Published on 22 June 2026
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 23591/25
Paweł KOWALIK
against Poland
lodged on 21 July 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.
The applicant’s claim for compensation was examined at first instance by the Warsaw Regional Court on 4 July 2022. The applicant appealed.
At the appellate stage the applicant applied for the recusal of judge Sławomir Machnio who had been appointed to the case, challenging the legality of his appointment in the procedure involving the NCJ.
On 5 January 2024 the Warsaw Court of Appeal sitting as a single judge, Michał Lasota, appointed by the President in the same procedure involving the NCJ (resolution no. 535/2023 of 20 June 2023) dismissed his recusal request based primarily on the rulings of the Constitutional Court.
The applicant’s appeal against the judgment of 4 July 2022 was dismissed on 2 February 2024 by the Warsaw Court of Appeal sitting in a formation of three judges including Sławomir Machnio (NCJ resolution no. 183/2022 of 2 March 2022).
The applicant lodged a cassation appeal in which he raised the complaint that his case had not been examined by an independent and impartial “tribunal established by law.”
During the proceedings before the Supreme Court the applicant successfully obtained the recusal of judge Stanislaw Stankiewicz assigned to the case. It appears that subsequently another judge, Anna Dziergawka, was assigned to deal with the case whom the applicant did not challenge.
The applicant’s cassation appeal was dismissed as manifestly ill-founded by the Supreme Court on 27 March 2025 sitting in single judge formation of Anna Dziergawka (NCJ resolution no. 48/2023 of 20 January 2023).
Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains that his appeal and cassation appeal were not examined by an independent and impartial “tribunal established by law”. He also complains that there was no effective review of the appointments of judges because his allegations and applications for the recusal were examined by the Warsaw Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, both sitting in formations including judges appointed in the same procedure.
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 Warsaw Court of Appeal sitting in a formation including judge Sławomir Machnio who was appointed in the procedure established by the Law of 8 December 2017 Amending the Act on the National Council of the Judiciary.
In particular, was the allegation regarding the right to a “tribunal established by law” with respect to 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 application for the recusal of the judge had been examined on 5 January 2024 the Warsaw Court of Appeal and his cassation appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
2. Was the formation of the Supreme Court which dealt with the applicant’s cassation appeal on 27 March 2025 an independent and impartial “tribunal established by law” as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
3. Was the court which dealt with the applicant’s request for the recusal of the Court of Appeal’s judge on 5 January 2024 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.