Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DOLINSKA-FICEK AND OZIMEK v. POLAND

  Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Six-month period);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Tribunal established by ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• juraforum.de (Kurzinformation)

  Polen muss wegen Einflussnahme auf Justiz Entschädigungen zahlen

Besprechungen u.ä.

• jurafuchs.de (Fallmäßige Aufbereitung - für Studienzwecke)

  Richterliche Unabhängigkeit nach EMRK

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 27.06.2019 - C-585/18

  Generalanwalt Tanchev kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass die neu geschaffene …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2021 - 49868/19

  The CJEU judgment of 19 November 2019 (Joined Cases C-585/18, C-624/18, C-625/18) 49. In August and September 2018 the Labour and Social Security Chamber of the Supreme Court made three requests to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.

  On 5 December 2019 the Supreme Court, sitting in the Labour and Social Security Chamber, gave judgment in the first of three cases that had been referred for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU"), the subject of a judgment of 19 November 2019 (case C-585/18; see paragraph 51 above and paragraphs 191-193 below).

  Such assessment follows a two-step rule: (a) assessment of the degree of independence enjoyed by the National Council of the Judiciary in respect of the legislature and the executive in exercising the responsibilities attributed to it under national legislation, as the body empowered to ensure the independence of the courts and of the judiciary, as relevant when ascertaining whether the judges which it selects will be capable of meeting the requirements of independence and impartiality arising from Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (judgment in C-585/18, §§ 139-140); (b) assessment of the circumstances in which the new judges of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court were appointed and the role of the Council in that regard (judgment in C-585/18, § 146).

  Following the guidance provided in the CJEU judgment of 19 November 2019, C-585/18, one should in the first place consider the circumstances concerning the National Council of the Judiciary.

  "I. The Supreme Court, in reviewing an appeal against a resolution of the National Council of the Judiciary on presenting a candidate for the office of judge to the President of the Republic of Poland, examines - upon the grounds for the appeal and within its scope - whether the National Council of the Judiciary is an independent body according to the criteria as determined in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 19 November 2019 in Joined Cases C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, A.K. and Others versus the Supreme Court, paragraphs 139-144.

  On 15 January 2019 the Supreme Court gave two rulings in two remaining cases that had been referred for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU (cases C-624/18, C-625/18, see paragraph 49 above).

  In its interpretation of the regulations governing criminal and civil proceedings, referred by the First President of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court considered the effect of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 19 November 2019 in cases C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, as well as the obligation to identify such legislative instruments in the legal system which would guarantee that a judgment will be issued by an impartial and independent tribunal despite doubts arising from a range of systemic changes affecting the status of judges.".

  (b) Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber) of 19 November 2019 (A.K. and Others, Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court; Joined Cases C-585/18, C-624/18, C-625/18).

  "In Case C-585/18, the questions referred are worded as follows:.

  In Cases C-624/18 and C-625/18, the questions referred were worded as follows:.

  On 19 November 2019 the CJEU delivered a preliminary ruling in Joined Cases C-585/18, C-624/18, C-625/18.

  In the light of all of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second and third questions referred in Cases C-624/18 and C-625/18 is:.

  - 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.

  (a) suspend the application of the provisions of section 27(1)(1a) of the [Act on the Supreme Court], as amended by the [2019 Amending Act] and others, pursuant to which the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court is competent to rule, both at first and second instance, on applications for permission to open criminal proceedings against judges or assessors (junior judges), to remand them in custody, to arrest them or to summon them, as well as the effects of decisions already adopted by the Disciplinary Board on the basis of that section authorising the initiation of criminal proceedings against a judge or his or her arrest, and to refrain from referring the cases referred to in that section to a court which does not meet the requirements of independence laid down, inter alia, in the judgment of 19 November 2019, A. K. and Others (Independence of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court) (C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, EU:C:2019:982);.

  (b) to suspend the application of the provisions of section 27(1)(2) and (3) of the Act on the Supreme Court, as amended, on the basis of which the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court is competent to decide on cases relating to the status and performance of the duties of a judge of the Supreme Court, including cases concerning labour and social insurance law, as well as cases concerning the retirement of such judges, and to refrain from referring such cases to a court 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);.

  The Government reiterated that even in its judgment of 19 November 2019 (nos. C-585/18, C-624/18, C-625/18) the CJEU had not challenged the legitimacy of the NCJ or the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court.

  The applicants referred to the CJEU's case-law and relied on the Supreme Court's conclusions in the judgment of 5 December 2019 and its interpretative resolution of 23 January 2020, stressing that the Supreme Court and the CJEU judgment of 19 November 2019 (cases nos. C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18) had clearly established a fundamental breach of domestic and international law and the principles of the rule of law, separation of powers and independence of the judiciary in the process of appointment of judges to the newly established Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs.

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

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2021 - 49868/19

  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 198 below).

  On 5 August 2021 the First President of the Supreme Court issued two orders: the first one made in connection with the judgment of the CJEU of 15 July 2021 (C-791/19) (no. 90/2021) and the second on laying down rules on the procedure for keeping court files, registration, assignment of cases to judges and appointment of the members of the bench in certain cases (no. 91/2021).

  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 198 below).

  (d) Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber) in the case of Commission v. Poland of 15 July 2021 (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,.

• EuGH, 24.06.2019 - C-619/18

  Die polnischen Rechtsvorschriften über die Herabsetzung des Ruhestandsalters für …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2021 - 49868/19

  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.

 
• EGMR, 18.10.2018 - 80018/12

  THIAM c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2021 - 49868/19

  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).

• EuGH, 19.11.2019 - C-585/18

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2021 - 49868/19

  - 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.

  (a) suspend the application of the provisions of section 27(1)(1a) of the [Act on the Supreme Court], as amended by the [2019 Amending Act] and others, pursuant to which the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court is competent to rule, both at first and second instance, on applications for permission to open criminal proceedings against judges or assessors (junior judges), to remand them in custody, to arrest them or to summon them, as well as the effects of decisions already adopted by the Disciplinary Board on the basis of that section authorising the initiation of criminal proceedings against a judge or his or her arrest, and to refrain from referring the cases referred to in that section to a court which does not meet the requirements of independence laid down, inter alia, in the judgment of 19 November 2019, A. K. and Others (Independence of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court) (C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, EU:C:2019:982);.

  (b) to suspend the application of the provisions of section 27(1)(2) and (3) of the Act on the Supreme Court, as amended, on the basis of which the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court is competent to decide on cases relating to the status and performance of the duties of a judge of the Supreme Court, including cases concerning labour and social insurance law, as well as cases concerning the retirement of such judges, and to refrain from referring such cases to a court 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);.

• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 65411/01

  SACILOR LORMINES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2021 - 49868/19

  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, 09.11.1995 - C-465/93

  Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft und others (I) / Bundesamt für Ernährung und …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2021 - 49868/19

  If a national court, having stayed proceedings pending the reply by the Court of Justice to the question referred to it for a preliminary ruling, were not able to grant interim relief until it delivered its judgment following the reply given by the Court of Justice, the effectiveness of the system established by Article 267 TFEU would be impaired (see, to that effect, judgments of 19 June 1990, Factortame and Others, C-213/89, EU:C:1990:257, paragraphs 21 and 22, and of 9 November 1995, Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft and Others (I), C-465/93, EU:C:1995:369, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited).
• EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77

  CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2021 - 49868/19

  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, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2021 - 49868/19

  Having regard to the facts of the case and in the light of all the material in its possession as well as its findings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see paragraphs 272-357 above), the Court considers that, since it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present applications, there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, with further references to the Court's case-law).
• EuGH, 31.01.2013 - C-175/11

  D. und A. - Vorabentscheidungsersuchen - Gemeinsames europäisches Asylsystem - …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2021 - 49868/19

  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, 11.01.2018 - 10613/16

  SHARXHI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 38240/02

  ZOLOTAS c. GRECE
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE
• EuGH, 19.06.1990 - C-213/89

  The Queen / Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame
• EuGH, 26.03.2020 - C-542/18

  Réexamen Simpson/ Rat - Überprüfung der Urteile des Gerichts der Europäischen …
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 15.12.2022 - C-204/21

  Generalanwalt Collins: Das polnische Gesetz zur Änderung der Vorschriften über …

  Vgl. auch EGMR, Urteil vom 8. November 2021, Doli?"ska-Ficek und Ozimek/Polen (CE:ECHR:2021:1108JUD004986819, §§ 353 bis 355), wonach die Außerordentliche Kammer kein auf Gesetz beruhendes Gericht im Sinne von Art. 6 EMRK ist.

  58 EGMR, Urteil vom 8. November 2021, Doli?"ska-Ficek und Ozimek/Polen (CE:ECHR:2021:1108JUD004986819).

  61 EGMR, Urteil vom 8. November 2021, Doli?"ska-Ficek und Ozimek/Polen (CE:ECHR:2021:1108JUD004986819, § 349).

  63 EGMR, Urteil vom 8. November 2021, Doli?"ska-Ficek und Ozimek/Polen (CE:ECHR:2021:1108JUD004986819).

  64 EGMR, Urteil vom 8. November 2021, Doli?"ska-Ficek und Ozimek/Polen (CE:ECHR:2021:1108JUD004986819).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.04.2024 - C-647/21

  D. K. (Dessaisissement d'un juge) - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - …

  Vgl. auch Urteil des EGMR vom 8. November 2021, Doli?"ska-Ficek und Ozimek / Polen (CE:ECHR:2021:1108JUD004986819, § 274).
• 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.

 
• LG Aachen, 06.12.2021 - 330 StVK 1055/21

  Rechtsstaatsprinzip Richterliche Unabhängigkeit Justizsystem Republik Polen Polen …

  a) Urteil vom 08.11.2021 - 49868/19 und 57511/19 - Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte hat die Republik Polen mit Urteil vom 08.11.2021 - 49868/19 und 57511/19 - zu Entschädigungszahlungen von jeweils 15.000 Euro an zwei polnische Richter wegen einer Verletzung ihres Menschenrechts auf ein faires Verfahren aus Art. 6 der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention (EMRK) verurteilt (vgl. Press Release ECHR 333 (2021) vom 08.11.2021).

  Wie bereits ausgeführt, hat der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte in seinem Urteil vom 08.11.2021 - 49868/19 und 57511/19 - einen eklatanten Widerspruch zu den Prinzipien der Rechtsstaatlichkeit durch die polnische Regierung - genauer den Präsidenten - festgestellt.

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 02.03.2023 - C-718/21

  Generalanwalt Rantos bezweifelt, dass das Verfahren, mit dem die KRS ihre …

  13 EGMR, 8. November 2021, Doli?"ska-Ficek und Ozimek/Polen (CE:ECHR:2021:1108JUD004986819).

  50 CE:ECHR:2021:1108JUD004986819.

  77 CE:ECHR:2021:1108JUD004986819 (§§ 290, 320 und 353 bis 355).

• EuGH, 21.12.2023 - C-718/21

  Krajowa Rada Sadownictwa (Maintien en fonctions d'un juge) - Vorlage zur …

  Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (im Folgenden: EGMR) habe im Urteil vom 8. November 2021, Doli?"ska-Ficek und Ozimek/Polen (CE:ECHR:2021:1108JUD004986819) (im Folgenden: Urteil Doli?"ska-Ficek und Ozimek/Polen) insoweit festgestellt, dass das Verfahren, das auf der Grundlage der Entschließung Nr. 331/2018 zur Ernennung der Mitglieder zweier Spruchkörper mit drei Richtern der Kammer für außerordentliche Überprüfung und öffentliche Angelegenheiten geführt habe, gegen das in Art. 6 Abs. 1 der am 4. November 1950 in Rom unterzeichneten Europäischen Konvention zum Schutz der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten (im Folgenden: EMRK) genannte Erfordernis eines "auf Gesetz beruhenden Gerichts" verstoße.
• EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20

  JUSZCZYSZYN v. POLAND

  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, 19.03.2024 - 84388/17

  KURAL v. TÜRKIYE

  The Court notes, moreover, that it has on many occasions emphasised that the domestic authorities' failure to duly enforce judicial decisions - including binding and enforceable interim decisions (see, for example, Okyay and Others v. Turkey, no. 36220/97, § 73, ECHR 2005-VII, and Mehmet Taner Sentürk, cited above, §§ 41-42) - would be incompatible with the rule of law and the principle of legal certainty (ibid.; see also, Hornsby, cited above, §§ 40-41, and Dolinska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland, nos. 49868/19 and 57511/19, § 328, 8 November 2021).
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 40119/21

  M.L. v. POLAND

  z o.o and its conclusion under Article 6 § 1, is by itself capable of vitiating the legal force to be attached to that judgment (ibid., § 290, and Dolinska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland, nos. 49868/19 and 57511/19, § 319, 8 November 2021).
• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 25226/18

  PAJAK ET AUTRES c. POLOGNE

  [3] Se référer à l'affaire Dolinska-Ficek et Ozimek c. Pologne, nos 49868/19 et 57511/19, 8 novembre 2021.
• EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 24269/18

  STYLIANIDIS v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 21.02.2023 - 43237/13

  CATANA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 18.07.2023 - 49255/22

  CAMARA c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 18952/18

  GLOVELI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR - 2203/23 (anhängig)

  GRZEGORCZYK v. POLAND
• EGMR - 13832/22 (anhängig)

  S.S. v. POLAND