Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JUSZCZYSZYN v. POLAND

  Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  JUSZCZYSZYN v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 18, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (34)

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 06.05.2021 - C-791/19

  Generalanwalt Tanchev: Der Gerichtshof sollte urteilen, dass das polnische Gesetz …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20

  It noted that the disciplinary case against the applicant had been registered on 4 April 2022 (no. I DSK 16/22) and that the delay in registration was related to the CJEU's interim decision of 8 April 2020 (C-791/19 R).

  Judgment of 15 July 2021 in Commission v. Poland (Disciplinary regime for judges), C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596 123. The Commission brought proceedings against Poland for failing to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and the second and third paragraphs of Article 267 TFEU on account of national measures establishing the new disciplinary regime for the judges of the Supreme Court and the ordinary courts instituted by legislation adopted in 2017.

  The Republic of Poland is required, immediately and pending delivery of the judgment closing the proceedings in Case C-791/19,.

  Referring to the CJEU's judgment of 15 July 2021 (C-791/19, see paragraph 126 above), the applicant further submitted that the irregularities concerning the establishment and functioning of the Disciplinary Chamber were so serious that this body could not be even considered a "court" within the meaning of EU law.

  The interveners submitted that the instant case concerned the applicant's suspension from his official duties by a body that had since been suspended twice by the CJEU and whose lack of independence had also been definitively established as a matter of EU law in the CJEU's judgment of 15 July 2021 in C-791/19.

  The interveners further referred to the order of 14 July 2021 in case C-204/21 R, suspending the Disciplinary Chamber and the CJEU's judgment of 15 July 2021 in case C-791/19.

  The Court further notes that the CJEU's judgment of 15 July 2021 in Commission v. Poland (Disciplinary regime for judges) (C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596) held that Poland had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19(1) TEU by, in particular, "failing to guarantee the independence and impartiality of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court" (see paragraph 126 above).

  The Court also refers to important findings made by the CJEU in its judgment of 15 July 2021 in Commission v. Poland (Disciplinary regime for judges) (C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596), in which it held that Poland had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19(1) TEU by, inter alia, "allowing the content of judicial decisions to be classified as a disciplinary offence involving judges of the ordinary courts, referring to section 107(1) of the 2001 Act" (see paragraphs 126 and 128 above).

  As already mentioned, the CJEU in its judgment of 15 July 2021 (C-791/19; see paragraph 128 above) had also noted that the Disciplinary Chamber's resolution issued in the applicant's case confirmed "[t]he existence of a risk that the disciplinary regime [would] in fact be used in order to influence judicial decisions" (see paragraph 149 of that judgment).

  The Court would again refer to the CJEU's judgment of 15 July 2021 in Commission v. Poland (Disciplinary regime for judges) (C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596; see paragraph 128 above).

• EuGH, 15.07.2021 - C-791/19

  Kommission/ Polen (Régime disciplinaire des juges) - Vertragsverletzung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20

  Judgment of 15 July 2021 in Commission v. Poland (Disciplinary regime for judges), C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596 123. The Commission brought proceedings against Poland for failing to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and the second and third paragraphs of Article 267 TFEU on account of national measures establishing the new disciplinary regime for the judges of the Supreme Court and the ordinary courts instituted by legislation adopted in 2017.

  The Court further notes that the CJEU's judgment of 15 July 2021 in Commission v. Poland (Disciplinary regime for judges) (C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596) held that Poland had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19(1) TEU by, in particular, "failing to guarantee the independence and impartiality of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court" (see paragraph 126 above).

  The Court also refers to important findings made by the CJEU in its judgment of 15 July 2021 in Commission v. Poland (Disciplinary regime for judges) (C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596), in which it held that Poland had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19(1) TEU by, inter alia, "allowing the content of judicial decisions to be classified as a disciplinary offence involving judges of the ordinary courts, referring to section 107(1) of the 2001 Act" (see paragraphs 126 and 128 above).

  The Court would again refer to the CJEU's judgment of 15 July 2021 in Commission v. Poland (Disciplinary regime for judges) (C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596; see paragraph 128 above).

• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 43572/18

  GRZEDA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20

  Background and context of the case 5. The broader domestic background to the present case was set out in the Court's judgments in Reczkowicz (no. 43447/19, §§ 4-53, 22 July 2021) and Grzeda ([GC], no. 43572/18, §§ 14-28, 15 March 2022).

  z o.o. v. Poland (no. 1469/20, §§ 95-109, 3 February 2022) and Grzeda v. Poland ([GC], no. 43572/18, §§ 64-76, 15 March 2022).

  z o.o. v. Poland (no. 1469/20, §§ 110-169, 3 February 2022) and Grzeda v. Poland ([GC], no. 43572/18, §§ 77-119, 15 March 2022).

 
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Baden, 28.07.2020 - 2/20

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20

  A similar intention of the authorities can be discerned from the Constitutional Court's judgment of 20 April 2020 (no. U 2/20), which excluded the possibility that the courts could review a judge's right to adjudicate solely on the basis of the fact of his or her appointment by the President of the Republic on a motion of the recomposed NCJ (see Reczkowicz, cited above, §§ 116 and 261).

  [3] Judgments of 4 March 2020, no. P 22/19; 20 April 2020, no. U 2/20; and 2 June 2020, no. P 13/19 (cited in paragraph 102 above).

• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 40072/13

  MIROSLAVA TODOROVA c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20

  From the point of view of Article 18 of the Convention, the Court will thus examine whether the decision to suspend the applicant also pursued an ulterior purpose, and, if that is the case, whether that ulterior purpose was the predominant purpose of the restriction of the applicant's right to respect for his private life (see Merabishvili, cited above, § 318, and Miroslava Todorova v. Bulgaria, no. 40072/13, § 204, 19 October 2021).

  45434/12 and 2 others, 27 November 2018, and the judgments in the cases of Miroslava Todorova v. Bulgaria, no. 40072/13, 19 October 2021, and Camelia Bogdan v. Romania, no. 36889/18, 20 October 2020; compare also, outside the judicial context, Balliktas Bingöllü v. Turkey, no. 76730/12, 22 June 2021, and Grazulevici?«te v. Lithuania, no. 53176/17, 14 December 2021).

• EuGH, 19.11.2019 - C-585/18

  Das vorlegende Gericht hat zu prüfen, ob die neue Disziplinarkammer des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20

  Case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union Judgment of 19 November 2019 in 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:2019:982 120. Between August and October 2018 the Labour and Social Security Chamber of the Supreme Court made three requests to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling in cases pending before that court which arose in connection with the lowering of the retirement age for judges of the Supreme Court in the new Act on the Supreme Court adopted in December 2017.

  - to refrain from referring the cases pending before the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court before a panel 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, 08.11.2021 - 49868/19

  DOLINSKA-FICEK AND OZIMEK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20

  Domestic law and practice Domestic law Domestic law already summarised 83. The relevant provisions of the domestic law concerning the functioning of the judiciary and the NCJ were summarised in the Court's previous judgments in Reczkowicz v. Poland (cited above, §§ 59-70), Dolinska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland (nos. 49868/19 and 57511/19, §§ 82-96, 8 November 2021), Advance Pharma sp.

  Domestic practice Domestic practice already summarised 95. The relevant domestic practice was summarised in the Court's previous judgments in Reczkowicz v. Poland (cited above, §§ 71-125), Dolinska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland (nos. 49868/19 and 57511/19, §§ 97-155, 8 November 2021), Advance Pharma sp.

• EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 1469/20

  ADVANCE PHARMA SP. Z O.O v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20

  z o.o. v. Poland (no. 1469/20, §§ 95-109, 3 February 2022) and Grzeda v. Poland ([GC], no. 43572/18, §§ 64-76, 15 March 2022).

  z o.o. v. Poland (no. 1469/20, §§ 110-169, 3 February 2022) and Grzeda v. Poland ([GC], no. 43572/18, §§ 77-119, 15 March 2022).

• EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 58812/15

  POLYAKH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20

  58812/15 and 4 others, 17 October 2019; and Gumenyuk and Others v. Ukraine, no. 11423/19, 22 July 2021; compare also, outside the judicial context, Namazov v. Azerbaijan, no. 74354/13, 30 January 2020, and Bagirov v. Azerbaijan, nos.
• EGMR, 16.12.2003 - 35943/02

  TRANSADO-TRANSPORTES FLUVIAIS DO SADO, S.A., c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20

  After all, parties to civil proceedings may prefer to waive their rights in this respect and decide to submit their case to a body which does not fulfill all the criteria of Article 6 (see, for instance, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 49, Series A no. 35; Pastore v. Italy (dec.), no. 46483/99, 25 May 1999; and Transado - Transportes Fluviais Do Sado, S.A. v. Portugal (dec.), no. 35943/02, 16 December 2003).
• EGMR, 25.05.1999 - 46483/99

  PASTORE v. ITALY
• EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 76730/12

  BALLIKTAS BINGÖLLÜ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 15227/19

  XHOXHAJ v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 40378/10

  FAZIA ALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 45434/12

  J.B. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 53176/17

  GRAZULEVICIUTE v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  DENISOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 1571/07

  BILGEN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 81024/12

  BAGIROV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 36889/18

  CAMELIA BOGDAN c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 74354/13

  NAMAZOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

  Budweiser-Streit
• EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

  DE TOMMASO v. ITALY
• EuGH, 11.07.2002 - C-139/00

  Kommission / Spanien
• EuGH, 14.07.2021 - C-204/21

  Kommission/ Polen - Vorläufiger Rechtsschutz - Art. 279 AEUV - Antrag auf …
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 11423/19

  GUMENYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 32181/04

  SIGMA RADIO TELEVISION LTD v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 26691/18

  BRODA ET BOJARA c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 30491/17

  SOLSKA AND RYBICKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 43447/19

  Streit um Justizreform: Polen verurteilt
• EuGH, 13.10.2022 - C-593/21

  Herios - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Richtlinie 86/653/EWG - Art. 17 Abs. 2 …
• BGH, 20.04.2022 - AK 15/22

  Gründung einer terroristischen Vereinigung: Einstufung einer paramilitärischen …

• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 40119/21

  M.L. v. POLAND

  However, they failed to explain how it could have specifically remedied the applicant's grievances under Article 8 of the Convention, in the sense of remedying the impugned state of affairs directly and providing her with the requisite redress for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Vuckovic and Others, cited above, § 77, and Juszczyszyn v. Poland, no. 35599/20, § 241, 6 October 2022).

  We further note, in this context, that there are no similarities between the instant case and the cases of Juszczyszyn v. Poland (no. 35599/20, 6 October 2022) and Tuleya v. Poland (nos. 21181/19 and 51751/20, 6 July 2023), mentioned in the reasoning (see paragraph 167 of the judgment).

• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 25226/18

  PAJAK ET AUTRES c. POLOGNE

  Concernant cette question nous renvoyons à notre opinion dissidente commune jointe à l'arrêt dans l'affaire Juszczyszyn c. Pologne (no 35599/20, 6 octobre 2022).
• EGMR, 22.02.2024 - 16974/14

  KACZMAREK v. POLAND

  However, they failed to explain how it could have specifically remedied the applicant's grievances under Article 8 of the Convention in the sense of remedying directly the impugned state of affairs and provided her with the requisite redress for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Vuckovic and Others, cited above, § 77, and Juszczyszyn v. Poland, no. 35599/20, § 241, 6 October 2022).

 
• EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 25240/20

  GYULUMYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA

  29580/12 and 4 others, § 164, 15 November 2018; Selahatti Demirta?Ÿ v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, § 421, 22 December 2020; and Juszczyszyn v. Poland, no. 35599/20, § 306, 6 October 2022).
• EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 28003/15

  VANCHEV c. BULGARIE

  Se tournant vers les faits de la présente espèce, la Cour constate qu'à la différence d'autres affaires dans lesquelles elle a jugé que l'article 6 était applicable à des litiges relatifs à l'emploi dans la fonction publique ou dans la magistrature, la mesure de détachement attaquée par le requérant ne constituait ni une sanction disciplinaire, ni une révocation de son poste de procureur ou de son mandat de dirigeant administratif, ni même une suspension temporaire de ses fonctions (voir, à titre de comparaison, concernant la révocation d'agents publics ou de juges, Pi?Ÿkin c. Turquie, no 33399/18, § 99, 15 décembre 2020, et Oleksandr Volkov c. Ukraine, no 21722/11, §§ 87-91, 9 janvier 2013 ; concernant des poursuites disciplinaires, Miroslava Todorova c. Bulgarie, no 40072/13, §§ 89-92, 19 octobre 2021 ; concernant la cessation anticipée d'un mandat de président de juridiction, Denisov c. Ukraine [GC], no 76639/11, §§ 47-49 et 53-55, 25 septembre 2018, et Broda et Bojara c. Pologne, nos 26691/18 et 27367/18, §§ 104-123, 29 juin 2021 ; s'agissant de la suspension temporaire des fonctions d'un juge, Juszczyszyn c. Pologne, no 35599/20, § 137, 22 octobre 2022 ; et, pour ce qui est d'une mutation de poste impliquant une baisse de rémunération et une modification des missions de l'agent concerné, Zalli c. Albanie (déc.), no 52531/07, 8 février 2011, et Ohneberg c. Autriche, no 10781/08, § 25, 18 septembre 2012).
• EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 22716/12

  ANDRZEJ RUCI?ƒSKI v. POLAND

  Future income cannot be considered to constitute "possessions" unless it has already been earned or is definitely payable (see Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 64, ECHR 2007 I; and Juszczyszyn v. Poland, no. 35599/20, § 344, 6 October 2022, with further references).
• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 19371/22

  STOIANOGLO c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Elle rappelle également avoir déjà conclu à l'applicabilité de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention sous son volet civil dans des affaires portant sur des mesures temporaires de suspension de fonctions prises à l'égard de magistrats dans le cadre de procédures disciplinaires dirigées contre eux (voir, mutatis mutandis, Paluda c. Slovaquie, no 33392/12, §§ 29-35, 23 mai 2017, Camelia Bogdan c. Roumanie, no 36889/18, § 70, 20 octobre 2020 et Juszczyszyn c. Pologne, no 35599/20, §§ 134-137, 6 octobre 2022).
• EGMR, 10.10.2023 - 66292/14

  PENGEZOV c. BULGARIE

  Elle rappelle qu'elle a déjà estimé cette disposition applicable sous son volet civil à des procédures relatives à la suspension des fonctions de magistrats dans le cadre de procédures disciplinaires pendantes (Camelia Bogdan c. Roumanie, no 36889/18, § 70, 20 octobre 2020, et Juszczyszyn c. Pologne, no 35599/20, § 137, 22 octobre 2022).
• EGMR - 28371/23 (anhängig)

  WALĘSA v. POLAND (No. 2)

  (a) was the impugned interference "in accordance with the law", having regard to the fact that the formation of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court which examined the applicant's case allegedly lacked the attributes of a "tribunal" which is "lawful" for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 (Advance Pharma sp. Z o.o., cited above, §§ 349-350; and Juszczyszyn v. Poland, no. 35599/20, § 268, 6 October 2022)?.
• EGMR - 2203/23 (anhängig)

  GRZEGORCZYK v. POLAND

  Is Article 8 of the Convention applicable to the present case (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 95-114, 25 September 2018 and Juszczyszyn v. Poland, no. 35599/20, §§ 228-37, 6 October 2022)?.