Żurek v. Poland (communicated case)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 240

May 2019

Żurek v. Poland (communicated case) - 39650/18

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Access to court

Inability of a member of the National Council of the Judiciary to challenge premature termination of mandate: communicated

Article 10

Article 10-1

Freedom of expression

Premature termination of mandate of a member of the National Council of the Judiciary, following public criticism of the Government-led reform of the judiciary: communicated

The applicant is a judge. He was also a member of the National Council of the Judiciary (“the NCJ”).

In 2014, after being re-elected for a second four-year term of office, he was appointed the NCJ’s spokesperson, and, as such, became one of the main critics of the changes to the judiciary initiated by the legislative and executive branches of the new Government that had come to power in 2015. He pointed in particular to the threat to judicial independence stemming from the Government’s proposals.

In 2018 his mandate as a member of the NCJ, as that of the other judicial members, was prematurely ended, following the entry into force of new legislation in the context of wide-scale reform of the judiciary.

In particular, the Act Amending the Act on the NCJ of 2017 provided that judicial members of the NCJ would no longer be elected by judges but by the Sejm (the lower house of the Parliament), and that the newly elected members would immediately replace those elected under the previous legislation. Thus, when the Sejm elected fifteen judges as new members of the NCJ on 6 March 2018, the applicant’s mandate was terminated. He did not receive any official notification. In consequence, he also ceased to act as the NCJ’s spokesperson.

The bill amending the legislation on the NCJ was criticised at national and international level. Several national bodies issued opinions stating that the amendments violated the Constitution because they allowed the legislature to gain control over the NCJ, contrary to the principle of the separation of powers.

The applicant alleges that he had no access to a court or any other remedy to contest the premature termination of his mandate; and that his dismissal as spokesperson for the NCJ, combined with other punitive measures, entailed a breach of his right to freedom of expression.

Communicated under Articles 6 § 1, 10 and 13 of the Convention.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy