Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 06.07.2023 - 21181/19, 51751/20 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
TULEYA v. POLAND
Preliminary objection allowed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Preliminary objections dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Preliminary objections dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic ...
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... (15) Zitiert selbst (81)
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 06.05.2021 - C-791/19
Generalanwalt Tanchev: Der Gerichtshof sollte urteilen, dass das polnische Gesetz …
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2023 - 21181/19
Rn. 87 Furthermore, the CPL found that the impugned resolution should have been upheld despite the fact that it had been given by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, that is, a body which, in accordance with the rulings of the CJEU, the Court and the Supreme Court, did not guarantee the right to an independent and impartial tribunal established by law (referring, inter alia, to the CJEU's judgment of 15 July 2021 in Commission v. Poland (Disciplinary regime for judges), C-791/19 and the Court's judgment in Reczkowicz (cited above)).It invoked in this respect, inter alia, the CJEU's preliminary ruling of 19 November 2019 in A.K. and Others (C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18), the Supreme Court's judgment of 5 December 2019, no. III PO 7/18, the resolution of the joined Chambers of the Supreme Court of 23 January 2020 and 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.
The Republic of Poland is required, immediately and pending delivery of the judgment closing the proceedings in Case C-791/19,.
In that regard, rules which define, in particular, both conduct amounting to disciplinary offences and the penalties actually applicable, rules which provide for the involvement of an independent body in accordance with a procedure which fully safeguards the rights enshrined in Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter, especially the rights of the defence, and rules which lay down the possibility of bringing legal proceedings challenging the disciplinary bodies' decisions constitute a set of guarantees that are essential for safeguarding the independence of the judiciary (judgment of 15 July 2021, Commission v Poland (Disciplinary regime for judges), C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596, paragraph 61 and the case-law cited).
To that end, it is therefore important, as has been recalled in paragraph 95 of the present judgment in relation to the rules applicable to the disciplinary regime for judges, that decisions authorising the initiation of criminal proceedings against the judges concerned, their arrest and detention, and the suspension or reduction of their remuneration, or decisions relating to essential aspects of the employment, social security or retirement law schemes applicable to those judges, be adopted or reviewed by a body which itself satisfies the guarantees inherent in effective judicial protection, including that of independence (see, by analogy, judgment of 15 July 2021, Commission v Poland (Disciplinary regime for judges), C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596, paragraph 80 and the case-law cited).
In that regard, it should be noted in particular that the mere prospect, for judges, of running the risk that authorisation to prosecute them might be sought and obtained from a body whose independence is not guaranteed is liable to affect their own independence (see, by analogy, judgment of 15 July 2021, Commission v Poland (Disciplinary regime for judges), C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596, paragraph 82 and the case-law cited).
In the present case, it should be recalled that, in the light of all the factors noted and considerations set out in paragraphs 89 to 110 of the judgment of 15 July 2021, Commission v Poland (Disciplinary regime for judges) (C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596), to which reference must be made, the Court held, in paragraph 112 of that judgment, that, taken together, the particular context and objective circumstances in which the Disciplinary Chamber was created, the characteristics of that chamber and the way in which its members were appointed are such as to give rise to reasonable doubts in the minds of individuals as to the imperviousness of that body to external factors, in particular the direct or indirect influence of the Polish legislature and executive, and its neutrality with respect to the interests before it and, thus, are likely to lead to that body's not being seen to be independent or impartial, which is likely to prejudice the trust which justice in a democratic society governed by the rule of law must inspire in those individuals.".
He further referred to a number of other rulings, including inter alia, the CJEU's preliminary ruling of 19 November 2019 in A.K. and Others (C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18), the Supreme Court's judgment of 5 December 2019 (no. III PO 7/18) given following the latter ruling, the resolution of the joined Chambers of the Supreme Court of 23 January 2020 and the CJEU's judgment of 15 July 2021 in Commission v. Poland (Disciplinary regime for judges) (C-791/19).
Rn. 319 The applicant lastly submitted that in the light of the CJEU's interim order of 8 April 2020 (C-791/19 R), the Disciplinary Chamber had been precluded from ruling on the lifting of his immunity and his suspension.
Rn. 409 The applicant contended, referring, inter alia, to the resolution of the joined Chambers of the Supreme Court of 23 January 2020 (see paragraphs 199-200 above) and the CJEU's interim order of 8 April 2020 (C-791/19 R; see paragraph 228 above) that the actions of the Disciplinary Chamber which resulted in the lifting of his judicial immunity were in conflict with both Polish and EU law and as such should not be protected under the Convention.
Rn. 436 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, inter alia, that Poland had failed to fulfil its obligations under the second and third paragraphs of Article 267 TFEU by allowing the right of courts and tribunals to submit requests for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU to be restricted by the possibility of triggering disciplinary proceedings.
Rn. 441 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 229-231 above).
Another important element of that context is the CJEU's judgment of 15 July 2021 in Commission v. Poland (Disciplinary regime for judges, C-791/19) holding that the new disciplinary regime for Polish judges was not compatible with EU law (see paragraphs 229-232 above).
- EuGH, 27.10.2021 - C-204/21
As it has not suspended the application of the provisions of national legislation …
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2023 - 21181/19
Rn. 127 On 14 July 2021, following the interim order issued by the Vice-President of the CJEU in case C-204/21 R (see paragraph 235 below), the applicant submitted a request to the President of the Warsaw Regional Court to allow him to resume his duties.Interim orders in case C-204/21.
Rn. 235 On 14 July 2021 the Vice-President of the CJEU issued an interim order in the case (C-204/21 R, EU:C:2021:593).
Rn. 236 On 27 October 2021 the Vice-President of the CJEU ordered Poland to pay to the European Commission a periodic penalty payment of EUR 1, 000,000 per day until such time as that member State complied with the obligations arising from the order of 14 July 2021, or, if it failed to do so, until the date of delivery of the final judgment in the case (C-204/21 R, EU:C:2021:878).
On 21 April 2023 the Vice-President of the CJEU ordered that the amount of the periodic penalty payment which Poland was required to pay under the previous order was to be reduced to EUR 500, 000 per day (C-204/21 R-RAP, EU:C:2023:334).
Judgment of 5 June 2023 in Commission v. Poland (Independence and private life of judges), C-204/21, EU:C:2023:442.
In its decision, the CPL had taken into account the case-law of the Court and the CJEU concerning the Disciplinary Chamber, and in particular the interim order issued by the Vice-President of the CJEU in case C-204/21 R (see paragraph 87 above).
In that regard the Court also takes note of the order of the Vice-President of the CJEU of 14 July 2021 in the case C-204/21 under which Poland was required to suspend, inter alia, the effects of the decisions adopted by the Disciplinary Chamber authorising the initiation of criminal proceedings against or the arrest of a judge (see paragraph 235 above).
In this regard, the Court also refers to the judgment of 5 June 2023 in Commission v. Poland (Independence and private life of judges) (C-204/21, EU:C:2023:442) where the CJEU held that the mere prospect of judges running the risk that authorisation to prosecute them may be sought and obtained from a body whose independence is not guaranteed is likely to affect their own independence (see paragraph 241 above).
- EuGH, 15.07.2021 - C-791/19
Die polnischen Rechtsvorschriften über die Disziplinarordnung für Richter …
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2023 - 21181/19
Judgment of 15 July 2021 in Commission v. Poland (Disciplinary regime for judges), C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596.In that regard, rules which define, in particular, both conduct amounting to disciplinary offences and the penalties actually applicable, rules which provide for the involvement of an independent body in accordance with a procedure which fully safeguards the rights enshrined in Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter, especially the rights of the defence, and rules which lay down the possibility of bringing legal proceedings challenging the disciplinary bodies' decisions constitute a set of guarantees that are essential for safeguarding the independence of the judiciary (judgment of 15 July 2021, Commission v Poland (Disciplinary regime for judges), C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596, paragraph 61 and the case-law cited).
To that end, it is therefore important, as has been recalled in paragraph 95 of the present judgment in relation to the rules applicable to the disciplinary regime for judges, that decisions authorising the initiation of criminal proceedings against the judges concerned, their arrest and detention, and the suspension or reduction of their remuneration, or decisions relating to essential aspects of the employment, social security or retirement law schemes applicable to those judges, be adopted or reviewed by a body which itself satisfies the guarantees inherent in effective judicial protection, including that of independence (see, by analogy, judgment of 15 July 2021, Commission v Poland (Disciplinary regime for judges), C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596, paragraph 80 and the case-law cited).
In that regard, it should be noted in particular that the mere prospect, for judges, of running the risk that authorisation to prosecute them might be sought and obtained from a body whose independence is not guaranteed is liable to affect their own independence (see, by analogy, judgment of 15 July 2021, Commission v Poland (Disciplinary regime for judges), C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596, paragraph 82 and the case-law cited).
In the present case, it should be recalled that, in the light of all the factors noted and considerations set out in paragraphs 89 to 110 of the judgment of 15 July 2021, Commission v Poland (Disciplinary regime for judges) (C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596), to which reference must be made, the Court held, in paragraph 112 of that judgment, that, taken together, the particular context and objective circumstances in which the Disciplinary Chamber was created, the characteristics of that chamber and the way in which its members were appointed are such as to give rise to reasonable doubts in the minds of individuals as to the imperviousness of that body to external factors, in particular the direct or indirect influence of the Polish legislature and executive, and its neutrality with respect to the interests before it and, thus, are likely to lead to that body's not being seen to be independent or impartial, which is likely to prejudice the trust which justice in a democratic society governed by the rule of law must inspire in those individuals.".
Rn. 436 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, inter alia, that Poland had failed to fulfil its obligations under the second and third paragraphs of Article 267 TFEU by allowing the right of courts and tribunals to submit requests for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU to be restricted by the possibility of triggering disciplinary proceedings.
Rn. 441 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 229-231 above).
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 27.06.2019 - C-585/18
Generalanwalt Tanchev kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass die neu geschaffene …
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2023 - 21181/19
Therefore, a rule of national law cannot prevent a national court from using that discretion, which is an inherent part of the system of cooperation between the national courts and the Court of Justice established in Article 267 TFEU and of the functions of the court responsible for the application of EU law, entrusted by that provision to the national courts (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, paragraph 103 and the case-law cited).It invoked in this respect, inter alia, the CJEU's preliminary ruling of 19 November 2019 in A.K. and Others (C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18), the Supreme Court's judgment of 5 December 2019, no. III PO 7/18, the resolution of the joined Chambers of the Supreme Court of 23 January 2020 and the CJEU's interim decision of 8 April 2020 (C-791/19 R).
Rn. 196 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 paragraphs 224-226 below).
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.
- 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.
He further referred to a number of other rulings, including inter alia, the CJEU's preliminary ruling of 19 November 2019 in A.K. and Others (C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18), the Supreme Court's judgment of 5 December 2019 (no. III PO 7/18) given following the latter ruling, the resolution of the joined Chambers of the Supreme Court of 23 January 2020 and the CJEU's judgment of 15 July 2021 in Commission v. Poland (Disciplinary regime for judges) (C-791/19).
- EuGH - C-563/18 (anhängig)
Prokuratura Okregowa w Plocku
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2023 - 21181/19
THE CJEU'S JUDGMENT OF 26 MARCH 2020 IN MIASTO ŁOWICZ AND PROKURATOR GENERALNY, C-558/18 AND C-563/18, EU:C:2020:234.Indeed, the mere prospect, as the case may be, of being the subject of disciplinary proceedings as a result of making such a reference or deciding to maintain that reference after it was made is likely to undermine the effective exercise by the national judges concerned of the discretion and the functions referred to in paragraph 225 of the present judgment (judgment of 26 March 2020, Miasto Łowicz and Prokurator Generalny, C-558/18 and C-563/18, EU:C:2020:234, paragraph 58).
For those judges, not being exposed to disciplinary proceedings or measures for having exercised such a discretion to bring a matter before the Court, which is exclusively within their jurisdiction, also constitutes a guarantee that is essential to judicial independence, that independence being, in particular, essential to the proper working of the judicial cooperation system embodied by the preliminary ruling mechanism under Article 267 TFEU (judgment of 26 March 2020, Miasto Łowicz and Prokurator Generalny, C-558/18 and C-563/18, EU:C:2020:234, paragraph 59 and the case-law cited).
In this regard, the Court notes that the CJEU declared the requests for a preliminary ruling made by the Warsaw Regional Court (the applicant) and the Łódź Regional Court (Judge E.M.) inadmissible in its judgment of 26 March 2020 (Miasto Łowicz and Prokurator Generalny, C-558/18 and C-563/18; see paragraph 24 above).
It notes in this regard that the applicant's request for a preliminary ruling was examined jointly with the request made by the Łódź Regional Court in the CJEU's judgment of 26 March 2020 (Miasto Łowicz and Prokurator Generalny, C-558/18 and C-563/18).
- EuGH, 19.11.2019 - C-585/18
Das vorlegende Gericht hat zu prüfen, ob die neue Disziplinarkammer des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2023 - 21181/19
Therefore, a rule of national law cannot prevent a national court from using that discretion, which is an inherent part of the system of cooperation between the national courts and the Court of Justice established in Article 267 TFEU and of the functions of the court responsible for the application of EU law, entrusted by that provision to the national courts (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, paragraph 103 and the case-law cited).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.
- 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.
- EuGH, 26.03.2020 - C-558/18
Der Gerichtshof erklärt zwei Vorabentscheidungsersuchen zu den polnischen …
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2023 - 21181/19
THE CJEU'S JUDGMENT OF 26 MARCH 2020 IN MIASTO ŁOWICZ AND PROKURATOR GENERALNY, C-558/18 AND C-563/18, EU:C:2020:234.Indeed, the mere prospect, as the case may be, of being the subject of disciplinary proceedings as a result of making such a reference or deciding to maintain that reference after it was made is likely to undermine the effective exercise by the national judges concerned of the discretion and the functions referred to in paragraph 225 of the present judgment (judgment of 26 March 2020, Miasto Łowicz and Prokurator Generalny, C-558/18 and C-563/18, EU:C:2020:234, paragraph 58).
For those judges, not being exposed to disciplinary proceedings or measures for having exercised such a discretion to bring a matter before the Court, which is exclusively within their jurisdiction, also constitutes a guarantee that is essential to judicial independence, that independence being, in particular, essential to the proper working of the judicial cooperation system embodied by the preliminary ruling mechanism under Article 267 TFEU (judgment of 26 March 2020, Miasto Łowicz and Prokurator Generalny, C-558/18 and C-563/18, EU:C:2020:234, paragraph 59 and the case-law cited).
- EuGH, 05.06.2023 - C-204/21
Rechtsstaatlichkeit: Die polnische Justizreform von Dezember 2019 verstößt gegen …
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2023 - 21181/19
Judgment of 5 June 2023 in Commission v. Poland (Independence and private life of judges), C-204/21, EU:C:2023:442.In this regard, the Court also refers to the judgment of 5 June 2023 in Commission v. Poland (Independence and private life of judges) (C-204/21, EU:C:2023:442) where the CJEU held that the mere prospect of judges running the risk that authorisation to prosecute them may be sought and obtained from a body whose independence is not guaranteed is likely to affect their own independence (see paragraph 241 above).
- EuGH, 18.05.2021 - C-83/19
Wegen möglicher politischer Einflussnahme: EuGH besorgt über rumänische …
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2023 - 21181/19
The same must, in principle, apply, mutatis mutandis, to other rules relating to the status of judges and the performance of their duties, such as those governing the waiver of their criminal immunity where such immunity is, as in the present case, provided for in the national law concerned (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 May 2021, Asociaţia 'Forumul Judecătorilor din România' and Others, C-83/19, C-127/19, C-195/19, C-291/19, C-355/19 and C-397/19, EU:C:2021:393, paragraph 213).In those circumstances, the legal order of the Member State concerned must include guarantees capable of preventing any risk of such rules or decisions being used as a system of political control of the content of judicial decisions or as an instrument of pressure and intimidation against judges which could, inter alia, lead to an appearance of a lack of independence or impartiality on their part capable of prejudicing the trust which justice in a democratic society governed by the rule of law must inspire in individuals (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 May 2021, Asociaţia 'Forumul Judecătorilor din România' and Others, C-83/19, C-127/19, C-195/19, C-291/19, C-355/19 and C-397/19, EU:C:2021:393, paragraph 216).
- EuGH - C-127/19 (anhängig)
Asociatia "Forumul Judecatorilor Din România" und Asociatia Miscarea Pentru …
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2023 - 21181/19
The same must, in principle, apply, mutatis mutandis, to other rules relating to the status of judges and the performance of their duties, such as those governing the waiver of their criminal immunity where such immunity is, as in the present case, provided for in the national law concerned (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 May 2021, Asociaţia 'Forumul Judecătorilor din România' and Others, C-83/19, C-127/19, C-195/19, C-291/19, C-355/19 and C-397/19, EU:C:2021:393, paragraph 213).In those circumstances, the legal order of the Member State concerned must include guarantees capable of preventing any risk of such rules or decisions being used as a system of political control of the content of judicial decisions or as an instrument of pressure and intimidation against judges which could, inter alia, lead to an appearance of a lack of independence or impartiality on their part capable of prejudicing the trust which justice in a democratic society governed by the rule of law must inspire in individuals (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 May 2021, Asociaţia 'Forumul Judecătorilor din România' and Others, C-83/19, C-127/19, C-195/19, C-291/19, C-355/19 and C-397/19, EU:C:2021:393, paragraph 216).
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 23.09.2020 - C-83/19
Nach Auffassung von Generalanwalt Bobek verstoßen die vorläufige Ernennung des …
- VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Baden, 28.07.2020 - 2/20
- EGMR, 22.02.2018 - 14925/16
LOGINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 51751/20 (anhängig)
TULEYA v. POLAND (NO. 2)
- EuGH, 18.12.2014 - Gutachten 2/13
Gutachten gemäß Artikel 218 Absatz 11 AEUV - Gutachten nach Art. 218 Abs. 11 AEUV …
- EuGH, 05.10.2010 - C-173/09
Elchinov - Soziale Sicherheit - Freier Dienstleistungsverkehr - …
- EuGH, 24.10.2018 - C-234/17
XC u.a. - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Grundsätze des Unionsrechts - Loyale …
- EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11
FRISVOLD AND FLOM-JACOBSEN v. NORWAY
- EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11
Denisov v. Ukraine
- EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79
- EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80
- EGMR, 22.11.1995 - 20166/92
S.W. c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83
- EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 41723/06
EGMR zur "negativen Meinungsfreiheit"
- EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88
IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 39288/98
EKIN ASSOCIATION v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 45291/06
PREVITI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20
JUSZCZYSZYN v. POLAND
- EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 69264/01
DE LORENZO contre l'ITALIE
- EGMR, 11.07.2013 - 28975/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 7031/05
INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR COMMERCE AND DEVELOPMENT AD AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 23.11.2017 - 66847/12
HAARDE v. ICELAND
- EGMR, 29.11.2016 - 59061/16
EGMR weist erneut Klage nach Putschversuch in der Türkei zurück - EGMR weist …
- EGMR, 22.05.2007 - 47297/99
BÜLBÜL v. TURKEY
- EKMR, 13.03.1980 - 8083/77
X. c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 37685/02
ÜSTÜN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 58272/09
KHAYRULLIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.03.2019 - 70243/11
DZASOKHOV v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 15729/15
FLOR LEMUS v. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 714/08
BATMAZ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 1379/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 31411/07
MUSTAFA (ABU HAMZA) v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.03.2020 - 32479/16
WEBSTER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 2153/15
GOUGH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91
Radikalenerlaß
- EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78
Eckle ./. Deutschland
- EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75
- EuGH, 14.07.2021 - C-204/21
La Pologne doit suspendre immédiatement l'application des dispositions nationales …
- EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 28396/95
Nichtberufung eines liechtensteiner Richters in das Amt des Gerichtspräsidenten …
- EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94
- EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 34720/97
HEANEY ET McGUINNESS c. IRLANDE
- EuGH, 05.07.2016 - C-614/14
Ognyanov - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Art. 267 AEUV - Art. 94 der …
- EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 39660/02
Recht auf konkreten und wirksamen Verteidigerbeistand bei der ersten Vernehmung …
- EGMR, 05.05.2020 - 3594/19
KÖVESI v. ROMANIA
- EuGH, 21.04.2023 - C-204/21
Rechtsstaatlichkeit: Der Betrag des gegen Polen verhängten täglichen Zwangsgelds …
- EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 27520/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 1571/07
BILGEN v. TURKEY
- EuGH, 11.07.2002 - C-139/00
Kommission / Spanien - "Vertragsverletzung eines Mitgliedstaats - Richtlinie …
- EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 51160/06
[FRE]
- EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 26691/18
BRODA c. POLOGNE et 1 autre affaire
- VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 27.11.2009 - 5/09
Datenschutzrecht
- EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 58688/11
HARABIN v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 35098/12
CRISTEA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 47414/99
SZOTT-MEDYNSKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND
- EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 64119/00
KAYASU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR - 68271/14 (anhängig)
HALL v. ICELAND
- EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 39650/18
?"UREK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 40072/13
TODOROVA c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 58512/16
CIMPERSEK v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 12.11.2019 - 68995/13
SCHWEIZERISCHE RADIO- UND FERNSEHGESELLSCHAFT ET AUTRES c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 22567/09
BRAMBILLA AND OTHERS v. ITALY
- EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 35745/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 75255/10
SIMIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
- EGMR, 31.01.2023 - 1210/10
SORBALO c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 41752/09
GORYAYNOVA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 07.12.2010 - 15966/06
Poyraz ./. Türkei
- EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 4570/05
YANKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 24067/05
KÖSEOGLU c. TURQUIE
- EuGH, 25.07.2018 - C-216/18
Eine Justizbehörde, die zur Vollstreckung eines Europäischen Haftbefehls …
- EuGH, 12.02.2019 - C-8/19
RH - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Eilvorabentscheidungsverfahren - Justizielle …
- EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 43447/19
Streit um Justizreform: Polen verurteilt
The applicant drew the Court's attention to other cases pending before the Court concerning the termination of the terms of office of previous members of the NCJ (Grzęda v. Poland, no. 43572/18) and the Disciplinary Chamber's rulings against judges who had criticised the "reforms of the judiciary" (Tuleya v. Poland, no. 21181/19). - EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 43572/18
GRZĘDA v. POLAND
[4] See the joint urgent opinion of the Venice Commission and the Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law (DGI) of the Council of Europe on Amendments to the Law on the Common Courts, the Law on the Supreme Courts and Some Other Laws of 18 June 2020, CDL-AD(2020)017, § 11. On 1 September 2020 a case of this kind was communicated to the Government: Tuleya, no. 21181/19. - EGMR, 05.02.2026 - 46238/20
MORAWIEC v. POLAND
Rn. 3 The Court has previously given judgments dealing with measures applied to judges that were similar to the measures encountered by the applicant in the present case (see Juszczyszyn v. Poland, no. 35599/20, 6 October 2022, and Tuleya v. Poland, nos. 21181/19 and 51751/20, 6 July 2023).Rn. 43 In Tuleya v. Poland (nos. 21181/19 and 51751/20, §§ 277-79, 6 July 2023) the Court summarised principles concerning the applicability of the criminal limb of Article 6 § 1 in general and applied them in the specific context of Polish proceedings for the lifting of a judge's immunity (ibid., §§ 280-300).
21181/19 and 51751/20, § 139, 6 July 2023.
- EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 40119/21
M.L. v. POLAND
z o.o., did not concern an individual decision issued in breach of the right to a "tribunal established by law" under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (compare Juszczyszyn, cited above, §§ 216 and 265, and Tuleya v. Poland, nos. 21181/19 and 51751/20, §§ 348 and 439, 6 July 2023).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, 25.03.2025 - 6904/22
WRÓBEL v. POLAND
Rn. 20 On 15 July 2022 the Disciplinary Chamber was abolished, and the new Chamber of Professional Liability ("the CPL") of the Supreme Court was established in its place (for details, see Tuleya v. Poland, nos. 21181/19 and 51751/20, §§ 181-87, 6 July 2023).Rn. 48 The fact that the proceedings are still pending is all the more important in view of the fact that the Court has already expressed itself regarding a situation where (after the above-mentioned first-instance resolution of the Disciplinary Chamber) the CPL gave a decision favourable to the applicant-judge (see Tuleya v. Poland, nos. 21181/19 and 51751/20, § 261, 6 July 2023).
- EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 16915/21
DANILET c. ROUMANIE
Rn. 5 Dans l'arrêt Baka et la jurisprudence postérieure, la Cour s'est également appuyée sur le fait que les propos litigieux ne dépassaient pas le domaine de la simple critique d'ordre strictement professionnel (Baka, § 171 ; voir aussi Żurek § 224 ; Kövesi § 207 ; et Tuleya c. Pologne, no 21181/19, 51751/20, § 544, 6 juillet 2023). - EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 25226/18
PAJÄ"K c. POLOGNE et 2 autres affaires
Nous attirons l'attention, dans ce contexte, sur la jurisprudence des juridictions de droit commun (juridictions du droit du travail) qui ont ordonné aux autorités de permettre aux juges suspendus d'exercer leurs fonctions (Tuleya c. Pologne, nos 21181/19 et 51751/20, §§ 114-118, 6 juillet 2023). - EGMR, 25.06.2026 - 474/21
SHEVCHUK v. UKRAINE
Rn. 119 Such an interference will be in breach of Article 8 of the Convention unless it can be justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8 as being "in accordance with the law", pursuing one or more of the legitimate aims in that paragraph, and being "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve the aim or aims concerned (see Tuleya v. Poland, nos. 21181/19 and 51751/20, § 429, 6 July 2023). - EGMR, 17.09.2026 - 46788/21
BRAZEWICZ v. POLAND
The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the excessive length of proceedings (see, for example, Rutkowski and Others v. Poland, nos. 72287/10 and 2 others, 7 July 2015) and to the adverse effects of disciplinary inquiries on a judge's private life (see, for example, Tuleya v. Poland, nos. 21181/19 and 51751/20, 6 July 2023). - EGMR, 24.04.2025 - 16497/20
SYTNYK v. UKRAINE
There are therefore no grounds for applying the Gillberg exclusionary principle as suggested by the Government (see paragraphs 97 and 104 above, and compare Tuleya v. Poland, nos. 21181/19 and 51751/20, § 376, 6 July 2023). - EGMR, 04.02.2025 - 42584/21
B & B PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. MALTA
- EGMR, 15.01.2026 - 13278/20
BILI?ƒSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 07.11.2024 - 20592/21
BAKRADZE v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 22.10.2024 - 24484/15
KOCAMAN v. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR - 51751/20 (anhängig)
TULEYA v. POLAND (NO. 2)
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".