GRUSZCZYŃSKI-RĘGOWSKI AND OTHERS v. POLAND

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 5059/22
Bartlomiej GRUSZCZYŃSKI-RĘGOWSKI and

Franciszek GRUSZCZYŃSKI-RĘGOWSKI against Poland
and 9 other applications

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 7 May 2025 as a Committee composed of:

 Georgios A. Serghides, President,
 Frédéric Krenc,
 Alain Chablais, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1.  The list of the applicants and their representatives is set out in the appended table.

2.  The applicants, who are in same-sex couples, complained that their marriages, contracted abroad, had not been registered in Poland while there had been no other form of legal recognition and protection for their respective relationships. Their complaints under Article 8 on its own and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention about the absence of any form of legal recognition and protection for same-sex couples in Poland were communicated to the Polish Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

3.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

4.  The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

5.  The declarations provided as follows:

“4.  The Government hereby wish to express – by way of a unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the violation of Article 8 of the Convention in the present case. They also state that the above acknowledgment of violation covers all the applicant’s allegations, given the Court’s case law (see, Przybyszewska and Others, nos. 11454/17 and 9 others, §§ 125-126, where the Court stated that it was not necessary to examine separately whether, in this case, there has also been a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8).

5. Simultaneously, as far as just satisfaction is concerned, I should like to make reference to the Court’s judgment of 12 December 2023, issued in the case Przybyszewska and Others v. Poland (application no. 11454/17 and 9 others), currently being in the process of implementation in the domestic legal system, as well as the judgment of 19 September 2024, issued in the case Formela and Others v. Poland (application no. 58828/12 and 4 others), and the judgment of 27 February 2025, issued in the case Szypuła and Others v. Poland (applications nos. 78030/14 and 23669/16) whereby the Court held that finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.

6. In this regard, in the light of the Court’s case-law referred to above, the Government consider with reference to the circumstances of the present case, that finding of a violation should be regarded as sufficient just satisfaction for any pecuniary or non‑pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.”

6.  The Government informed the Court about progress in implementation of the judgments against Poland.

“7. In view of the above the Government should like to draw the Court’s attention to the fact that, following the judgment of the Court issued in the case Przybyszewska and Others v. Poland, relevant legislative effort in respect of the subject matter of the case in question was undertaken. In this regard the Government wish to emphasise their full commitment to implementing the Court’s judgment in the case Przybyszewska and Others v. Poland through introduction into the Polish legal system of the institution of civil partnership (związek partnerski).

8. In this respect, the Minister for Equality, which is a position created for the first time in the Polish Government and equipped with universal mandate covering prevention and combating of all forms of discrimination, bias and hatred, prepared a draft Act on Registered Partnerships (ustawa o rejestrowanych związkach partnerskich) and a draft Act introducing the Act on Registered Partnerships (ustawa wprowadzająca ustawę o rejestrowanych związkach partnerskich). On 8 July 2024 the drafts were included in the list of legislative activities of the Council of Ministers and registered under the numbers UD87 and UD88.

9. The draft Act on Registered Partnerships introduces into the Polish legal system the institution of a civil partnership (związek partnerski), available to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The draft Act introducing the Act on Registered Partnerships contains, in turn, provisions amending other laws with the purpose of allowing persons in such partnerships to access the rights referred to, among others, in the Przybyszewska and Others judgment.

10. In particular, taking into account the standard of protection outlined in the judgment at hand, the draft Act on Registered Partnerships specifies the rights and obligations of persons entering into civil partnerships, such as the obligation to mutual respect, loyalty, assistance and cooperation for the common good. The draft Act allows persons in registered partnerships to establish a communal assets regime (wspólność majątkowa), while the draft introductory Act ensures equal tax position of a person in a civil partnership who has concluded partners’ communal assets agreement (umowa majątkowej wspólności partnerskiej) with that of a married person in a communal assets regime. In addition, persons in the registered partnerships will be covered by the regulations allowing for exemption from inheritance tax, donation tax and civil law activities tax. The draft Act on Registered Partnerships provides also for an obligation to pay maintenance (obowiązek alimentacyjny) after the termination of a civil partnership. Consequently, persons whose civil partnership has ended will be obliged to provide mutual maintenance during a period of one year since the termination of a partnership, if one of them is in need. Finally, the draft introductory Act amends relevant provisions of the Civil Code in order to explicitly include in the provisions referring to inheritance a person who lives in a registered partnership with the testator, on the same terms as his or her spouse.

11. With regard to the agenda of legislative activities on the above-mentioned draft Acts, the Government underline that they were published and submitted for drafting arrangements, incl. public consultations in October 2024. The drafting arrangements process is pending.”

7.  The applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declarations.

8.  The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:

“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

9.  Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).

10.  The Court has established clear and extensive case-law, including in cases brought against Poland, concerning complaints relating to the violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life due to lack of a specific legal framework providing for the recognition and protection of their same-sex unions (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia ([GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, § 225, 17 January 2023 and Przybyszewska and Others v. Poland, nos. 11454/17 and 9 others, § 123, 12 December 2023). In another judgment against Poland, the Court made the same finding in the circumstances identical to the present case, where the applicants had been denied legal protection and recognition even though a valid marriage had been contracted abroad (see Formela and Others v. Poland [Committee], nos. 58828/12 and 4 others, § 25, 19 September 2024, and also, for similar reasoning, Koilova and Babulkova v. Bulgaria, no. 40209/20, § 41, 5 September 2023).

11.  The Court notes the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration with refence to its case-law (see paragraph 5 above). It further takes note of the developments in the legislative process that has been initiated (see paragraph 6 above). The execution of the judgments in cases Przybyszewska and Others and Formela and Others (both cited above), which concerned identical issues, is currently under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers and that necessary general measures are being taken in that context. The Court considers that the Committee of Ministers is better placed and equipped than the Court to monitor the measures that need to be adopted by the respondent State (see, mutatis mutandis, Rutkowski and Others v. Poland, nos. 72287/10 and 2 others, § 207, 7 July 2015 and Canword v. the Netherlands (dec.) [Committee], no. 21464/15, 15 November 2022).

12.  The absence from the unilateral declaration of a grant of compensation for non-pecuniary damage does not, in the view of the Court, render the declaration unacceptable (see Friðjón Björgvin Gunnarsson v. Iceland (dec.), no. 48281/18, 10 May 2022 and Canword, cited above, § 16). The Court has itself consistently declined to make an award under that heading in cases concerning the same issue (see Fedotova and Others, cited above, § 235 and Przybyszewska and Others, cited above, § 126).

13.  In the light of the above considerations, in particular in the context of the relevant developments (paragraphs 5 and 6 above) and given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications in the part covered by the unilateral declaration (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

14.  Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the applications could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

15.  In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the application out of the list of cases in so far as it relates to the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention.

16.  Relying on Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8, the applicants also complained that the fact that they were unable to secure legal recognition of their relationships amounted to discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

17.  Having regard to the facts of the case, the Government’s unilateral declaration and the Court’s decision to strike out the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately this complaint (see Przybyszewska and Others, cited above, § 126).

18.  Finally, the applicants Emila Barabasz and Agata Kowalska (application no. 26734/23) claimed jointly 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of costs and expenses incurred both before the domestic courts and the Court. Pursuant to Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court, when an application has been struck out in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention, the costs shall be at the discretion of the Court. The general principles governing reimbursement of costs under Rule 43 § 4 are essentially the same as under Article 41 of the Convention (see, for example, Union of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v. Georgia (dec.), no. 72874/01, 21 April 2015; Pastukhov v. Poland (dec.) [Committee], no. 34508/17, §§ 22‑27, 4  February 2020; and A.E v. Poland (dec.) [Committee], no. 26129/19, 17 January 2023). In the present case, regard being had to the above criteria and the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants the sum claimed in full.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations relating to the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike that part of the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

Holds that the respondent State is to pay jointly Emila Barabasz and Agata Kowalska (application no. 26734/23), within three months, EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be converted into Polish zlotys at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

Holds that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

Decides that it is not necessary to examine the remainder of the applications.

Done in English and notified in writing on 28 May 2025.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Georgios A. Serghides
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants