Published on 3 October 2022
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 15626/17
Michał SZCZERBA
against Poland
lodged on 20 February 2017
communicated on 14 September 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant is a deputy to the Sejm (the lower house of Parliament) of the opposition party Civic Platform. During the session held from 13 to 16 December 2016 the Sejm examined, inter alia, the 2017 Budget Act.
On 14 December 2016 the Chancellery of the Sejm announced new rules restricting the work of journalists in the Sejm, which were criticised, among others, by the media and the opposition parties. Deputies of the opposition wished to discuss the new rules for journalists in the course of the session, but the Speaker of the Sejm did not permit that, considering that the relevant requests amounted to obstruction of the work of the Sejm. Certain deputies of the opposition placed a placard with the words “#Free Media in Sejm” on the rostrum, which was later removed by an employee of the Chancellery of the Sejm.
The next item on the agenda were amendments to the 2017 Budget Act. The Speaker decided that each deputy would have one minute to present his or her amendment. The applicant was the author of an amendment to the Budget Act concerning the construction of a concert hall for Sinfonia Varsovia and was invited to the rostrum by the Speaker. The applicant put back the placard on the rostrum. The Speaker informed the applicant that he had obstructed the session, called him to order under Article 175 § 3 of the Rules of Sejm and requested him to take down the placard, and the applicant did so. In reaction to that some of the opposition deputies started chanting “Free media!”.
The Speaker informed the applicant that the time for his statement had started to run, but the applicant replied that he could not hear him. The Speaker called the applicant to order for a second time and then stated, invoking Article 175 § 4 of the Rules of Sejm, that the applicant had been obstructing the conduct of the session. The applicant replied: “I cannot hear you, Mr Speaker. Dear Mr Speaker! Music has charms to soothe a savage breast. That’s why Warsaw is ...”. At this moment the Speaker switched off the microphone and stated that the applicant had been obstructing the session, invoking Article 175 § 4 of the Rules of Sejm. The applicant continued presenting his amendment. In reply, the Speaker stated that the applicant had continued obstructing the session and decided to exclude him from the session under Article 175 § 5 of the Rules of Sejm. The whole event lasted about one minute.
The applicant lodged an appeal against the Speaker’s decision on his exclusion to the Presidium of the Sejm. The Presidium of the Sejm decided on the appeal after having consulted the Committee on Rules. On 16 December 2016 the Committee on Rules heard the applicant, debated the matter and issued a negative opinion on his appeal. On the same day the Presidium of the Sejm upheld the Speaker’s decision.
The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that his right to freedom of expression was violated. He alleges that the Speaker took the decision to exclude him from the session without having followed the procedure laid down in §§ 2-4 of Article 175 of the Rules of Sejm. He further contends that the impugned decision was unjustified, disproportionate and arbitrary. The applicant also complains under Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 10 that he had no effective remedy to contest the Speaker’s decision on his exclusion.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention on account of his exclusion from the session of the Sejm?
2. If so, was that interference justified in terms of Article 10 § 2?
(a) In particular, was the impugned interference “prescribed by law”, having regard to the applicant’s argument that the Speaker did not follow the procedure laid down in Article 175 of the Rules of Sejm?
(b) Was that interference “necessary in a democratic society” in terms of Article 10 § 2 (cf. Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, 17 May 2016)?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 10, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?