Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WALESA v. POLAND

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal;Tribunal established by law);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair ...

Besprechungen u.ä.

• juwiss.de (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

  Polens langer Weg zurück zum Rechtsstaat

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  WA?�ĘSA v. POLAND

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (36)

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21

  z o.o. and Juszczyszyn (both cited above), the Court, having regard to its rejection of the Constitutional Court's position, as stated in its judgment of 20 April 2020 (no. U 2/20; see paragraphs 89-91 above), on the manifest breach of the domestic law and its interpretation of Article 6 of the Convention, found no sufficiently realistic prospects of success for a constitutional complaint based on the grounds suggested by the Government and dismissed their preliminary objection.

  In Juszczyszyn (cited above), the Court also noted that the above-mentioned Constitutional Court's judgment of 20 April 2020 (no. U 2/20; see paragraphs 89-91 above) and the subsequent judgment of 2 June 2020 (no. P 13/19; cited in Juszczyszyn at paragraph 101) removed any possibility of mounting a successful constitutional challenge to the status of a judge appointed with the participation of the NCJ as established under the 2017 Amending Act.

  The Government argued that any doubts that might have arisen in connection with the status of the new Chambers of the Supreme Court and the judges appointed to them, in particular having regard to the resolution of the joined Chambers of the Supreme Court of 23 January 2020, had been removed by the Constitutional Court's judgment of 20 April 2020 (no. U 2/20).

  For a number of reasons stated in that judgment, the Court was not persuaded by the Government's argument - on which they have also relied in the present case (see paragraph 162 above) - that the Constitutional Court's judgment of 20 April 2020 (no. U 2/20) had deprived the Supreme Court's resolution of its meaning or effects for the purposes of this Court's ruling as to whether there had been a "manifest breach of the domestic law" in terms of Article 6 § 1 (ibid., §§ 314-319).

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

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21

  On 5 December 2019 the Supreme Court, sitting in a bench of three judges of the Labour and Social Security Chamber, gave judgment in the first of three cases that had been referred for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU, following the latter's judgment of 19 November 2019 (A.K. and Others, joined cases C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18; see Dolinska-Ficek and Ozimek, cited above, § 193).

  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.".

  They also referred to the CJEU's preliminary ruling of 19 November 2019 in A.K. and Others (C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18) which indicated that the mere fact that judges had been appointed by an executive body did 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 were free from influence or pressure when carrying out their role.

• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 13772/05

  LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21

  46632/13 and 28671/14, § 129, 23 February 2016, where, in the circumstances relevant to that case, it rejected as incompatible ratione materiae a complaint under Article 18 raised in conjunction with Articles 6 and 7; Nastase v. Romania (dec.), no. 80563/12, §§ 105-09, 18 November 2014, where it rejected as manifestly ill-founded a complaint under Article 18 raised in conjunction with Article 6; and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia (no. 2), no. 11082/06, § 16, 8 November 2011, and Lebedev v. Russia (no. 2), no. 13772/05, §§ 310-14, 27 May 2010, where it declared admissible the applicants' complaints under Article 18 raised in conjunction with Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 and subsequently, having examined the merits of those complaints in the judgment of Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos.

  11082/06 and 13772/05, §§ 897-909, 25 July 2013, found no violation of Article 18).

 
• EGMR, 07.05.2021 - 4907/18

  XERO FLOR w POLSCE sp. z o. o. - Unabhängigkeit der polnischen Gerichte

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21

  z o.o. (no. 4907/18, 7 May 2021, §§ 289-291) that there was a violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the applicant company's right to a "tribunal established by law" on account of his presence on the bench of the Constitutional Court, as his election had been vitiated by grave irregularities.

  z o.o. v. Poland (no. 4907/18, §§ 19, 58-61, 96, 106, 174, 256, 259, 261-262 and 271-291, 7 May 2021) referred to by his initials "M.M.".

• EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 26691/18

  BRODA ET BOJARA c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21

  The application referred to the Court's judgments in the cases of Broda and Bojara v. Poland (nos. 26691/18, 27367/18, 29 June 2021) and Reczkowicz (cited above).

  To begin with, that judgment was given by a bench including Judge M. Muszynski (in Juszczyszyn and Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. referred to by his initials "M.M."), in an apparent attempt to prevent the execution of the Court's judgments in Broda and Bojara v. Poland (nos. 26691/18 and 27367/18, 29 June 2021), Reczkowicz, Dolinska-Ficek and Ozimek and Advance Pharma sp.

• EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 34282/12

  WYSZKOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21

  [3] A detailed description of the proceedings up to that stage can be found in the statement of facts in the case of Wyszkowski v. Poland (communication of 11 March 2019), no. 34282/12, §§ 2-33, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-192357.

  [4] See Wyszkowski v. Poland (Committee decision), no. 34282/12, 1 July 2021, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-211514.

• EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 29115/07

  SAMAT v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21

  The review should not be treated as an ordinary appeal in disguise, and the mere possibility of there being two views on the subject is not a ground for re-examination (see Rosca v. Moldova, no. 6267/02, § 25, 22 March 2005; Agrokompleks v. Ukraine, no. 23465/03, § 148, 6 October 2011; Vardanyan and Nanushyan v. Armenia, no. 8001/07, § 67, 27 October 2016; ?žamat v. Turkey, no. 29115/07, § 53, 21 January 2020; and Tigrak v. Turkey, no. 70306/10, § 48, 6 July 2021).

  In the Court's view, these elements indicate that the remedy was used by the Prosecutor General as an "ordinary appeal in disguise", whose aim was to have the same facts and subject-matter re-examined in fresh proceedings and give the defendant in the original proceedings, on whose behalf he was acting, yet another chance to have his civil liability redetermined after having lost his case (compare ?žamat v. Turkey, no. 29115/07, § 61, 21 January 2020).

• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

  MOREIRA FERREIRA v. PORTUGAL (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21

  Referring to the Court's judgment in Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) ([GC], no. 19867/12, § 62, 11 July 2017), the intervener stated that the extraordinary appeal should not be treated as an "appeal in disguise", and the mere possibility of there being two views on the subject was not a ground for re-examination.

  While the requirements of the principle of legal certainty, and the force of res judicata, are not absolute (see, for an example in the criminal-law sphere, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 62, 11 July 2017), a departure from that principle is justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character, such as the correction of fundamental defects or a miscarriage of justice (see, for instance, Ryabykh, § 52, cited above, and OOO Link Oil SPB v. Russia (dec.), no. 42600/05, 25 June 2009).

• EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 80563/12

  NASTASE c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21

  46632/13 and 28671/14, § 129, 23 February 2016, where, in the circumstances relevant to that case, it rejected as incompatible ratione materiae a complaint under Article 18 raised in conjunction with Articles 6 and 7; Nastase v. Romania (dec.), no. 80563/12, §§ 105-09, 18 November 2014, where it rejected as manifestly ill-founded a complaint under Article 18 raised in conjunction with Article 6; and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia (no. 2), no. 11082/06, § 16, 8 November 2011, and Lebedev v. Russia (no. 2), no. 13772/05, §§ 310-14, 27 May 2010, where it declared admissible the applicants' complaints under Article 18 raised in conjunction with Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 and subsequently, having examined the merits of those complaints in the judgment of Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 42600/05

  OOO LINK OIL SPB v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21

  While the requirements of the principle of legal certainty, and the force of res judicata, are not absolute (see, for an example in the criminal-law sphere, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 62, 11 July 2017), a departure from that principle is justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character, such as the correction of fundamental defects or a miscarriage of justice (see, for instance, Ryabykh, § 52, cited above, and OOO Link Oil SPB v. Russia (dec.), no. 42600/05, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 39650/18

  ZUREK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 47414/99

  SZOTT-MEDYNSKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.03.2005 - 6267/02

  ROSCA v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE
• EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

  DE TOMMASO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 30491/17

  SOLSKA AND RYBICKA v. POLAND
• EuGH, 05.06.2023 - C-204/21

  Rechtsstaatlichkeit: Die polnische Justizreform von Dezember 2019 verstößt gegen …
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13

  Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  DENISOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

  MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15

  ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)
• EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 3485/02

  ASSOCIATION OF REAL PROPERTY OWNERS IN LÓDZ AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 46852/13

  BURMYCH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 65020/13

  ANASTASOV AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA
• EuGH, 02.03.2021 - C-824/18

  Polen: Besetzung des Obersten Gerichts könnte rechtswidrig sein
• EuGH, 06.10.2021 - C-487/19

  Nicht einvernehmliche Versetzungen von Richtern an andere Gerichte oder zwischen …
• EuGH, 27.10.2021 - C-204/21

  Grundsätze des Gemeinschaftsrechts
• EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 50003/99

  WOLKENBERG AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07

  PIECHOWICZ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 06.07.2021 - 70306/10

  TIGRAK v. TURKEY
• EuGH - C-448/23 (anhängig)

  Kommission / Polen
• EGMR, 26.03.2020 - 10090/16

  CENTRE FOR DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 25226/18

  PAJAK ET AUTRES c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 44180/17

  SADLIK v. POLAND