland
09/06/2011
T. Walkowicz
779.
37174/11
WALKOWICZ v. Poland
30/05/2011
A. Walkowicz
780.
37185/11
WALKOWICZ v. Poland
30/05/2011
J. Walkowicz
781.
37207/11
WILKIEWICZ v. Poland
14/06/2011
M. Wilkiewicz
782.
37293/11
BŁAŻ v. Poland
08/06/2011
W. Błaż
783.
37414/11
NOWAK v. Poland
16/06/2011
Z. Nowak
784.
37415/11
ZIOMEK v. Poland
07/06/2011
K. Ziomek
785.
37447/11
LUBA v. Poland
13/06/2011
E. Luba
786.
37634/11
SŁOMKA v. Poland
01/06/2011
A. Słomka
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
787.
37889/11
MAREK v. Poland
06/06/2011
A. Marek
788.
37902/11
MASZKOWSKI v. Poland
10/06/2011
S. Maszkowski
789.
37943/11
SAPETA v. Poland
11/06/2011
E. Sapeta
790.
38614/11
BROMBOSZCZ v. Poland
17/06/2011
M. Bromboszcz
791.
38632/11
CIEPAK v. Poland
09/06/2011
A. Ciepak
792.
38674/11
WRÓBLEWSKA v. Poland
14/06/2011
D. Wróblewska
793.
38676/11
JĘDRASZKO v. Poland
20/06/2011
J. Jędraszko
794.
38680/11
REDUCH v. Poland
16/06/2011
S. Reduch
795.
38684/11
KOROLEWICZ v. Poland
20/06/2011
D. Korolewicz
796.
38700/11
KASPRZYK v. Poland
18/06/2011
S. Kasprzyk
797.
38705/11
CHUDA v. Poland
16/06/2011
J. Chuda
798.
38761/11
GRUSZKA v. Poland
31/05/2011
T. Gruszka
799.
38772/11
KUREK v. Poland
31/05/2011
J. Kurek
800.
38829/11
BIAŁOSIEWICZ v. Poland
17/06/2011
H. Białosiewicz
801.
38847/11
DOBROWOLSKI v. Poland
06/06/2011
M. Dobrowolski
802.
38853/11
SZWAJKA v. Poland
09/06/2011
J. Szwajka
803.
38892/11
GIEROWSKA v. Poland
01/06/2011
B. Gierowska
804.
38953/11
PABISIAK v. Poland
21/06/2011
T. Pabisiak
805.
39014/11
FELIGA v. Poland
07/06/2011
J. Feliga
806.
39021/11
TOCZEWSKI v. Poland
13/06/2011
H. Toczewski
807.
39026/11
PALUSZKIEWICZ v. Poland
20/06/2011
B. Paluszkiewicz
808.
39030/11
BŁACHUT v. Poland
04/06/2011
C. Błachut
809.
39041/11
TERLECKA-SEMKOWICZ v. Poland
08/06/2011
L. Terlecka-Semkowicz
810.
39313/11
JAKOWSKA-RĄCZKOWSKA v. Poland
21/06/2011
A. Jakowska-Rączkowska
811.
39506/11
ZIELIŃSKI v. Poland
14/06/2011
J. Zieliński
812.
40010/11
DURSKI v. Poland
21/06/2011
M. Durski
813.
40074/11
MICHNO-ZAŁOGA v. Poland
24/06/2011
H. Michno-Załoga
814.
40118/11
WRONA v. Poland
15/06/2011
J. Wrona
815.
40123/11
WÓJCIK v. Poland
09/06/2011
T. Wójcik
816.
40297/11
CHYLEŃSKI v. Poland
20/06/2011
J. Chyleński
817.
40309/11
JERZYKOWSKA v. Poland
27/06/2011
I. Jerzykowska
818.
40793/11
ŚCISŁEK v. Poland
21/06/2011
B. Ścisłek
819.
40797/11
SKOBIEJ v. Poland
27/06/2011
K. Skobiej
820.
40798/11
SALAMON-PIÓRKO v. Poland
20/06/2011
B. Salamon-Piórko
821.
40820/11
KRWAWNIKOWSKI v. Poland
20/06/2011
Z. Krwawnikowski
822.
40901/11
BACZEWSKA-JARMOLIŃSKA v. Poland
21/06/2011
G. Baczewska-Jarmolińska
823.
40904/11
DYMARSKI v. Poland
20/06/2011
K. Dymarski
824.
41001/11
LESZCZEWSKA v. Poland
27/06/2011
R. Leszczewska
825.
41005/11
SOLECKA v. Poland
24/06/2011
E. Solecka
826.
41071/11
ARTEMSKI v. Poland
28/06/2011
J. Artemski
827.
41078/11
BORAL v. Poland
21/06/2011
M. Boral
828.
41084/11
SULIMA v. Poland
27/06/2011
M. Sulima
829.
41184/11
PIĄTKOWSKI v. Poland
18/06/2011
K. Piątkowski
830.
41264/11
WINIARSKI v. Poland
27/06/2011
R. Winiarski
831.
41278/11
CZARNECKA v. Poland
27/06/2011
Ł. Czarnecka
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
832.
41375/11
MROCZEK v. Poland
30/06/2011
W. Mroczek
833.
41380/11
CZARNECKI v. Poland
27/06/2011
A. Czarnecki
834.
41433/11
POPIEL v. Poland
28/06/2011
C. Popiel
835.
41446/11
ROZŁONKOWSKI v. Poland
01/07/2011
J. Rozłonkowski
836.
41797/11
MATUKIN v. Poland
24/06/2011
J. Matukin
837.
41886/11
KRZYSZTAŁ v. Poland
30/06/2011
M. Krzyształ
838.
41898/11
SERAFIŃCZYK v. Poland
30/06/2011
J. Serafińczyk
839.
41902/11
SAWICKI v. Poland
28/06/2011
A. Sawicki
840.
41904/11
WEJGT v. Poland
30/06/2011
J. Wejgt
841.
42066/11
ROSIŃSKI v. Poland
04/07/2011
T. Rosiński
842.
42111/11
RYCHLEWSKI v. Poland
24/06/2011
J. Rychlewski
843.
42124/11
PAJOR v. Poland
24/06/2011
M. Pajor
844.
42140/11
KOSIŃSKI v. Poland
30/06/2011
A. Kosiński
845.
42163/11
LESIEWICZ v. Poland
28/06/2011
D. Lesiewicz
846.
42190/11
KALINOWSKI v. Poland
28/06/2011
R. Kalinowski
847.
42193/11
KOGUTKIEWICZ v. Poland
21/06/2011
J. Kogutkiewicz
848.
42197/11
KAPITUŁA-WRONA v. Poland
15/06/2011
Z. Kapituła-Wrona
849.
42201/11
KALISZ v. Poland
24/06/2011
A. Kalisz
850.
42205/11
KOWALCZYK v. Poland
24/06/2011
J. Kowalczyk
851.
42223/11
KOBUS v. Poland
27/06/2011
B. Kobus
852.
42307/11
SALA v. Poland
24/06/2011
J. Sala
853.
42346/11
JANICKI v. Poland
29/06/2011
H. Janicki
854.
42377/11
SKRABA v. Poland
04/07/2011
M. Skraba
855.
42437/11
SZYMCZYK-MACIEJEWSKA v. Poland
05/07/2011
B. Szymczyk-Maciejewska
856.
42439/11
STEFAŃSKI v. Poland
07/07/2011
K. Stefański
857.
42504/11
SZNERCH v. Poland
29/06/2011
L. Sznerch
858.
42584/11
DUBINIECKI v. Poland
06/07/2011
L. Dubiniecki
859.
42593/11
DUDA v. Poland
29/06/2011
S. Duda
860.
42603/11
GÓRSKA v. Poland
28/06/2011
H. Górska
861.
42616/11
DULSKI v. Poland
30/06/2011
M. Dulski
862.
42627/11
URBANIAK v. Poland
04/07/2011
I. Urbaniak
863.
42635/11
GIERUSZKA v. Poland
30/06/2011
Z. Gieruszka
864.
42640/11
DORMAN and Others v. Poland
05/07/2011
E. Dorman
D. Duda
H. Dudkiewicz
E. Ogidel
E. Rudnicka Sipajlo
K. Szewczyk
H. Taciak
R. Tomasik
S. Wierzchowska
I. Wróblewska
D. Sucholewski
865.
42641/11
GORYSZEWSKI v. Poland
21/06/2011
R. Goryszewski
866.
42647/11
GREJNER v. Poland
30/06/2011
M. Grejner
867.
42661/11
ZAREK v. Poland
30/06/2011
J. Zarek
868.
42690/11
ZAGUBIEŃ v. Poland
23/06/2011
K. Zagubień
869.
42776/11
WIŚNIEWSKA v. Poland
24/06/2011
M. Wiśniewska
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
870.
42797/11
MUSIAŁOWICZ v. Poland
07/07/2011
I. Musiałowicz
871.
42807/11
CHWIEJCZAK v. Poland
21/06/2011
P. Chwiejczak
872.
42845/11
LASEK v. Poland
28/06/2011
Z. Lasek
873.
42846/11
WESOŁOWSKI v. Poland
27/06/2011
Z. Wesołowski
874.
42950/11
DOMAŃSKI v. Poland
08/07/2011
W. Domański
875.
43051/11
SOBIERSKA v. Poland
04/07/2011
E. Sobierska
876.
43105/11
ZIMOLĄG v. Poland
11/07/2011
J. Zimoląg
877.
43194/11
KRIEGER v. Poland
05/07/2011
J. Krieger
878.
43283/11
RYDLEWSKI v. Poland
11/07/2011
R. Rydlewski
879.
43391/11
SROKA v. Poland
12/07/2011
E. Sroka
880.
43577/11
OSTROWSKI v. Poland
30/06/2011
W. Ostrowski
881.
43617/11
CIEMPKA v. Poland
11/07/2011
K. Ciempka
882.
43770/11
BĄCZKIEWICZ v. Poland
29/06/2011
R. Bączkiewicz
883.
43791/11
BARANOWSKI v. Poland
05/07/2011
Z. Baranowski
884.
44045/11
KOŁACZYK v. Poland
04/07/2011
K. Kołaczyk
885.
44048/11
KAJRYS v. Poland
04/07/2011
J. Kajrys
886.
44053/11
KAPITUŁA v. Poland
11/07/2011
A. Kapituła
887.
44251/11
GASEK v. Poland
15/07/2011
Z. Gasek
888.
44434/11
CHOJNOWSKI v. Poland
12/07/2011
B. Chojnowski
889.
44650/11
CZAJKOWSKI v. Poland
15/07/2011
H. Czajkowski
890.
44809/11
JAWORSKI v. Poland
24/06/2011
J. Jaworski
891.
45098/11
GIERUS v. Poland
18/07/2011
K. Gierus
892.
45463/11
TROJNAR v. Poland
18/07/2011
W. Trojnar
893.
45853/11
GÓRECKA v. Poland
19/07/2011
B. Górecka
894.
45860/11
GOLICZ v. Poland
18/07/2011
T. Golicz
895.
45877/11
NEUMAN v. Poland
21/07/2011
M. Neuman
896.
45977/11
CHMIELOWIEC v. Poland
21/07/2011
M. Chmielowiec
897.
46255/11
RODAK VEL WODECKI v. Poland
21/07/2011
W. Rodak Vel Wodecki
898.
46321/11
PIECEWICZ v. Poland
18/07/2011
P. Piecewicz
899.
46546/11
PRUS v. Poland
21/07/2011
R. Prus
900.
46818/11
PASZKIEWICZ v. Poland
20/07/2011
B. Paszkiewicz
901.
46825/11
MICHALCZUK v. Poland
13/07/2011
M. Michalczuk
902.
47077/11
CHWESIUK v. Poland
20/07/2011
B. Chwesiuk
903.
47439/11
URBAŃCZYK v. Poland
25/07/2011
S. Urbańczyk
904.
47770/11
JANUSZ v. Poland
19/07/2011
M. Janusz
905.
47805/11
SOBCZYK v. Poland
25/07/2011
A. Sobczyk
906.
47878/11
BARCHAN v. Poland
27/07/2011
A. Barchan
907.
47886/11
BŁASZCZYK v. Poland
23/07/2011
J. Błaszczyk
908.
47898/11
LEWIŃSKI v. Poland
26/07/2011
S. Lewiński
909.
47947/11
PIOTROWSKI v. Poland
22/07/2011
W. Piotrowski
D. Sucholewski
910.
47967/11
DUDEK v. Poland
20/07/2011
R. Dudek
911.
48024/11
SZUSTER v. Poland
25/07/2011
K. Szuster
912.
48061/11
TRAWCZYŃSKI v. Poland
20/07/2011
W. Trawczyński
913.
48769/11
ŁAWNICZAK v. Poland
25/07/2011
S. Ławniczak
914.
49339/11
CHUDZIK v. Poland
01/08/2011
M. Chudzik
915.
49347/11
MATYNIA v. Poland
22/07/2011
L. Matynia
916.
49359/11
GLABUS v. Poland
28/07/2011
A. Glabus
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
917.
49528/11
KOSECKI v. Poland
02/08/2011
S. Kosecki
918.
49897/11
JAŃCZYK v. Poland
01/08/2011
M. Jańczyk
919.
49904/11
JANECZEK v. Poland
26/07/2011
W. Janeczek
920.
50001/11
DEBUDAJ v. Poland
27/07/2011
G. Debudaj
921.
50157/11
CHMIELOWSKI v. Poland
28/07/2011
P. Chmielowski
922.
50165/11
BRALSKI v. Poland
05/08/2011
Z. Bralski
923.
50698/11
ŁASOCHA v. Poland
02/08/2011
S. Łasocha
924.
50746/11
SITEK v. Poland
08/08/2011
I. Sitek
925.
50999/11
NIŻNIK v. Poland
08/08/2011
J. Niżnik
926.
51009/11
MIKOŁAJEW v. Poland
08/08/2011
A. Mikołajew
927.
51018/11
MUSIAŁOWICZ v. Poland
09/08/2011
R. Musiałowicz
928.
51491/11
MARCINIAK v. Poland
05/08/2011
L. Marciniak
929.
51620/11
GRABOWSKA v. Poland
11/08/2011
E. Grabowska
930.
51657/11
PRONIEWICZ v. Poland
09/08/2011
J. Proniewicz
931.
51658/11
DOBROTOWSKI v. Poland
08/08/2011
J. Dobrotowski
932.
51674/11
OLESZCZUK v. Poland
09/08/2011
S. Oleszczuk
933.
51684/11
OLESZCZUK v. Poland
09/08/2011
M. Oleszczuk
934.
51685/11
KALINIEWSKA v. Poland
27/07/2011
W. Kaliniewska
935.
51693/11
OKULSKA v. Poland
11/08/2011
H. Okulska
936.
51697/11
GRELA v. Poland
11/08/2011
H. Grela
937.
51700/11
WRÓBEL v. Poland
10/08/2011
S. Wróbel
938.
51720/11
WĘGIEREK v. Poland
10/08/2011
Z. Węgierek
939.
51729/11
WOSZCZYNA v. Poland
05/08/2011
C. Woszczyna
940.
51804/11
SIERPIŃSKI v. Poland
11/08/2011
Z. Sierpiński
D. Sucholewski
941.
52152/11
STEMPLEWSKI v. Poland
28/07/2011
J. Stemplewski
942.
52174/11
BOROWSKA v. Poland
04/08/2011
G. Borowska
943.
52584/11
KUTA v. Poland
09/08/2011
T. Kuta
944.
53017/11
MAŁECKI v. Poland
11/08/2011
K. Małecki
945.
53020/11
MACH v. Poland
18/08/2011
H. Mach
946.
53367/11
GOLA v. Poland
16/08/2011
S. Gola
947.
53488/11
ZWIECH v. Poland
08/08/2011
T. Zwiech
948.
53499/11
ZWIECH v. Poland
04/08/2011
J. Zwiech
949.
54091/11
DRABOWICZ v. Poland
22/08/2011
A. Drabowicz
950.
54146/11
WODZICKA-KAROLAK v. Poland
16/08/2011
K. Wodzicka-Karolak
951.
54152/11
IMIOŁEK v. Poland
11/08/2011
H. Imiołek
952.
54324/11
ŻMIJEWSKI v. Poland
16/08/2011
M. Żmijewski
953.
54332/11
BUDKA v. Poland
16/08/2011
L. Budka
954.
54756/11
UNGERT v. Poland
26/08/2011
M. Ungert
955.
54759/11
GUT v. Poland
19/08/2011
B. Gut
956.
54815/11
LESIAK v. Poland
16/08/2011
J. Lesiak
957.
55053/11
RYCHLIK v. Poland
17/08/2011
G. Rychlik
958.
55067/11
PUZDER v. Poland
23/08/2011
H. Puzder
959.
55072/11
RYCHLIK v. Poland
17/08/2011
M. Rychlik
960.
55138/11
DOBROTOWSKI v. Poland
22/08/2011
J. Dobrotowski
961.
55517/11
WOJTYŚ v. Poland
23/08/2011
E. Wojtyś
962.
55544/11
HĄCIA v. Poland
23/08/2011
Z. Hącia
963.
55595/11
MILCZARSKI v. Poland
29/08/2011
M. Milczarski
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
964.
56015/11
SOBIESIAK v. Poland
27/08/2011
J. Sobiesiak
965.
56054/11
FRYZIAK v. Poland
22/08/2011
E. Fryziak
966.
56280/11
MUSIAŁ and Others v. Poland
31/08/2011
J. Baniak
Z. Bieniek
R. Denkowski
M. Markiewicz
W. Mrówka
S. Musiał
P. Nawrot
S. Orliński
H. Rabikowska
A. Zalewski
D. Sucholewski
967.
56344/11
KARKOCHA v. Poland
19/08/2011
L. Karkocha
968.
56903/11
CHLEBOWSKI v. Poland
25/08/2011
A. Chlebowski
969.
56980/11
MROZIŃSKI v. Poland
30/08/2011
J. Mroziński
970.
57288/11
MALUCH v. Poland
06/09/2011
J. Maluch
971.
57578/11
KOŁACZ v. Poland
07/09/2011
D. Kołacz
972.
57692/11
MALSKI v. Poland
08/09/2011
M. Malski
973.
57790/11
JANICKI v. Poland
09/09/2011
M. Janicki
974.
58165/11
GAWLIK v. Poland
24/08/2011
Z. Gawlik
975.
58207/11
CZAJKA v. Poland
02/09/2011
A. Czajka
B. Świątkiewicz
976.
58349/11
CIEŚLAK v. Poland
08/09/2011
H. Cieślak
977.
58362/11
CHROBOT v. Poland
06/09/2011
J. Chrobot
978.
58412/11
DUNAJEWSKI v. Poland
08/09/2011
Z. Dunajewski
979.
58550/11
BIENIASZ v. Poland
08/09/2011
W. Bieniasz
980.
58563/11
BOLON v. Poland
09/09/2011
J. Bolon
981.
58696/11
POLNIAK and Others v. Poland
03/09/2011
A. Polniak
A. Bartkiewicz
J. Borowiecki
L. Dąbrowska
A. Kluczyński
T. Mierzejewski
W. Rylski
R. Sołyga
A. Stakuć
M. Styczyński
W. Zborowski
D. Sucholewski
982.
58799/11
NASTALEK v. Poland
12/09/2011
W. Nastałek
983.
58910/11
ZGÓDKA v. Poland
12/09/2011
J. Zgódka
984.
58933/11
POŁOSAK v. Poland
30/08/2011
E. Połosak
985.
58993/11
ŻACZEK v. Poland
05/09/2011
E. Żaczek
986.
59522/11
MIERZEJSKI v. Poland
02/09/2011
J. Mierzejski
B. Świątkiewicz
987.
59720/11
BŁONAROWICZ v. Poland
20/09/2011
S. Błonarowicz
988.
59778/11
WOJCIECHOWSKI v. Poland
09/09/2011
W. Wojciechowski
989.
60267/11
ŻAKOWSKI v. Poland
19/09/2011
L. Żakowski
990.
60403/11
KOZAK v. Poland
22/09/2011
R. Kozak
991.
60531/11
ŁAPIŃSKA v. Poland
21/09/2011
W. Łapińska
992.
60552/11
PRYT v. Poland
23/09/2011
J. Pryt
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
993.
60607/11
BARANOWSKI v. Poland
22/09/2011
R. Baranowski
994.
60614/11
BYSZEK v. Poland
12/09/2011
A. Byszek
995.
61811/11
NALEWAJ v. Poland
26/09/2011
S. Nalewaj
996.
61993/11
MACEWICZ v. Poland
27/09/2011
J. Macewicz
997.
62003/11
MACEWICZ v. Poland
27/09/2011
B. Macewicz
998.
62006/11
WASIAK v. Poland
22/09/2011
W. Wasiak
999.
62022/11
KOBYLARZ v. Poland
27/09/2011
R. Kobylarz
1000.
62052/11
TUCHOLSKI v. Poland
20/09/2011
Z. Tucholski
1001.
62086/11
MAKOWSKI v. Poland
26/09/2011
G. Makowski
1002.
62146/11
TABOREK v. Poland
27/09/2011
T. Taborek
1003.
62237/11
TRZMIELEWSKI v. Poland
28/09/2011
H. Trzmielewski
1004.
62241/11
TUROTSZY v. Poland
28/09/2011
A. Turotszy
1005.
62832/11
TURCZYNOWSCY v. Poland
12/09/2011
M. Turczynowska
J. Turczynowski
M. Gąsiorowska
1006.
62900/11
SOLAN v. Poland
06/10/2011
J. Solan
1007.
62990/11
GÓRSKI v. Poland
29/09/2011
J. Górski
D. Sucholewski
1008.
63071/11
MAZEWSKI v. Poland
05/10/2011
L. Mazewski
1009.
63077/11
MARCHWICKI v. Poland
05/10/2011
H. Marchwicki
1010.
63081/11
MARKOWSKI v. Poland
04/10/2011
H. Markowski
1011.
63259/11
LEWANDOWSKA v. Poland
12/09/2011
H. Lewandowska
M. Gąsiorowska
1012.
63371/11
KACZOROWSKA v. Poland
06/10/2011
K. Kaczorowska
1013.
63407/11
BOROWIK v. Poland
02/10/2011
P. Borowik
1014.
63758/11
WĘGIELSKI v. Poland
06/10/2011
Z. Węgielski
1015.
63814/11
WOLNIEWICZ v. Poland
29/09/2011
M. Wolniewicz
1016.
63815/11
WOLNIEWICZ v. Poland
29/09/2011
M. Wolniewicz
1017.
64022/11
GĄSIOROWSKI v. Poland
07/10/2011
J. Gąsiorowski
1018.
64026/11
MIZGAŁA v. Poland
08/10/2011
M. Mizgała
1019.
64042/11
MIRCZYŃSKI v. Poland
10/10/2011
K. Mirczyński
1020.
64563/11
PYKACZ v. Poland
03/10/2011
Z. Pykacz
1021.
64572/11
PANEK v. Poland
11/10/2011
B. Panek
1022.
64934/11
BODNAR v. Poland
05/10/2011
Z. Bodnar
1023.
65049/11
MADANY v. Poland
07/10/2011
M. Madany
1024.
65121/11
CICHY v. Poland
12/10/2011
Z. Cichy
1025.
65376/11
SACEWICZ v. Poland
14/10/2011
B. Sacewicz
1026.
65479/11
KUŁAGA v. Poland
13/10/2011
Z. Kułaga
1027.
65901/11
KATOLIK v. Poland
12/10/2011
T. Katolik
1028.
66615/11
OLSZÓWKA v. Poland
17/10/2011
R. Olszówka
1029.
66817/11
KOWALSKI v. Poland
20/10/2011
H. Kowalski
1030.
66887/11
BAZANT v. Poland
20/10/2011
R. Bazant
1031.
67258/11
BIELICKI v. Poland
22/10/2011
J. Bielicki
B. Świątkiewicz
1032.
67859/11
HANDEL v. Poland
19/10/2011
A. Handel
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
1033.
67979/11
SAMOREK and Others v. Poland
24/10/2011
T. Baranowski
J. Cyranka
T. Gałęzowski
S. Giza
S. Iwaniak
M. Matwiejczuk
R. Pakuła
L. Samorek
L. Terlecki
W. Wójtowicz
E. Wrótniak
M. Żerebiec
D. Sucholewski
1034.
68163/11
PAWLUS v. Poland
18/10/2011
J. Pawlus
1035.
68172/11
PIETRZAK v. Poland
19/10/2011
J. Pietrzak
1036.
68839/11
JĘDRZEJAK v. Poland
28/10/2011
K. Jędrzejak
1037.
68841/11
DĘBSKA v. Poland
17/10/2011
M. Dębska
1038.
69006/11
OLEJNICZAK v. Poland
27/10/2011
K. Olejniczak
1039.
69032/11
OZIĘBŁO v. Poland
27/10/2011
K. Oziębło
1040.
69197/11
ŚLIWA v. Poland
24/10/2011
W. Śliwa
1041.
69238/11
BIELICKI v. Poland
02/11/2011
J. Bielicki
1042.
69361/11
KUBIK v. Poland
23/10/2011
D. Kubik
1043.
69384/11
GIEDREWICZ v. Poland
25/10/2011
J. Giedrewicz
1044.
69389/11
DMITRUK v. Poland
02/11/2011
F. Dmitruk
1045.
69505/11
MICHALIK v. Poland
21/10/2011
Z. Michalik
1046.
69747/11
MIERZWA v. Poland
04/11/2011
J. Mierzwa
1047.
70061/11
LEŻAŃSKA-FRYŁOW v. Poland
02/11/2011
L. Leżańska-Fryłow
1048.
70109/11
BUCHALSKI v. Poland
08/11/2011
J. Buchalski
1049.
70399/11
MURAWSKI v. Poland
07/11/2011
J. Murawski
1050.
70785/11
HARASIMIUK v. Poland
28/10/2011
J. Harasimiuk
1051.
71498/11
MIELNICZUK v. Poland
14/11/2011
E. Mielniczuk
1052.
71753/11
POLKOWSKI v. Poland
11/11/2011
A. Polkowski
M. Gąsiorowska
1053.
72413/11
WOLIŃSKI v. Poland
16/11/2011
Z. Woliński
1054.
72465/11
BUGAŁA v. Poland
10/11/2011
R. Bugała
1055.
72530/11
BOGUSZ v. Poland
12/11/2011
A. Bogusz
1056.
72590/11
BANASIK v. Poland
17/11/2011
S. Banasik
1057.
72608/11
DOMAGAŁA v. Poland
16/11/2011
M. Domagała
D. Sucholewski
1058.
72618/11
ADAMCZYK v. Poland
16/11/2011
S. Adamczyk
1059.
72678/11
SAWICKI v. Poland
16/11/2011
A. Sawicki
1060.
72715/11
SIERANT v. Poland
15/11/2011
L. Sierant
1061.
72755/11
SIERANT v. Poland
15/11/2011
G. Sierant
1062.
72790/11
SĘKOWSKI v. Poland
15/11/2011
K. Sękowski
1063.
72796/11
ŚMIAŁKOWSKI v. Poland
15/11/2011
Z. Śmiałkowski
1064.
72817/11
PIETROW v. Poland
16/11/2011
J. Pietrow
1065.
72819/11
PIÓRKOWSKI v. Poland
16/11/2011
W. Piórkowski
1066.
72913/11
OSÓBKA v. Poland
17/11/2011
L. Osóbka
1067.
73115/11
WŁODARSKI v. Poland
28/10/2011
J. Włodarski
1068.
73582/11
KOBUSIŃSKA v. Poland
14/11/2011
A. Kobusińska
1069.
73638/11
BOGUSŁAWSKI v. Poland
21/11/2011
H. Bogusławski
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
1070.
74216/11
GŁADKI and Others v. Poland
25/11/2011
L. Bąbel
W. Fijałkowski
S. Gładki
A. Murzynowski
A. Olszowy
G. Skorek-Urywkow
W. Szczepanik
Z. Waldon
G. Wilińska-Kopańska
G. Zalewska
D. Sucholewski
1071.
74379/11
TAŃSKA v. Poland
24/11/2011
B. Tańska
1072.
74423/11
KOZŁOWSKA v. Poland
24/11/2011
G. Kozłowska
1073.
74679/11
OSIŃSKA v. Poland
28/11/2011
H. Osińska
1074.
74705/11
MIKOŁAJCZYK v. Poland
25/11/2011
L. Mikołajczyk
1075.
74735/11
STOCHNIAŁ v. Poland
24/11/2011
B. Stochniał
1076.
74749/11
KASPRZAK v. Poland
28/11/2011
D. Kasprzak
1077.
74985/11
MIERZOWIEC v. Poland
28/11/2011
A. Mierzowiec
1078.
75122/11
KUBŚ v. Poland
29/11/2011
A. Kubś
1079.
75263/11
BIAŁY v. Poland
26/11/2011
Z. Biały
1080.
75330/11
WEKSEJ v. Poland
02/12/2011
M. Weksej
1081.
75545/11
KUREK v. Poland
01/12/2011
J. Kurek
1082.
75653/11
WIERTELAK v. Poland
28/11/2011
S. Wiertelak
1083.
75772/11
PILITOWSKI v. Poland
01/12/2011
A. Pilitowski
1084.
75821/11
GARLICKI v. Poland
28/11/2011
K. Garlicki
1085.
75840/11
ADAMOWSKI v. Poland
01/12/2011
J. Adamowski
1086.
75850/11
SZYMKIEWICZ v. Poland
05/12/2011
E. Szymkiewicz
1087.
75853/11
GRONOWICZ v. Poland
30/11/2011
L. Gronowicz
1088.
76121/11
NIEKRASZ v. Poland
26/11/2011
M. Niekrasz
1089.
76125/11
TATARCZUK v. Poland
28/11/2011
P. Tatarczuk
1090.
76246/11
BURDA v. Poland
12/12/2011
S. Burda
1091.
76263/11
BICKI v. Poland
25/11/2011
E. Bicki
1092.
76270/11
KAMIŃSKA v. Poland
05/12/2011
K. Kamińska
D. Sucholewski
1093.
76316/11
BIAŁA v. Poland
25/11/2011
B. Biała
1094.
76429/11
WOLIŃSKI v. Poland
29/11/2011
R. Woliński
1095.
76796/11
LEŚNIEWSKA v. Poland
05/12/2011
K. Leśniewska
D. Sucholewski
1096.
76817/11
ŁUKOWSKI v. Poland
07/12/2011
J. Łukowski
1097.
76818/11
RUTKOWSKI v. Poland
08/12/2011
J. Rutkowski
1098.
76823/11
PRZYGODA v. Poland
07/12/2011
W. Przygoda
1099.
76878/11
MAJEWSKI v. Poland
09/12/2011
C. Majewski
1100.
76964/11
MAŚLISZ v. Poland
08/12/2011
J. Maślisz
1101.
77021/11
WOŁYNEK v. Poland
09/12/2011
W. Wołynek
1102.
77169/11
ZIÓŁKOWSKI v. Poland
06/12/2011
J. Ziółkowski
1103.
77933/11
ZABIELSKI v. Poland
12/12/2011
J. Zabielski
D. Sucholewski
1104.
77971/11
SIMIONKOWSKI v. Poland
08/12/2011
K. Simionkowski
1105.
78240/11
DAROSZEWSKI v. Poland
14/12/2011
Z. Daroszewski
1106.
78250/11
DAROSZEWSKA v. Poland
14/12/2011
W. Daroszewska
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
1107.
78413/11
ROSOŁEK v. Poland
06/12/2011
E. Rosołek
1108.
78454/11
KAMIŃSKI v. Poland
12/12/2011
Z. Kamiński
1109.
78545/11
CZEKAJ v. Poland
14/12/2011
J. Czekaj
1110.
78562/11
CIELESZYŃSKA v. Poland
14/12/2011
U. Cieleszyńska
1111.
78567/11
CIELESZYŃSKI v. Poland
14/12/2011
R. Cieleszyński
1112.
271/12
PIETRYK v. Poland
12/12/2011
T. Pietryk
1113.
474/12
JĘDRAL v. Poland
15/12/2011
B. Jędral
1114.
605/12
PIECHOWIAK v. Poland
12/12/2011
C. Piechowiak
1115.
831/12
GOMOŁA v. Poland
29/12/2011
A. Gomoła
1116.
834/12
DMITROCA v. Poland
08/12/2011
E. Dmitroca
1117.
844/12
KANTEK v. Poland
03/11/2011
E. Kantek
1118.
858/12
SZERNER v. Poland
15/12/2011
Z. Szerner
1119.
947/12
DĄBKOWSKI v. Poland
19/12/2011
A. Dąbkowski
1120.
953/12
GREGORCZYK v. Poland
13/12/2011
L. Gregorczyk
1121.
981/12
MAKOWSKI v. Poland
22/12/2011
M. Makowski
1122.
982/12
NOGALA v. Poland
03/12/2011
B. Nogala
1123.
985/12
KWIATKOWSKI v. Poland
27/12/2011
B. Kwiatkowski
1124.
989/12
ZAWADA v. Poland
21/12/2011
F. Zawada
1125.
1230/12
TRZECIAK v. Poland
22/12/2011
T. Trzeciak
1126.
1588/12
KOSKO v. Poland
29/12/2011
G. Kosko
D. Sucholewski
1127.
1631/12
SOBOLEWSKI v. Poland
22/12/2011
J. Sobolewski
1128.
1768/12
RYGLICKI v. Poland
02/01/2012
Z. Ryglicki
1129.
1824/12
MITEK v. Poland
31/12/2011
S. Mitek
1130.
2197/12
OLSZEWSKI v. Poland
03/01/2012
B. Olszewski
1131.
2298/12
MILKO v. Poland
04/01/2012
P. Milko
1132.
2647/12
WASZCZENIUK v. Poland
29/12/2011
M. Waszczeniuk
1133.
2729/12
ZAWADA v. Poland
22/12/2011
J. Zawada
1134.
2821/12
GRODZKI v. Poland
27/12/2011
E. Grodzki
1135.
2826/12
GAWEŁ v. Poland
22/12/2011
M. Gaweł
1136.
2847/12
GRZELAK v. Poland
03/01/2012
E. Grzelak
1137.
3679/12
KRZYWICKA v. Poland
10/01/2012
J. Krzywicka
1138.
4086/12
SOBOLEWSKI v. Poland
02/01/2012
E. Sobolewski
M. Gąsiorowska
1139.
4254/12
TOPOLSKI v. Poland
13/01/2012
Z. Topolski
1140.
4717/12
WARZECHA v. Poland
09/01/2012
R. Warzecha
1141.
4788/12
NOWAKOWSKI v. Poland
03/01/2012
A. Nowakowski
1142.
5121/12
TUCHOWSKI v. Poland
16/01/2012
E. Tuchowski
1143.
5295/12
HUNDZ v. Poland
18/01/2012
W. Hundz
1144.
5321/12
ZABAWSKI v. Poland
12/01/2012
W. Zabawski
1145.
5348/12
NAWOLSKI v. Poland
15/01/2012
A. Nawolski
1146.
5567/12
KAŹMIERCZAK v. Poland
13/01/2012
M. Kaźmierczak
D. Sucholewski
1147.
5572/12
KOWALSKI v. Poland
20/01/2012
M. Kowalski
1148.
5695/12
POSIEJ v. Poland
19/01/2012
G. Posiej
1149.
5838/12
BIAŁEK v. Poland
17/01/2012
D. Białek
1150.
6043/12
NOWAK v. Poland
19/01/2012
K. Nowak
D. Sucholewski
1151.
6436/12
MORGUNOV v. Poland
23/01/2012
J. Morgunov
1152.
6442/12
MASEWICZ v. Poland
24/01/2012
D. Masewicz
1153.
6756/12
CUPRYŚ v. Poland
20/01/2012
W. Cupryś
1154.
6903/12
ŚLIFIERZ v. Poland
19/01/2012
M. Ślifierz
D. Sucholewski
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
1155.
7497/12
BĄCZKOWSKI v. Poland
26/01/2012
S. Bączkowski
D. Sucholewski
1156.
7652/12
TOCZEK v. Poland
24/01/2012
M. Toczek
1157.
7713/12
POSZEPCZYŃSKA-PAWLAK v. Poland
31/01/2012
K. Poszepczyńska-Pawlak
1158.
7765/12
MATUSZEWSKI v. Poland
31/01/2012
F. Matuszewski
1159.
7870/12
SZYJA v. Poland
27/01/2012
K. Szyja
1160.
8203/12
MAŁEK v. Poland
02/02/2012
M. Małek
1161.
8474/12
GADZAŁA v. Poland
25/01/2012
J. Gadzała
1162.
8646/12
CZAPKO v. Poland
06/02/2012
J. Czapko
1163.
8677/12
BAMBUROWICZ v. Poland
02/02/2012
M. Bamburowicz
1164.
8724/12
TREPKA v. Poland
06/02/2012
A. Trepka
1165.
8801/12
BARCZYK v. Poland
26/01/2012
F. Barczyk
1166.
8875/12
REMBOWSKI v. Poland
25/01/2012
M. Rembowski
1167.
8877/12
REMBOWSKA v. Poland
25/01/2012
E. Rembowska
1168.
9208/12
GAIK v. Poland
07/02/2012
R. Gaik
1169.
9400/12
GÓRECKI v. Poland
01/02/2012
B. Górecki
1170.
9663/12
WALCZAK v. Poland
30/01/2012
A. Walczak
1171.
9948/12
SZUBELAK v. Poland
08/02/2012
K. Szubelak
1172.
9958/12
SZYKOWNY v. Poland
03/02/2012
H. Szykowny
1173.
10608/12
ZABŁOCKI v. Poland
08/02/2012
J. Zabłocki
1174.
10623/12
URBAŃSKI v. Poland
08/02/2012
A. Urbański
1175.
10747/12
EGER v. Poland
14/02/2012
A. Eger
1176.
10937/12
ŚWIERKOT v. Poland
13/02/2012
Z. Świerkot
1177.
10942/12
SZUCKI v. Poland
14/02/2012
T. Szucki
1178.
11004/12
KAMIENIAK v. Poland
08/02/2012
S. Kamieniak
1179.
11301/12
KOZŁOWSKI v. Poland
13/02/2012
J. Kozłowski
1180.
11307/12
KRUSZEWSKI v. Poland
17/02/2012
E. Kruszewski
1181.
11371/12
MATCZAK v. Poland
07/02/2012
E. Matczak
1182.
11383/12
SAJDAK v. Poland
13/02/2012
G. Sajdak
1183.
11956/12
JANKOWSKA v. Poland
15/02/2012
U. Jankowska
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1184.
12106/12
MAZUREK v. Poland
22/02/2012
J. Mazurek
1185.
12137/12
ZDUNEK v. Poland
23/02/2012
D. Zdunek
1186.
12188/12
KOTNIS v. Poland
20/02/2012
S. Kotnis
1187.
12236/12
RADOSZ v. Poland
15/02/2012
R. Radosz
1188.
12238/12
RAK v. Poland
17/02/2012
M. Rak
1189.
12243/12
RECŁAW v. Poland
02/02/2012
J. Recław
1190.
12326/12
GASIK v. Poland
21/02/2012
A. Gasik
1191.
13006/12
LANGE v. Poland
15/02/2012
P. Lange
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1192.
13184/12
RYFA v. Poland
24/02/2012
K. Ryfa
1193.
13438/12
WOŹNICKI v. Poland
25/02/2012
S. Woźnicki
1194.
13866/12
HERMAN v. Poland
27/02/2012
S. Herman
D. Sucholewski
1195.
14004/12
SOKOŁOWSKA v. Poland
01/03/2012
G. Sokołowska
1196.
14026/12
AMBROŻY v. Poland
02/03/2012
U. Ambroży
1197.
14305/12
KOSIAK v. Poland
05/03/2012
M. Kosiak
1198.
14694/12
JUSZCZAK v. Poland
08/03/2012
M. Juszczak
1199.
14944/12
BALCEROWIAK v. Poland
07/03/2012
D. Balcerowiak
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
1200.
15119/12
GALANT v. Poland
08/03/2012
K. Galant
1201.
15145/12
TARASZKIEWICZ v. Poland
09/03/2012
J. Taraszkiewicz
1202.
15204/12
NAKONIECZNY v. Poland
06/03/2012
R. Nakonieczny
1203.
15258/12
WÓJTOWICZ v. Poland
28/02/2012
H. Wójtowicz
1204.
15390/12
MICHALIK v. Poland
29/02/2012
S. Michalik
D. Sucholewski
1205.
15817/12
KOSACKI v. Poland
08/03/2012
J. Kosacki
1206.
16133/12
KUDRA v. Poland
27/02/2012
W. Kudra
1207.
16563/12
HAJWOS v. Poland
14/03/2012
P. Hajwos
1208.
16937/12
CHOJNACKI v. Poland
04/03/2012
M. Chojnacki
1209.
17053/12
STARZYŃSKA v. Poland
12/03/2012
W. Starzyńska
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1210.
17086/12
FILA v. Poland
12/03/2012
T. Fila
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1211.
17222/12
ZŁOTNICKI v. Poland
12/03/2012
T. Złotnicki
1212.
18335/12
GÓRECKI v. Poland
12/03/2012
J. Górecki
1213.
18462/12
NOWAK v. Poland
19/03/2012
T. Nowak
1214.
19152/12
PĘCZKOWSKI v. Poland
26/03/2012
M. Pęczkowski
1215.
19381/12
KUZIOŁA v. Poland
22/03/2012
A. Kuzioła
1216.
19387/12
KUZIOŁA v. Poland
22/03/2012
A. Kuzioła
1217.
19988/12
JACKOWSKA v. Poland
27/03/2012
M. Jackowska
1218.
20002/12
JACKOWSKI v. Poland
27/03/2012
M. Jackowski
1219.
20018/12
GRZYB v. Poland
19/03/2012
L. Grzyb
1220.
20293/12
JÓZEFECKI v. Poland
26/03/2012
J. Józefecki
1221.
20816/12
WIŚNIEWSKI v. Poland
27/03/2012
R. Wiśniewski
1222.
21047/12
KRAM v. Poland
29/03/2012
J. Kram
1223.
21093/12
KARP v. Poland
26/03/2011
A. Karp
1224.
21211/12
KNIAZIUK v. Poland
30/03/2012
M. Kniaziuk
1225.
21689/12
GIERLICKI v. Poland
02/04/2012
M. Gierlicki
1226.
21787/12
POŁOWNIAK v. Poland
03/04/2012
J. Połowniak
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1227.
21818/12
SAWCZUK v. Poland
03/04/2012
B. Sawczuk
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1228.
21826/12
SURMACZ v. Poland
02/04/2012
J. Surmacz
1229.
22543/12
ALEKSIUK v. Poland
05/04/2012
M. Aleksiuk
Z. Daniszewska-Dek
1230.
22700/12
ASFAL v. Poland
29/03/2012
I. Asfal
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1231.
23288/12
FRANEK v. Poland
23/03/2012
S. Franek
1232.
23498/12
ADAMCZYK v. Poland
12/04/2012
Z. Adamczyk
1233.
23672/12
BRUJEWICZ v. Poland
03/04/2012
W. Brujewicz
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1234.
23775/12
SOKOŁOWSKI v. Poland
03/04/2012
S. Sokołowski
1235.
23879/12
SKOLMOWSKI v. Poland
10/04/2012
Z. Skolmowski
1236.
24356/12
ZIENKIEWICZ v. Poland
12/04/2012
M. Zienkiewicz
1237.
24361/12
BUDZISZEWSKI v. Poland
05/04/2012
Z. Budziszewski
1238.
24443/12
KALISTA v. Poland
16/04/2012
J. Kalista
1239.
24926/12
GIERLICKA v. Poland
02/04/2012
A. Gierlicka
1240.
24946/12
SAGAN v. Poland
15/04/2012
J. Sagan
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
1241.
25060/12
JACKOWSKI v. Poland
19/04/2012
H. Jackowski
1242.
25118/12
HRUSZKA v. Poland
17/04/2012
W. Hruszka
1243.
25272/12
SZYMAŃSKI v. Poland
06/04/2012
H. Szymański
1244.
26140/12
MALUTA v. Poland
19/04/2012
R. Maluta
D. Sucholewski
1245.
26192/12
MICHALIK v. Poland
19/04/2012
E. Michalik
D. Sucholewski
1246.
26322/12
BORCZ v. Poland
27/04/2012
J. Borcz
1247.
26404/12
ŚLEDŹ v. Poland
23/04/2012
W. Śledź
1248.
26643/12
KRÓL v. Poland
26/04/2012
S. Król
1249.
27124/12
HYZOPSKI v. Poland
24/04/2012
W. Hyzopski
1250.
27334/12
ŚLIWIŃSKI v. Poland
19/04/2012
S. Śliwiński
1251.
27345/12
KULESZA v. Poland
20/04/2012
M. Kulesza
1252.
27743/12
PAJĄK v. Poland
20/04/2012
Z. Pająk
1253.
27948/12
POLAŃSKI v. Poland
02/05/2012
T. Polański
1254.
29249/12
BRANDT v. Poland
09/05/2012
M. Brandt
1255.
29342/12
CERN v. Poland
25/04/2012
W. Cern
1256.
29587/12
OSUCH v. Poland
07/05/2012
L. Osuch
1257.
30351/12
TUSZYŃSKA v. Poland
14/05/2012
L. Tuszyńska
1258.
31304/12
NOSEK v. Poland
16/05/2012
R. Nosek
1259.
31414/12
KRUPA v. Poland
15/05/2012
T. Krupa
1260.
31490/12
PAPIER v. Poland
17/05/2012
G. Papier
1261.
32376/12
PERCZAK v. Poland
14/05/2012
M. Perczak
1262.
32664/12
GUDEL v. Poland
15/05/2012
J. Gudel
1263.
33151/12
PYTEL v. Poland
28/05/2012
W. Pytel
1264.
33473/12
GOSTYŃSKI v. Poland
09/05/2012
T. Gostyński
1265.
33532/12
BURZYŃSKI v. Poland
21/05/2012
P. Burzyński
1266.
34213/12
GIĘTKOWSKA v. Poland
17/04/2012
E. Giętkowska
S. Pikulski
1267.
34317/12
WASIAK v. Poland
18/05/2012
W. Wasiak
1268.
34511/12
WALCZAK v. Poland
24/05/2012
E. Walczak
1269.
34545/12
CHRZANOWSKI v. Poland
10/05/2012
Z. Chrzanowski
1270.
34637/12
KOŁODYŃSKI v. Poland
01/06/2012
A. Kołodyński
1271.
35457/12
GAŁAN v. Poland
24/05/2012
R. Gałan
1272.
35752/12
OLSZACKI v. Poland
26/05/2012
J. Olszacki
1273.
36099/12
KAŁUŻNA v. Poland
04/06/2012
A. Kałużna
1274.
36100/12
KACZMAREK v. Poland
04/06/2012
J. Kaczmarek
1275.
36534/12
ROMANOWICZ v. Poland
08/06/2012
H. Romanowicz
1276.
37596/12
PRZESMYCKI v. Poland
06/06/2012
N. Przesmycki
1277.
37889/12
MACIOŁ v. Poland
21/05/2012
A. Macioł
1278.
38036/12
GĄGOLA v. Poland
17/05/2012
E. Gągola
1279.
38596/12
WASZKIEWICZ v. Poland
06/06/2012
A. Waszkiewicz
1280.
38605/12
OŻÓG v. Poland
13/06/2012
J. Ożóg
1281.
38893/12
RAMOTA v. Poland
11/06/2012
T. Ramota
1282.
38897/12
SZCZEPAŃSKI v. Poland
30/05/2012
A. Szczepański
1283.
38900/12
KŁOS-REICH v. Poland
14/06/2012
W. Kłos-Reich
1284.
38903/12
RAMOTA v. Poland
11/06/2012
K. Ramota
1285.
39139/12
RACZYŃSKI v. Poland
15/06/2012
J. Raczyński
1286.
39595/12
PAGACZ-KLIMIŃSKA v. Poland
18/06/2012
K. Pagacz-Klimińska
1287.
39657/12
JAROS v. Poland
20/06/2012
A. Jaros
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
1288.
40006/12
FIRSOWICZ v. Poland
19/06/2012
B. Firsowicz
1289.
40137/12
GUŁAJ v. Poland
15/06/2012
K. Gułaj
1290.
40184/12
PECZENIUK v. Poland
15/06/2012
J. Peczeniuk
1291.
41450/12
STAŚKIEWICZ v. Poland
26/06/2012
J. Staśkiewicz
1292.
41466/12
JAŚKOWSKI v. Poland
25/06/2012
H. Jaśkowski
1293.
41733/12
CISOWSKA-MAKSIM v. Poland
28/06/2012
S. Cisowska-Maksim
1294.
41735/12
CZARNOWSKI v. Poland
23/06/2012
C. Czarnowski
1295.
42745/12
PROKOPOWICZ v. Poland
03/07/2012
W. Prokopowicz
D. Sucholewski
1296.
42747/12
FULKO v. Poland
27/06/2012
E. Fulko
1297.
42886/12
MICHALSKI v. Poland
16/05/2012
S. Michalski
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1298.
43455/12
POLITEWICZ v. Poland
02/07/2012
K. Politewicz
1299.
43578/12
FAŁKOWSKI v. Poland
29/06/2012
E. Fałkowski
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1300.
43682/12
BOROWSKI v. Poland
09/07/2012
J. Borowski
1301.
43801/12
GAJECKI v. Poland
25/06/2012
B. Gajecki
1302.
43944/12
LEWANDOWSKI v. Poland
29/06/2012
E. Lewandowski
1303.
43969/12
DĄBROWSKI v. Poland
29/06/2012
L. Dąbrowski
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1304.
44608/12
KOWALSKA-BOSSART v. Poland
06/07/2012
G. Kowalska-Bossart
1305.
44884/12
TURBIŃSKI v. Poland
12/07/2012
K. Turbiński
1306.
44980/12
KOSIOREK v. Poland
12/07/2012
E. Kosiorek
K. Wojcieszuk-Kwiatkowska
1307.
45732/12
ZWIĄZEK BYŁYCH FUNKCJONARIUSZY SŁUŻB OCHRONY PAŃSTWA v. Poland
09/07/2012
Związek Byłych Funkcjonariuszy Służb Ochrony Państwa
M. Gąsiorowska
1308.
46054/12
GRELA-JURA v. Poland
16/07/2012
M. Grela-Jura
1309.
46145/12
BOROWCZAK v. Poland
17/07/2012
H. Borowczak
1310.
46312/12
MUSIAŁ v. Poland
04/07/2012
J. Musiał
1311.
46398/12
CHMIELEWSKI v. Poland
11/07/2012
W. Chmielewski
1312.
46441/12
TROJANOWSKI v. Poland
10/07/2012
J. Trojanowski
1313.
47238/12
HAJPEL v. Poland
05/07/2012
I. Hajpel
1314.
47337/12
BIELIŃSKI v. Poland
16/07/2012
J. Bieliński
1315.
47548/12
ULANICKA v. Poland
20/07/2012
J. Ulanicka
1316.
47646/12
SUDRA v. Poland
04/07/2012
K. Sudra
1317.
48230/12
PALCZAK v. Poland
25/07/2012
R. Palczak
1318.
48255/12
TROĆ v. Poland
10/07/2012
T. Troć
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1319.
48715/12
NADOLSKA v. Poland
19/07/2012
H. Nadolska
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1320.
48720/12
NYK v. Poland
18/07/2012
W. Nyk
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1321.
48742/12
CHMIELEWSKI v. Poland
23/07/2012
Z. Chmielewski
1322.
49388/12
STACHOWIAK v. Poland
18/07/2012
E. Stachowiak
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
1323.
50310/12
CZARNOWSKI v. Poland
02/08/2012
K. Czarnowski
1324.
50377/12
GAUZA v. Poland
26/07/2012
J. Gauza
P. Sowisło
1325.
50742/12
WNUK v. Poland
04/08/2012
Z. Wnuk
1326.
50854/12
KELER v. Poland
02/08/2012
W. Keler
1327.
51156/12
JAKUBOWSKI v. Poland
02/08/2012
Z. Jakubowski
D. Sucholewski
1328.
51338/12
LELUK v. Poland
06/08/2012
J. Leluk
1329.
51383/12
KUPNIEWSKI v. Poland
07/08/2012
W. Kupniewski
1330.
51464/12
RUCZAJ v. Poland
02/08/2012
K. Ruczaj
1331.
51469/12
RUBCZEWSKI v. Poland
02/08/2012
J. Rubczewski
1332.
51585/12
HAPONIUK v. Poland
26/07/2012
M. Haponiuk
1333.
52003/12
MATUSZAK- MAJCHRZAK v. Poland
10/08/2012
G. Matuszak- Majchrzak
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1334.
52060/12
CZECH v. Poland
01/08/2012
M. Czech
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1335.
52061/12
KUDŁA v. Poland
03/08/2012
D. Kudła
1336.
52283/12
CHLEBUS v. Poland
07/08/2012
J. Chlebus
1337.
52514/12
PUDZIANOWSKI v. Poland
09/08/2012
Z. Pudzianowski
1338.
52827/12
SZESTAKOWSKI v. Poland
03/08/2012
L. Szestakowski
1339.
52838/12
SZNEIDROWSKI v. Poland
06/08/2012
A. Szneidrowski
D. Sucholewski
1340.
52871/12
ROSOŁOWSKI v. Poland
01/08/2012
W. Rosołowski
1341.
52879/12
GONSIEROWSKI v. Poland
13/07/2012
A. Gonsierowski
1342.
53195/12
GOLISZ v. Poland
10/08/2012
M. Golisz
A. Adamska-Makowska
1343.
53260/12
ZALEWSKI v. Poland
13/08/2012
Z. Zalewski
1344.
53390/12
WILCZYŃSKI v. Poland
10/08/2012
M. Wilczyński
A. Adamska-Makowska
1345.
53404/12
CZAJKOWSKI v. Poland
10/08/2012
A. Czajkowski
A. Adamska-Makowska
1346.
53629/12
CYGANEK v. Poland
16/08/2012
C. Cyganek
1347.
53635/12
RYSZKOWSKA v. Poland
16/08/2012
J. Ryszkowska
1348.
53640/12
WOŁOCH v. Poland
14/08/2012
W. Wołoch
1349.
53658/12
KOMISAREK v. Poland
16/08/2012
A. Komisarek
1350.
53734/12
JĘCHOREK v. Poland
14/08/2012
E. Jęchorek
1351.
53796/12
MOJESZCZYK v. Poland
14/08/2012
D. Mojeszczyk
1352.
53948/12
FRĄCKOWIAK v. Poland
16/08/2012
K. Frąckowiak
1353.
53994/12
BIRUT v. Poland
13/08/2012
H. Birut
1354.
54159/12
RUTKOWSKI v. Poland
13/08/2012
Z. Rutkowski
D. Sucholewski
1355.
54178/12
BOGUSZ v. Poland
06/08/2012
H. Bogusz
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1356.
54375/12
WITEK v. Poland
06/08/2012
Z. Witek
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1357.
54392/12
WOJTIUK v. Poland
16/08/2012
A. Wojtiuk
1358.
54990/12
WALCZYK v. Poland
20/08/2012
T. Walczyk
1359.
55245/12
MIESZKOWSKA-DUTKA v. Poland
16/08/2012
K. Mieszkowska-Dutka
1360.
55422/12
PIĘTEK v. Poland
20/08/2012
B. Piętek
1361.
56415/12
DZIAŁA v. Poland
16/08/2012
W. Działa
1362.
57230/12
ŁUKASIŃSKI v. Poland
22/08/2012
M. Łukasiński
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
1363.
57285/12
PONIECKI v. Poland
28/08/2012
W. Poniecki
T. Srogosz
1364.
57324/12
BURZYCKI v. Poland
28/08/2012
G. Burzycki
D. Sucholewski
1365.
57481/12
ŁUKOSZYK v. Poland
24/08/2012
H. Łukoszyk
1366.
58267/12
JANKOWSKI v. Poland
28/08/2012
J. Jankowski
1367.
58276/12
MAZUR v. Poland
23/08/2012
H. Mazur
1368.
58348/12
CHUDOWICZ v. Poland
29/08/2012
K. Chudowicz
1369.
58927/12
BARA v. Poland
05/09/2012
M. Bara
1370.
59047/12
JASZCZOWSKI v. Poland
17/08/2012
Z. Jaszczowski
1371.
59235/12
MACKIEWICZ v. Poland
06/09/2012
M. Mackiewicz
1372.
59441/12
GRZYBOWSKA v. Poland
30/08/2012
J. Grzybowska
1373.
59597/12
OLKOWSKI v. Poland
28/08/2012
M. Olkowski
1374.
59874/12
ŁYSONIEK v. Poland
27/08/2012
J. Łysoniek
1375.
59888/12
LATEK v. Poland
28/08/2012
E. Latek
D. Sucholewski
1376.
60018/12
BORCZ v. Poland
12/09/2012
S. Borcz
1377.
60065/12
KUPCZAK v. Poland
04/09/2012
R. Kupczak
1378.
60294/12
KRAŚNICKI v. Poland
11/09/2012
J. Kraśnicki
1379.
60430/12
SZUMIELEWICZ v. Poland
17/09/2012
Z. Szumielewicz
1380.
61323/12
BOSIACKI v. Poland
10/09/2012
L. Bosiacki
1381.
61407/12
BUŁATOWICZ v. Poland
19/09/2012
C. Bułatowicz
1382.
61691/12
HAJGENBART v. Poland
18/09/2012
E. Hajgenbart
1383.
61944/12
OLEKSIUK v. Poland
20/09/2012
Z. Oleksiuk
1384.
61980/12
PŁACHTA v. Poland
20/09/2012
G. Płachta
1385.
62305/12
CHEŁMECKA v. Poland
15/09/2012
I. Chełmecka
1386.
62389/12
JANUS v. Poland
20/09/2012
W. Janus
1387.
62422/12
DOBEK v. Poland
14/09/2012
W. Dobek
D. Sucholewski
1388.
62450/12
NOWICKI v. Poland
10/09/2012
J. Nowicki
1389.
62454/12
CZYŻEWSKI v. Poland
20/09/2012
M. Czyżewski
1390.
62543/12
MIERNICKI v. Poland
05/09/2012
J. Miernicki
1391.
62843/12
ZAMARO v. Poland
24/09/2012
B. Zamaro
1392.
62856/12
STEFAŃSKI v. Poland
20/09/2012
M. Stefański
1393.
62907/12
MAZURKIEWICZ v. Poland
24/09/2012
W. Mazurkiewicz
1394.
63094/12
JURCZAK v. Poland
27/09/2012
Z. Jurczak
1395.
63127/12
MAŁECKA v. Poland
18/09/2012
T. Małecka
1396.
63230/12
ZIELIŃSKI v. Poland
12/09/2012
H. Zieliński
M. Gąsiorowska
1397.
63252/12
KORCZAK v. Poland
12/09/2012
K. Korczak
1398.
63334/12
OKRĄGŁY v. Poland
13/09/2012
J. Okrągły
1399.
63766/12
KUBIS v. Poland
27/09/2012
M. Kubis
1400.
63990/12
RZEMEK v. Poland
11/09/2012
R. Rzemek
1401.
64018/12
KRÓLIKOWSKI v. Poland
20/09/2012
L. Królikowski
1402.
64033/12
BONIECKI v. Poland
19/09/2012
M. Boniecki
P. Sowisło
1403.
64047/12
BIERNACKI v. Poland
19/09/2012
W. Biernacki
P. Sowisło
1404.
64167/12
DEC v. Poland
25/09/2012
Z. Dec
1405.
65184/12
SPYCHALSKI v. Poland
04/10/2012
B. Spychalski
1406.
65426/12
PASZKOWSKA v. Poland
04/10/2012
M. Paszkowska
1407.
65519/12
MAŃKOWSKA v. Poland
03/10/2012
E. Mańkowska
1408.
65533/12
JURKIEWICZ v. Poland
23/09/2012
R. Jurkiewicz
1409.
65534/12
JAROSZ v. Poland
01/10/2012
Z. Jarosz
1410.
65543/12
SUCHODOŁA v. Poland
08/10/2012
P. Suchodoła
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
1411.
65895/12
WIŚNIEWSKI v. Poland
05/10/2012
J. Wiśniewski
1412.
66028/12
OCHMAŃSKI v. Poland
05/10/2012
L. Ochmański
1413.
66357/12
MAJ v. Poland
10/10/2012
G. Maj
1414.
66380/12
PYPCZYŃSKI v. Poland
04/10/2012
Z. Pypczyński
D. Sucholewski
1415.
66403/12
JURGA v. Poland
08/10/2012
Z. Jurga
1416.
66842/12
SZCZYGIEŁ v. Poland
12/10/2012
R. Szczygieł
1417.
66985/12
LUBIEJEWSKI v. Poland
03/10/2012
F. Lubiejewski
1418.
67047/12
KIERZKOWSKA v. Poland
08/10/2012
G. Kierzkowska
D. Sucholewski
1419.
67354/12
CIELECKI v. Poland
12/10/2012
L. Cielecki
1420.
67560/12
STANISŁAWSKI v. Poland
11/10/2012
I. Stanisławski
1421.
68176/12
BOGDAŃSKI v. Poland
16/10/2012
J. Bogdański
1422.
68321/12
PAWELEC v. Poland
11/10/2012
H. Pawelec
D. Sucholewski
1423.
68448/12
STĘPNICKI v. Poland
10/10/2012
K. Stępnicki
1424.
68786/12
MAŁKIEWICZ v. Poland
16/10/2012
W. Małkiewicz
D. Sucholewski
1425.
69028/12
GÓRNIAK v. Poland
23/10/2012
K. Górniak
1426.
69433/12
PIETKIEWICZ v. Poland
22/10/2012
T. Pietkiewicz
1427.
69435/12
UKLEJA v. Poland
22/10/2012
K. Ukleja
1428.
69656/12
STĘPNIAK v. Poland
11/10/2012
M. Stępniak
1429.
69661/12
SYLWESTRZAK v. Poland
22/10/2012
P. Sylwestrzak
D. Sucholewski
1430.
69699/12
KLIMEK v. Poland
23/10/2012
T. Klimek
1431.
70017/12
WILK v. Poland
15/10/2012
S. Wilk
1432.
70087/12
PIETREWICZ v. Poland
17/10/2012
L. Pietrewicz
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1433.
70282/12
BORODA v. Poland
25/10/2012
B. Boroda
1434.
70593/12
WIŚNIOWSKI v. Poland
24/10/2012
K. Wiśniowski
1435.
71009/12
MARCHWIŃSKI v. Poland
19/10/2012
W. Marchwiński
1436.
71286/12
JODŁOWSKI v. Poland
31/10/2012
R. Jodłowski
1437.
71313/12
LUTEK v. Poland
29/10/2012
J. Lutek
1438.
71319/12
JANISZEWSKI v. Poland
25/10/2012
R. Janiszewski
1439.
72104/12
JURKOWSKI v. Poland
02/11/2012
D. Jurkowski
1440.
72224/12
BRAUN-LICHTBLAU v. Poland
05/11/2012
B. Braun-Lichtblau
D. Sucholewski
1441.
72416/12
WĘGLARZ v. Poland
06/11/2012
M. Węglarz
1442.
72437/12
WROTNY v. Poland
29/10/2012
T. Wrotny
1443.
72881/12
REĆKO v. Poland
08/11/2012
L. Rećko
1444.
72937/12
ROSICKI v. Poland
25/10/2012
L. Rosicki
1445.
73526/12
PRUSZYŃSKI v. Poland
14/09/2012
M. Pruszyński
1446.
73767/12
JAGUSIAK v. Poland
19/11/2012
R. Jagusiak
1447.
74090/12
STANKIEWICZ v. Poland
26/10/2012
J. Stankiewicz
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1448.
74167/12
ŚNIEŻAWSKI v. Poland
12/11/2012
M. Śnieżawski
1449.
74184/12
GÓRSKI v. Poland
16/11/2012
R. Górski
1450.
74621/12
ŚLEPKO v. Poland
20/11/2012
K. Ślepko
1451.
74666/12
BOROWSKI v. Poland
20/11/2012
Z. Borowski
1452.
74703/12
SUPRUN v. Poland
06/11/2012
R. Suprun
D. Sucholewski
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
1453.
74726/12
STĘPIEŃ and Others v. Poland
20/11/2012
M. Cichoń
W. Florczyk
Z. Gibaszewski
W. Górka
G. Kopeć
A. Płaszczyński
W. Stępień
F. Szostek
W. Tacij
R. Wałek
D. Sucholewski
1454.
74843/12
KUCHARSKA v. Poland
09/11/2012
J. Kucharska
D. Sucholewski
1455.
75111/12
GRODECKI v. Poland
13/11/2012
J. Grodecki
1456.
75457/12
KAJKO v. Poland
09/11/2012
M. Kajko
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1457.
75472/12
SZCZĘŚNIAK v. Poland
15/11/2012
Z. Szczęśniak
K. Wojcieszuk-Kwiatkowska
1458.
75508/12
STANISŁAWSKI v. Poland
13/11/2012
H. Stanisławski
1459.
75710/12
DĄBKOWSKA v. Poland
26/11/2012
K. Dąbkowska
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1460.
75713/12
CZERNIEJEWSKI v. Poland
20/11/2012
A. Czerniejewski
1461.
75788/12
PŁONKA v. Poland
26/11/2012
A. Płonka
1462.
75850/12
WIŚNIEWSKA-MILEWICZ v. Poland
22/11/2012
K. Wiśniewska-Milewicz
1463.
76008/12
SZPAKOWSKI v. Poland
27/11/2012
R. Szpakowski
1464.
76015/12
ŚNIEŻAWSKI v. Poland
27/11/2012
S. Śnieżawski
1465.
76075/12
KOZEK v. Poland
22/11/2012
B. Kozek
1466.
76116/12
NOWICKI v. Poland
20/11/2012
J. Nowicki
1467.
76415/12
JASIŃSKI v. Poland
22/11/2012
E. Jasiński
1468.
76887/12
KOWALSKA v. Poland
23/11/2012
G. Kowalska
1469.
77620/12
CIENKOWSKI v. Poland
26/11/2012
I. Cienkowski
1470.
77704/12
PEEK v. Poland
29/11/2012
B. Peek
1471.
77944/12
LISZEWSKI v. Poland
23/11/2012
W. Liszewski
1472.
78118/12
MAGRYŚ v. Poland
01/12/2012
F. Magryś
1473.
78264/12
GRZYBOWSKI v. Poland
30/11/2012
K. Grzybowski
1474.
78280/12
PLICHTA v. Poland
30/11/2012
C. Plichta
1475.
78424/12
MIELNICKI v. Poland
03/12/2012
R. Mielnicki
1476.
78477/12
WIŚNIEWSKI v. Poland
29/11/2012
J. Wiśniewski
D. Sucholewski
1477.
78507/12
WELCZ v. Poland
30/11/2012
T. Welcz
D. Sucholewski
1478.
78640/12
KURCZYCH v. Poland
03/12/2012
E. Kurczych
1479.
79208/12
SACZKO v. Poland
03/12/2012
A. Saczko
1480.
79563/12
CZABATOR v. Poland
03/12/2012
E. Czabator
1481.
80555/12
IWANICKI v. Poland
06/12/2012
J. Iwanicki
1482.
80609/12
SZOK v. Poland
30/11/2012
J. Szok
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1483.
80640/12
ŁOWCZYNOWSKI v. Poland
10/12/2012
C. Łowczynowski
1484.
80680/12
RONKOWSKI v. Poland
24/11/2012
W. Ronkowski
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1485.
80686/12
WOJTAS v. Poland
19/11/2012
B. Wojtas
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
1486.
80944/12
OKS v. Poland
03/12/2012
W. Oks
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1487.
80975/12
GÓRALCZYK v. Poland
19/11/2012
W. Góralczyk
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1488.
81055/12
KAMIŃSKI v. Poland
10/12/2012
J. Kamiński
1489.
85/13
OLSZEWSKI v. Poland
17/12/2012
K. Olszewski
1490.
91/13
FLOREK v. Poland
08/12/2012
R. Florek
1491.
749/13
PAWLAK v. Poland
14/12/2012
W. Pawlak
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1492.
919/13
JAKIELASZEK v. Poland
07/12/2012
E. Jakielaszek
D. Sucholewski
1493.
1059/13
BACIA v. Poland
12/12/2012
K. Bacia
1494.
1141/13
GOŁASZEWSKA v. Poland
21/12/2012
A. Gołaszewska
1495.
1209/13
BOCZEK v. Poland
13/12/2012
L. Boczek
1496.
1359/13
BORYSIUK v. Poland
07/12/2012
W. Borysiuk
D. Sucholewski
1497.
1418/13
MODZELEWSKA v. Poland
28/12/2012
A. Modzelewska
1498.
1546/13
ROSOWIECKA v. Poland
17/12/2012
L. Rosowiecka
1499.
1777/13
KOŁODZIEJCZYK v. Poland
12/12/2012
I. Kołodziejczyk
1500.
1781/13
RACHWAL v. Poland
29/12/2012
T. Rachwal
1501.
1787/13
GRABARCZYK v. Poland
17/12/2012
Z. Grabarczyk
1502.
1924/13
ŚWITACZ v. Poland
10/12/2012
J. Świtacz
1503.
1997/13
ZIELIŃSKI v. Poland
18/12/2012
W. Gwardiak
D. Hackiewicz
K. Sadowski
M. Szewczuk
R. Zieliński
D. Sucholewski
1504.
2183/13
CHMIELOWSKI v. Poland
12/12/2012
R. Chmielowski
1505.
2524/13
WASIAK v. Poland
17/12/2012
A. Wasiak
1506.
2800/13
CHYTROŃ v. Poland
28/12/2012
Z. Chytroń
1507.
2924/13
BUGAJ-STAWNY v. Poland
02/01/2013
J. Bugaj-Stawny
1508.
3154/13
OLEKSIAK v. Poland
14/12/2012
E. Oleksiak
1509.
4266/13
PAWLUCZUK v. Poland
10/12/2012
J. Pawluczuk
1510.
4933/13
PAŚNIKOWSKI v. Poland
08/01/2013
A. Paśnikowski
D. Sucholewski
1511.
5333/13
OSTROWSKI v. Poland
08/01/2013
M. Ostrowski
1512.
5414/13
SZAFRAŃSKI v. Poland
07/01/2013
W. Szafrański
1513.
5983/13
JEFIMIUK v. Poland
15/01/2013
R. Jefimiuk
1514.
6038/13
PACEWICZ v. Poland
15/01/2013
M. Pacewicz
1515.
6046/13
PONICHTERA v. Poland
09/01/2013
B. Ponichtera
1516.
6065/13
OSKROBA v. Poland
11/01/2013
J. Oskroba
1517.
6730/13
MICHALCZAK v. Poland
02/01/2013
P. Michalczak
P. Sowisło
1518.
7236/13
MACHNICKA v. Poland
04/01/2013
G. Machnicka
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1519.
7353/13
MYSIUKIEWICZ v. Poland
16/01/2013
T. Mysiukiewicz
1520.
7858/13
RYCERZ v. Poland
23/01/2013
A. Rycerz
D. Sucholewski
1521.
7963/13
GRACZKOWSKI v. Poland
09/01/2013
M. Graczkowski
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1522.
8047/13
LEGIĘDŹ v. Poland
22/01/2013
J. Legiędź
D. Sucholewski
1523.
8081/13
JACKOWSKI v. Poland
21/01/2013
J. Jackowski
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
1524.
8098/13
PUTKOWSKI v. Poland
11/01/2013
Z. Putkowski
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1525.
8180/13
KOTARSKA v. Poland
07/01/2013
M. Kotarska
1526.
8186/13
KAŹMIERCZAK v. Poland
04/01/2013
Z. Kaźmierczak
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1527.
8198/13
KORAB v. Poland
14/01/2013
K. Korab
1528.
8752/13
SZKUDLAREK v. Poland
23/01/2013
M. Szkudlarek
1529.
8773/13
ŻEBROWSKI v. Poland
22/01/2013
J. Żebrowski
1530.
8777/13
LEWANDOWSKI v. Poland
10/01/2013
M. Lewandowski
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1531.
8781/13
ZIEMNICKI v. Poland
18/01/2013
S. Ziemnicki
1532.
9212/13
CHOMKA v. Poland
24/01/2013
T. Chomka
D. Sucholewski
1533.
9220/13
CZURAK v. Poland
29/01/2013
E. Czurak
S. Pikulski
1534.
9435/13
NAHARNOWICZ v. Poland
25/01/2013
C. Naharnowicz
1535.
9516/13
CZAJKOWSKA v. Poland
30/01/2013
A. Czajkowska
1536.
9791/13
KOŁTUN v. Poland
29/01/2013
T. Kołtun
1537.
9897/13
URBANIAK v. Poland
30/01/2013
M. Urbaniak
1538.
10203/13
WARCHOŁ v. Poland
01/02/2013
J. Warchoł
1539.
10283/13
JANUS v. Poland
01/02/2013
L. Janus
D. Sucholewski
1540.
10442/13
PRZEWUSKA v. Poland
25/01/2013
M. Przewuska
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1541.
11543/13
KĘDZIA v. Poland
07/02/2013
J. Kędzia
1542.
11584/13
CELI v. Poland
04/02/2013
A. Celi
1543.
11588/13
NOWAKOWSKI v. Poland
06/02/2013
K. Nowakowski
1544.
11769/13
RUCIŃSKA v. Poland
01/02/2013
G. Rucińska
1545.
12208/13
GRZELKA v. Poland
09/01/2013
H. Grzelka
1546.
12333/13
BISKUP v. Poland
11/02/2013
S. Biskup
1547.
12593/13
MICHALIK v. Poland
01/02/2013
J. Michalik
1548.
12606/13
JAGIEŁOWICZ v. Poland
13/02/2013
T. Jagiełowicz
J. Ginko
1549.
12781/13
KOWAL v. Poland
11/02/2013
B. Kowal
J. Ginko
1550.
12799/13
KWIT v. Poland
31/01/2012
L. Kwit
1551.
12895/13
FABIŚ v. Poland
04/02/2013
B. Fabiś
1552.
13143/13
KUBIŃSKI v. Poland
22/01/2013
B. Kubiński
1553.
13149/13
KLATT v. Poland
13/02/2013
A. Klatt
D. Sucholewski
1554.
13489/13
KRAWCZYK v. Poland
06/02/2013
T. Krawczyk
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1555.
13565/13
GAJ v. Poland
14/02/2013
J. Gaj
D. Sucholewski
1556.
13604/13
LASKOWSKI v. Poland
30/01/2013
R. Laskowski
P. Sowisło
1557.
13620/13
MAKIEŁA v. Poland
04/02/2013
E. Makieła
S. Pikulski
1558.
13631/13
DROSZCZ v. Poland
06/02/2013
D. Droszcz
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1559.
13884/13
OBERDAK v. Poland
04/02/2013
A. Oberdak
S. Pikulski
1560.
14691/13
PAZDYGA v. Poland
20/02/2013
J. Pazdyga
1561.
14746/13
PIŃKOWSKI v. Poland
20/02/2013
L. Pińkowski
1562.
15214/13
SURMIONEK v. Poland
07/02/2013
R. Surmionek
1563.
15218/13
SYROCKA v. Poland
12/02/2013
I. Syrocka
1564.
15885/13
OLCHOWY v. Poland
23/02/2013
J. Olchowy
1565.
15920/13
POPA v. Poland
22/02/2013
P. Popa
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
1566.
16120/13
GRELA v. Poland
15/02/2013
J. Grela
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1567.
16435/13
PADUSZYŃSKI v. Poland
26/02/2013
R. Paduszyński
1568.
16461/13
WRÓBLEWSKA v. Poland
25/02/2013
E. Wróblewska
1569.
16517/13
CZARNAS v. Poland
22/02/2013
T. Czarnas
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1570.
16520/13
WOJCIECHOWSKA v. Poland
22/02/2013
K. Wojciechowska
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1571.
17042/13
KLIMKOWSKI v. Poland
25/02/2013
W. Klimkowski
D. Sucholewski
1572.
17044/13
KROPIDŁOWSKI v. Poland
18/02/2013
A. Kropidłowski
1573.
17383/13
HAJGENBART v. Poland
22/02/2013
L. Hajgenbart
1574.
17562/13
IWASZKIEWICZ v. Poland
04/03/2013
J. Iwaszkiewicz
1575.
17655/13
OLESZCZAK v. Poland
06/03/2013
W. Oleszczak
1576.
17780/13
ŻODZIK v. Poland
25/02/2013
J. Żodzik
1577.
17819/13
SOBIESZCZAŃSKI v. Poland
26/02/2013
F. Sobieszczański
1578.
17869/13
MICHALSKI v. Poland
05/03/2013
J. Michalski
D. Sucholewski
1579.
17879/13
MINISZEWSKI v. Poland
05/03/2013
A. Miniszewski
D. Sucholewski
1580.
17943/13
LEŚNIEWSKA v. Poland
25/02/2013
M. Leśniewska
1581.
17956/13
ZAGAJEWSKI v. Poland
24/02/2013
J. Zagajewski
S. Pikulski
1582.
17958/13
PAPIER v. Poland
26/02/2013
Z. Papier
1583.
17975/13
SZUR v. Poland
25/02/2013
L. Szur
1584.
18240/13
LACH v. Poland
01/03/2013
S. Lach
M. Gąsiorowska
1585.
18249/13
ŚCIBISZ v. Poland
04/03/2013
A. Ścibisz
1586.
18441/13
PŁACZEK v. Poland
22/02/2013
S. Płaczek
D. Sucholewski
1587.
19255/13
DOMARADZKA v. Poland
05/03/2013
M. Domaradzka
1588.
19550/13
KUPTEL v. Poland
26/02/2013
S. Kuptel
Z. Daniszewska-Dek
1589.
19629/13
GRABEK v. Poland
04/03/2013
M. Grabek
1590.
19885/13
MIELCZAREK v. Poland
06/03/2013
L. Mielczarek
1591.
20171/13
NIECZYPOR v. Poland
08/03/2013
J. Nieczypor
1592.
20411/13
PERŻYŁO v. Poland
11/03/2013
W. Perżyło
1593.
20470/13
ORNOWSKA v. Poland
04/03/2013
H. Ornowska
1594.
20475/13
FLOR v. Poland
07/03/2013
G. Flor
1595.
20609/13
SZEWCZYK v. Poland
08/03/2013
J. Szewczyk
D. Sucholewski
1596.
20622/13
SZEWCZYK v. Poland
07/03/2013
J. Szewczyk
D. Sucholewski
1597.
21590/13
SZALUNAS v. Poland
12/03/2013
A. Szalunas
1598.
21843/13
JASKO v. Poland
20/03/2013
H. Jasko
1599.
21853/13
REMBIEWSKI v. Poland
20/03/2013
A. Rembiewski
1600.
21879/13
STOKOWSKA v. Poland
20/03/2013
E. Stokowska
1601.
21893/13
LEŚNIEWSKI v. Poland
22/03/2013
W. Leśniewski
1602.
23080/13
PIESTO v. Poland
19/03/2013
J. Piesto
1603.
23104/13
KOZŁOWSKI v. Poland
22/03/2013
A. Kozłowski
D. Sucholewski
1604.
23110/13
DACZKOWSKI v. Poland
21/03/2013
J. Daczkowski
1605.
23216/13
KOWALCZYK v. Poland
22/03/2013
K. Kowalczyk
D. Sucholewski
1606.
23280/13
GRABOWSKI v. Poland
26/03/2013
M. Grabowski
1607.
23281/13
KOŚCIELNIAK v. Poland
20/03/2013
P. Kościelniak
1608.
23371/13
ZEMA v. Poland
26/03/2013
M. Zema
1609.
23507/13
GRZYBOWSKA v. Poland
15/03/2013
G. Grzybowska
App. No.
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
Name of Representative
1610.
23946/13
SIEK v. Poland
21/03/2013
J. Siek
1611.
24492/13
BARTNICKI v. Poland
03/04/2013
R. Bartnicki
1612.
25118/13
UCHMAN v. Poland
03/04/2013
J. Uchman
1613.
25477/13
KNITTER v. Poland
04/04/2013
F. Knitter
1614.
25713/13
NOWAK v. Poland
05/04/2013
R. Nowak
1615.
25726/13
JOBSKI v. Poland
29/03/2013
W. Jobski
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1616.
25939/13
GAWART v. Poland
29/03/2013
E. Gawart
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1617.
26386/13
KOWALCZYK v. Poland
03/04/2013
A. Kowalczyk
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1618.
26488/13
KRYSIAK v. Poland
12/04/2013
J. Krysiak
1619.
26649/13
SZYCHULSKI v. Poland
29/03/2013
K. Szychulski
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1620.
26660/13
SARBICKI v. Poland
08/04/2013
M. Sarbicki
1621.
26761/13
WISŁAWSKA v. Poland
15/04/2013
E. Wisławska
1622.
26770/13
NIZIO and Others v. Poland
12/04/2013
T. Janecki
W. Kozlowska
R. Kozlowski
R. Krawiec
L. Kukulski
A. Malarz
Z. Nizio
W. Piasecki
S. Ratajczak
W. Sołtysiak
D. Sucholewski
1623.
27746/13
ZIELONKA v. Poland
15/04/2013
Z. Zielonka
1624.
28667/13
TABISZ v. Poland
13/04/2013
M. Tabisz
1625.
28858/13
BRZDEK v. Poland
15/04/2013
W. Brzdek
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
1626.
29017/13
TURBIARZ v. Poland
15/04/2013
W. Turbiarz
1627.
29275/13
PAWLIK v. Poland
23/04/2013
S. Pawlik
1628.
29828/13
RYBAKOWSKA-SOBIESZEK v. Poland
03/04/2013
J. Rybakowska-Sobieszek
A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz
[1]. ; The IPN’s mission is described on its website as follows: “The Institute of National Remembrance was created to address issues which are considered essential to the legislative power in Poland, primarily to preserve the memory of: the losses which were suffered by the Polish Nation as a result of World War II and the post-war period; patriotic traditions of fighting against occupants, Nazism and Communism; citizens' efforts to fight for an independent Polish State, in defence of freedom and human dignity; and to fulfil: the duty to prosecute crimes against peace, humanity and war crimes; the need to compensate damage suffered by the repressed and harmed people at the times when human rights were violated by the State”.
[2]. The “basis of assessment of a pension” (podstawa wymiaru emerytury) is an income which constitutes a reference base for calculating pension contributions.
[3]. Pensions rights under the old scheme could also be acquired by persons born after this date but before 1 January 1969 if they opted for the old scheme and would fulfil conditions for being granted a pension by 31 December 2008.
[4]. For instance, in March 2012 the base amount was PLN 2,974.69.
[5]. See also note 9.
[6]. The English translation of the Constitution is based on the text available on the Constitutional Court’s website
[7]. Lower house of the Polish Parliament.
[8]. At the material time this amount was close to the minimum pension under the general social security scheme.
[9]. B. Zdziennicki, President; Judges S. Biernat; Z. Cieślak; M. Gintowt-Jankowicz; M. Granat; W. Hermeliński; A. Jamróz; M. Kotlinowski; T. Liszcz; E. Łętowska; M. Mazurkiewicz; J. Niemcewicz; A. Rzepliński, Rapporteur, and M. Wyrzykowski.
[10]. Judge T. Liszcz.
[11]. The translation of this part and further passages from the judgment is based on the text available on the Constitutional Court’s website , which was adapted by the Registry.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy