PORĘBA v. POLAND

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 35463/21
Józef PORĘBA
against Poland

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 16 October 2025 as a Committee composed of:

 Frédéric Krenc, President,
 Davor Derenčinović,
 Alain Chablais, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 June 2021,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant’s and his representative’s details are set out in the appended table.

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of a violation of his right to a hearing by an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” since his case had been decided by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court composed of judges 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 Amending Act on the NCJ and certain other statutes of 8 December 2017. The complaint was communicated to the Polish Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

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

The Government acknowledged the violation of the right to an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant the sum indicated in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay the amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.

The applicant was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicant accepting the terms of the declaration.

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”.

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 case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established clear extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the right to a hearing by an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” protected by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, § 214). In respect of Poland, the deficiencies in the procedure for the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court, resulting in violations of the applicants’ right to a hearing by an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” protected by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, have been established in respect of various Chambers of the Supreme Court: the Disciplinary Chamber (see Reczkowicz v. Poland, no. 43447/19, 22 July 2021), the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs (see Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland, nos. 49868/19 and 57511/19, 8 November 2021) and formations of the Civil Chamber (see Advance Pharma sp. z o.o v. Poland, no. 1469/20, 3 February 2022). In its pilot judgment in the case of Wałęsa v. Poland (no. 50849/21, 23 November 2023), the Court listed several interrelated systemic problems which entailed repeated breaches of the fundamental principles of the rule of law, separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary.

The Court has already examined unilateral declarations submitted by the Government in similar cases against Poland and considers that its conclusions are directly applicable to the case under consideration (see Dudek and Lazur v. Poland (dec.), nos. 41097/20 and 39577/22, 8 October 2024).

The Court notes that the Government’s declaration in the present case contains, firstly, an unconditional acknowledgement of the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the right “to an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” Secondly, the Government undertake to pay the applicant the sum which is consistent with amounts awarded in similar cases.

Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

In the light of the above considerations, 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 application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

The Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may 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).

Finally, the applicant claimed 986 euros (EUR) in respect of costs and expenses incurred before 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 applicant the sum claimed in full.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the application out of the Court’s list of cases.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

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

Holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 986 (nine hundred and eighty-six euros) in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, 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.

Done in English and notified in writing on 13 November 2025.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Frédéric Krenc
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

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

[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant