Published on 22 June 2026
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 37817/25
Tomasz DUBROWSKI
against Poland
lodged on 20 November 2025
communicated on 3 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns a ruling by an ordinary court in the applicant’s civil case sitting in a formation including a judge appointed to that court by the President of Poland pursuant to the recommendation of the National Council of the Judiciary (Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa, “the NCJ”), as established under the Act of 8 December 2017 Amending the Act on the NCJ and Certain Other Acts (ustawa o zmianie ustawy o Krajowej Radzie Sądownictwa oraz niektórych innych ustaw; “the 2017 Amending Act”). At the domestic level the applicant raised an allegation regarding the right to a “tribunal established by law” but it was examined by a court comprising a judge appointed in the same procedure involving the recomposed NCJ.
On 16 March 2023 the Katowice Regional Court ruled, at first instance, on the applicant’s civil claims for a pension and compensation. The applicant appealed.
At the appellate stage before the Katowice Court of Appeal the applicant applied for the recusal of two judges who had been assigned to hear his case, (i) Małgorzata Andrzejewska (appointed on the basis of the NCJ resolution no. 522/2020 of 8 July 2020) and (ii) Patrycja Bogacińska-Piątek (NCJ resolution no. 362/2021, 13 April 2021), challenging their appointment in the procedure involving the recomposed NCJ.
Concerning the first judge challenged by the applicant, on 18 September 2023 the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs (“the CERPA”) of the Supreme Court sitting as a single judge, Aleksander Stępkowski (NCJ resolution no. 331/2018 of 28 August 2018), dismissed the applicant’s request for the recusal of judge Małgorzata Andrzejewska of the Katowice Court of Appeal. The CERPA considered that the applicant failed to provide sufficient justification that the concerned judge lacked independence or impartiality and relied on the judgments of the Constitutional Court.
Concerning the second judge challenged by the applicant, on 6 February 2024 the CERPA, sitting as a single judge, Paweł Księżak (NCJ resolution no. 331/2018 of 28 August 2018), decided that the request for the recusal of judge Patrycja Bogacińska-Piątek be examined by the Katowice Court of Appeal. The CERPA considered that in order to implement the Court of Justice of the European Union’s judgment of 5 June 2023 (case C-204/21) the recusal request should be transferred to another court (than the CERPA) and the domestic provisions that give the CERPA sole competence to examine it should be disapplied.
Afterwards, on 23 May 2024, the Katowice Court of Appeal sitting as a single judge, Grzegorz Tyrka (NCJ resolution no. 126/2022 of 16 February 2022) dismissed the request for the recusal of judge Patrycja Bogacińska-Piątek.
The applicant’s appeal against the first-instance judgment of 16 March 2023 was dismissed by the Katowice Court of Appeal on 29 May 2025 in a composition including both judges challenged by the applicant, that is Małgorzata Andrzejewska and Patrycja Bogacińska-Piątek. This judgment was notified to the applicant on 22 July 2025.
On 14 August 2025 the applicant’s court-appointed lawyer submitted an opinion that a cassation appeal lacked any prospect of success and refused to prepare it on the applicant’s behalf.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains that his appeal was not examined by an independent and impartial “tribunal established by law” and that his requests for the recusal of judges of the Katowice Court of Appeal were examined by a Court of Appeal judge appointed in the same procedure and by the CERPA of the Supreme Court which may not be considered an independent and impartial “tribunal established by law”.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the second-instance court which dealt with the applicant’s case an independent and impartial “tribunal established by law” as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Reference is made to the fact that the applicant’s appeal was examined by the Katowice Court of Appeal sitting in a formation including judges (i) Małgorzata Andrzejewska and (ii) Patrycja Bogacińska-Piątek who were appointed in the procedure established by the 2017 Amending Act.
In particular, was the allegation regarding the right to a “tribunal established by law” with respect to the second-instance court effectively reviewed and remedied by the domestic courts as required by the third step of the Ástráðsson test (see Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, §§ 273-286, 1 December 2020)? Reference is made to the fact that his applications for the recusal of the concerned judges had been examined, respectively, (i) on 18 September 2023 by the CERPA (see Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland, nos. 49868/19 and 57511/19, 8 November 2021), and (ii) on 23 May 2024 by the Katowice Court of Appeal.
2. Was the CERPA of the Supreme Court which dealt on 18 September 2023 with the applicant’s first request for the recusal of an appellate court judge an independent and impartial “tribunal established by law” as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
3. Was the Katowice Court of Appeal’s formation which dealt on 23 May 2024 with the second request for the recusal an independent and impartial “tribunal established by law”, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
In their replies to the above questions, the parties are asked to refer to the Court’s judgment in Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, §§ 205-290, 1 December 2020; Wałęsa v. Poland, no. 50849/21, 23 November 2023; and Advance Pharma sp. z o.o v. Poland, no. 1469/20, 3 February 2022.