Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 43447/19, 49868/19, 57511/19 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
RECZKOWICZ v. POLAND
Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)
- tagesschau.de (Pressebericht, 22.07.2021)
Streit um Justizreform: Polen verurteilt
- lto.de (Kurzinformation)
Umstrittenene Justizreform: Polen verstößt gegen EMRK
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
RECZKOWICZ v. POLAND and 2 other applications
Papierfundstellen
- NJW 2022, 1733
Wird zitiert von ... (15) Neu Zitiert selbst (12)
- EuGH, 24.06.2019 - C-619/18
Die polnischen Rechtsvorschriften über die Herabsetzung des Ruhestandsalters für …
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 43447/19
However, it is still necessary to ensure that the substantive conditions and detailed procedural rules governing the adoption of appointment decisions are such that they cannot give rise to reasonable doubts, in the minds of individuals, as to the imperviousness of the judges concerned to external factors and as to their neutrality with respect to the interests before them, once appointed as judges (see, by analogy, judgment of 24 June 2019, Commission v Poland (Independence of the Supreme Court), C-619/18, EU:C:2019:531, paragraph 111).The participation of such a body, in the context of a process for the appointment of judges, may, in principle, be such as to contribute to making that process more objective (see, by analogy, judgment of 24 June 2019, Commission v. Poland (Independence of the Supreme Court), C-619/18, EU:C:2019:531, paragraph 115; see also, to that effect, ECtHR, 18 October 2018, Thiam v. France, CE:ECHR:2018:1018JUD008001812, §§ 81 and 82).
However, that is only the case provided, inter alia, that that body is itself sufficiently independent of the legislature and executive and of the authority to which it is required to deliver such an appointment proposal (see, by analogy, judgment of 24 June 2019, Commission v Poland (Independence of the Supreme Court), C-619/18, EU:C:2019:531, paragraph 116).
It must be borne in mind, in that regard, that, in its judgment of 24 June 2019, Commission v. Poland (Independence of the Supreme Court) (C-619/18, EU:C:2019:531), the Court found that, as a result of adopting those measures, the Republic of Poland had undermined the irremovability and independence of the judges of the Sad Najwy?¼szy (Supreme Court) and failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU.
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 06.05.2021 - C-791/19
Generalanwalt Tanchev: Der Gerichtshof sollte urteilen, dass das polnische Gesetz …
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 43447/19
In particular, it had not opposed actions which did not comply with the legal implications resulting from the interim order of the CJEU of 8 April 2020 (C-791/19; see paragraph 169 below).In particular, it had not opposed the actions which did not comply with the legal implications resulting from the interim order of the CJEU of 8 April 2020 (C-791/19; see paragraph 169 below).
(i) Case C-791/19.
"The Republic of Poland is required, immediately and until the delivery of the judgment bringing to an end the proceedings in Case C-791/19,.
- EGMR, 18.10.2018 - 80018/12
THIAM c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 43447/19
As far as concerns the circumstances in which the members of the Disciplinary Chamber were appointed, the Court points out, as a preliminary remark, that the mere fact that those judges were appointed by the President of the Republic does not give rise to a relationship of subordination of the former to the latter or to doubts as to the former's impartiality, if, once appointed, they are free from influence or pressure when carrying out their role (see, to that effect, judgment of 31 January 2013, D. and A., C-175/11, EU:C:2013:45, paragraph 99, and ECtHR, 28 June 1984, Campbell and Fell v. United Kingdom, CE:ECHR:1984:0628JUD000781977, § 79; 2 June 2005, Zolotas v. Greece, CE:ECHR:2005:0602JUD003824002 §§ 24 and 25; 9 November 2006, Sacilor Lormines v. France, CE:ECHR:2006:1109JUD006541101, § 67; and 18 October 2018, Thiam v. France, CE:ECHR:2018:1018JUD008001812, § 80 and the case-law cited).The participation of such a body, in the context of a process for the appointment of judges, may, in principle, be such as to contribute to making that process more objective (see, by analogy, judgment of 24 June 2019, Commission v. Poland (Independence of the Supreme Court), C-619/18, EU:C:2019:531, paragraph 115; see also, to that effect, ECtHR, 18 October 2018, Thiam v. France, CE:ECHR:2018:1018JUD008001812, §§ 81 and 82).
Furthermore, in the light of the fact that, as is clear from the case file before the Court, the decisions of the President of the Republic appointing judges to the Sad Najwy?¼szy (Supreme Court) are not amenable to judicial review, it is for the referring court to ascertain whether the terms of the definition, in Article 44(1) and (1a) of the Law on the [NCJ], of the scope of the action which may be brought challenging a resolution of the [NCJ], including its decisions concerning proposals for appointment to the post of judge of that court, allows an effective judicial review to be conducted of such resolutions, covering, at the very least, an examination of whether there was no ultra vires or improper exercise of authority, error of law or manifest error of assessment (see, to that effect, ECtHR, 18 October 2018, Thiam v. France, CE:ECHR:2018:1018JUD008001812, §§ 25 and 81).
- EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77
CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 43447/19
As far as concerns the circumstances in which the members of the Disciplinary Chamber were appointed, the Court points out, as a preliminary remark, that the mere fact that those judges were appointed by the President of the Republic does not give rise to a relationship of subordination of the former to the latter or to doubts as to the former's impartiality, if, once appointed, they are free from influence or pressure when carrying out their role (see, to that effect, judgment of 31 January 2013, D. and A., C-175/11, EU:C:2013:45, paragraph 99, and ECtHR, 28 June 1984, Campbell and Fell v. United Kingdom, CE:ECHR:1984:0628JUD000781977, § 79; 2 June 2005, Zolotas v. Greece, CE:ECHR:2005:0602JUD003824002 §§ 24 and 25; 9 November 2006, Sacilor Lormines v. France, CE:ECHR:2006:1109JUD006541101, § 67; and 18 October 2018, Thiam v. France, CE:ECHR:2018:1018JUD008001812, § 80 and the case-law cited). - EuGH, 26.03.2020 - C-542/18
Réexamen Simpson/ Rat - Überprüfung der Urteile des Gerichts der Europäischen …
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 43447/19
It will ultimately be for the referring court to assess this point on the basis of all the relevant elements, but to my mind the irregularity committed during the appointment of the judge of the CECPA (22) in question (judge A.S.) stems a fortiori from the fact that he was appointed within the Supreme Court and within that chamber despite the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court ordering that the execution of [NCJ] resolution No 331/2018 be stayed.§ 65. Therefore, I agree with the referring court and also W.?"., the [Polish Commissioner for Human Rights] and the Commission that the deliberate and intentional infringement by the executive branch of a judicial decision, in particular a decision of the Supreme Administrative Court ordering interim measures (that is, the order of 27 September 2018) - manifestly with the aim of ensuring that the government has an influence on judicial appointments - demonstrates a lack of respect for the principle of the rule of law and constitutes per se an infringement by the executive branch of "fundamental rules forming an integral part of the establishment and functioning of that judicial system" within the meaning of paragraph 75 of judgment of 26 March 2020, Review Simpson and HG v Council and Commission (C-542/18 RX-II and C-543/18 RX-II, EU:C:2020:232) ("the judgment in Simpson and HG"). - EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 65411/01
SACILOR LORMINES c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 43447/19
As far as concerns the circumstances in which the members of the Disciplinary Chamber were appointed, the Court points out, as a preliminary remark, that the mere fact that those judges were appointed by the President of the Republic does not give rise to a relationship of subordination of the former to the latter or to doubts as to the former's impartiality, if, once appointed, they are free from influence or pressure when carrying out their role (see, to that effect, judgment of 31 January 2013, D. and A., C-175/11, EU:C:2013:45, paragraph 99, and ECtHR, 28 June 1984, Campbell and Fell v. United Kingdom, CE:ECHR:1984:0628JUD000781977, § 79; 2 June 2005, Zolotas v. Greece, CE:ECHR:2005:0602JUD003824002 §§ 24 and 25; 9 November 2006, Sacilor Lormines v. France, CE:ECHR:2006:1109JUD006541101, § 67; and 18 October 2018, Thiam v. France, CE:ECHR:2018:1018JUD008001812, § 80 and the case-law cited). - EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 58812/15
POLYAKH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 38240/02
ZOLOTAS c. GRECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 43447/19
As far as concerns the circumstances in which the members of the Disciplinary Chamber were appointed, the Court points out, as a preliminary remark, that the mere fact that those judges were appointed by the President of the Republic does not give rise to a relationship of subordination of the former to the latter or to doubts as to the former's impartiality, if, once appointed, they are free from influence or pressure when carrying out their role (see, to that effect, judgment of 31 January 2013, D. and A., C-175/11, EU:C:2013:45, paragraph 99, and ECtHR, 28 June 1984, Campbell and Fell v. United Kingdom, CE:ECHR:1984:0628JUD000781977, § 79; 2 June 2005, Zolotas v. Greece, CE:ECHR:2005:0602JUD003824002 §§ 24 and 25; 9 November 2006, Sacilor Lormines v. France, CE:ECHR:2006:1109JUD006541101, § 67; and 18 October 2018, Thiam v. France, CE:ECHR:2018:1018JUD008001812, § 80 and the case-law cited). - EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 60553/00
MALEK v. AUSTRIA
- EuGH, 19.11.2019 - C-585/18
Das vorlegende Gericht hat zu prüfen, ob die neue Disziplinarkammer des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 43447/19
- to refrain from transferring cases pending before the [Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court] to a judicial formation that does not meet the requirements of independence defined, inter alia, in the judgment of 19 November 2019, A. K. and others (Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court) (C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, EU:C:2019:982); and. - EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08
Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …
- EuGH, 31.01.2013 - C-175/11
D. und A. - Vorabentscheidungsersuchen - Gemeinsames europäisches Asylsystem - …
- EuGH, 05.06.2023 - C-204/21
Rechtsstaatlichkeit: Die polnische Justizreform von Dezember 2019 verstößt gegen …
Zudem habe der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte in seinem Urteil vom 22. Juli 2021, Reczkowicz/Polen (CE:ECHR:2021:0722JUD004344719), festgestellt, dass die Disziplinarkammer kein auf Gesetz beruhendes Gericht im Sinne von Art. 6 EMRK sei. - EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 43572/18
GRZEDA v. POLAND
Tout lecteur qui connaît un tant soit peu la jurisprudence de la Cour constatera que l'arrêt rendu en l'espèce repose largement sur ce qui a déjà été dit dans plusieurs arrêts de chambre récents (Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. c. Pologne, no 4907/18, 7 mai 2021, Broda et Bojara c. Pologne, nos 26691/18 et 27367/18, 29 juin 2021, Reczkowicz c. Pologne, no 43447/19, 22 juillet 2021, Dolinska-Ficek et Ozimek c. Pologne, nos 49868/19 et 57511/19, 8 novembre 2021 ; voir aussi Advance Pharma sp.Des questions juridiques bien plus importantes relatives à la réforme du système judiciaire polonais ont déjà été tranchées dans plusieurs arrêts de chambre (Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. c. Pologne, no 4907/18, 7 mai 2021 ; Reczkowicz c. Pologne, no 43447/19, 22 juillet 2021 ; Dolinska-Ficek et Ozimek c. Pologne, nos49868/19 et 57511/19, 8 novembre 2021, et Advance Pharma sp.
Pareils motifs ne sauraient passer pour suffisants (voir, en ce sens, Reczkowicz c. Pologne, no 43447/19, § 238, 22 juillet 2021).
- EuGH, 22.02.2022 - C-562/21
Ablehnung der Vollstreckung eines Europäischen Haftbefehls: der Gerichtshof …
Es bezieht sich insoweit auf die in dieser Rechtsprechung aufgestellten Kriterien für die Beurteilung, ob die festgestellten Unregelmäßigkeiten bei der Ernennung von Richtern eine Verletzung des Rechts auf ein auf Gesetz beruhendes Gericht im Sinne von Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK darstellen (EGMR, 1. Dezember 2020, Ástráðsson/Island, CE:ECHR:2020:1201JUD002637418, §§ 243 bis 252, und EGMR, 22. Juli 2021, Reczkowicz/Polen CE:ECHR:2021:0722JUD004344719, §§ 221 bis 224).Im Rahmen dieser Würdigung kann die vollstreckende Justizbehörde auch die Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte berücksichtigen, in der ein Verstoß gegen das Erfordernis eines auf Gesetz beruhenden Gerichts im Hinblick auf das Verfahren zur Ernennung der Richter festgestellt wurde (vgl. u. a. EGMR, 22. Juli 2021, Reczkowicz/Polen, CE:ECHR:2021:0722JUD004344719).
- EuGH, 29.03.2022 - C-132/20
Die bloße Tatsache, dass ein Richter zu einem Zeitpunkt ernannt wurde, zu dem der …
Diese Feststellung ist vom Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte bestätigt worden, der entschieden hat, dass das Verfahren zur Ernennung der Mitglieder der Izba Dyscyplinarna (Disziplinarkammer) des Sad Najwy?¼szy (Oberstes Gericht) auf Vorschlag der KRS, die auf der Grundlage der Rechtsvorschriften gebildet wurde, um die es in den Rechtssachen ging, die zu den in der vorstehenden Randnummer angeführten Urteilen geführt haben, von der Legislative und der Exekutive ungebührlich beeinflusst wurde, was als solches mit Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK unvereinbar ist (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 22. Juli 2021, Reczkowicz/Polen, CE:ECHR:2021:0722JUD004344719, § 276). - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.04.2024 - C-647/21
D. K. (Dessaisissement d'un juge) - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - …
10 Urteil vom 22. Juli 2021, CE:ECHR:2021:0722JUD004344719. - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 15.12.2022 - C-204/21
Generalanwalt Collins: Das polnische Gesetz zur Änderung der Vorschriften über …
Vgl. auch EGMR, Urteil vom 22. Juli 2021, Reczkowicz/Polen (CE:ECHR:2021:0722JUD004344719, § 276), wonach das Verfahren zur Ernennung der Richter der Disziplinarkammer wegen der Beteiligung der KRS zwangsläufig fehlerhaft war.155 Urteil vom 22. Juli 2021, Reczkowicz/Polen (CE:ECHR:2021:0722JUD004344719).
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 02.03.2023 - C-718/21
Generalanwalt Rantos bezweifelt, dass das Verfahren, mit dem die KRS ihre …
Vgl. in diesem Sinne auch EGMR, 22. Juli 2021, Reczkowicz/Polen (CE:ECHR:2021:0722JUD004344719, §§ 274 und 276).Der genannte Beschluss ist auch im Urteil des EGMR vom 22. Juli 2021, Reczkowicz/Polen (CE:ECHR:2021:0722JUD004344719, §§ 89 bis 106), weitgehend berücksichtigt worden.
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 18.04.2024 - C-119/23
Valancius
63 Voir, notamment, arrêts de la Cour EDH du 1 er décembre 2020, Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson c. Islande (CE:ECHR:2020:1201JUD002637418, § 243 à 252), et du 22 juillet 2021, Reczkowicz c. Pologne (CE:ECHR:2021:0722JUD004344719, § 221 à 224). - EGMR, 25.04.2024 - 20075/21
CARRETO RIBEIRO v. PORTUGAL
Article 6 § 1 is therefore applicable under its civil head to the disciplinary proceedings at issue (see Ferreira Alves v. Portugal, no. 78165/12, §§ 13-16, 18 February 2014, and Reczkowicz v. Poland, no. 43447/19, §§ 183-185, 22 July 2021). - EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 1469/20
ADVANCE PHARMA SP. Z O.O v. POLAND
Firstly, as in the case of Reczkowicz v. Poland (no. 43447/19, 22 July 2021), it is still not clear which specific legal rules pertaining to the composition of the NCJ have been breached (compare my concurring opinion in Reczkowicz, ibid.). - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 16.12.2021 - C-562/21
DFON
- EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 40119/21
M.L. v. POLAND
- EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20
JUSZCZYSZYN v. POLAND
- EGMR - 2203/23 (anhängig)
GRZEGORCZYK v. POLAND
- EGMR - 3423/22 (anhängig)
ZIELI?ƒSKI v. POLAND and 7 other applications