Published on 22 June 2026
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 25348/25
Grzegorz ROŻAŃSKI
against Poland
lodged on 1 August 2025
communicated on 3 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns a ruling by an ordinary court in the applicant’s criminal 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 10 March 2022 the Warsaw Regional Court convicted the applicant of homicide. It sat in composition including judge Agnieszka Brygidyr–Dorosz (NCJ resolution no. 782/2019 of 26 July 2019). The applicant appealed.
On 9 November 2023 the Warsaw Court of Appeal upheld the appeal. One member of the panel, judge Dorota Tyrała, submitted a dissenting opinion in which she concluded that the first instance court had not been properly constituted in violation of the domestic law and that defect constituted an absolute ground of appeal which had to be examined by the court ex officio (Article 439 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The applicant lodged a cassation appeal in which he raised the complaint about the composition of the first-instance court.
On 4 June 2025 the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal. It sat in a single judge formation of judge Adam Roch, who was appointed by the President on the recommendation of the recomposed NCJ (resolution no. 317/2018 of 23 August 2018).
Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains that his case at the first instance and cassation stages were not examined by an independent and impartial “tribunal established by law”. He also complains that there has not been an effective review of the appointments of judges as the Warsaw Court of Appeal had not quashed the first-instance judgment ex officio, and his cassation appeal had been examined by a judge appointed in the same procedure.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the first-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 case was examined at the Warsaw Regional Court sitting in a formation including judge Agnieszka Brygidyr–Dorosz who was appointed in the procedure established by the 2017 Amending Act and whose procedure for appointment was examined by the Supreme Court, inter alia, on 5 March 2024 (II KK 35/23) and 10 April 2024 (II KO 13/24).
In particular, was the allegation regarding the right to a “tribunal established by law” with respect to first-instance court effectively reviewed and remedied by the Warsaw Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court 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)?
2. Was the formation of the Supreme Court which dealt with the applicant’s cassation appeal on 4 June 2025 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 judgments 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.