Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20 |
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 ... (34) 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.
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
Die polnischen Rechtsvorschriften über die Disziplinarordnung für Richter …
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.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
GRZĘDA v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20
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 Grzęda ([GC], no. 43572/18, §§ 14-28, 15 March 2022).z o.o. v. Poland (no. 1469/20, §§ 95-109, 3 February 2022) and Grzęda 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 Grzęda v. Poland ([GC], no. 43572/18, §§ 77-119, 15 March 2022).
- 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.- 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.
- 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
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).In some Chamber cases, the Court applies to the letter the evidential standards established by the Grand Chamber in Denisov (cited above) and declares that the threshold for the applicability of Article 8 has not been reached (see decision in the case of J.B. and Others v. Hungary, nos. 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, Ballıktaş Bingöllü v. Turkey, no. 76730/12, 22 June 2021, and Gražulevičiūtė v. Lithuania, no. 53176/17, 14 December 2021).
- EGMR, 08.11.2021 - 49868/19
EGMR verurteilt Polen wegen umstrittener Justizreform - EGMR verurteilt Polen …
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20
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), Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland (nos. 49868/19 and 57511/19, §§ 82-96, 8 November 2021), Advance Pharma sp.The relevant domestic practice was summarised in the Court's previous judgments in Reczkowicz v. Poland (cited above, §§ 71-125), Dolińska-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
- EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11
Denisov v. Ukraine
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20
As rightly stated by the majority, the general principles regarding the applicability of Article 8 to employment-related disputes were summarised by the Court in the case of Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, 25 September 2018 (see paragraph 227). - EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75
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). - EuGH, 14.07.2021 - C-204/21
La Pologne doit suspendre immédiatement l'application des dispositions nationales …
- EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09
[FRE]
- EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01
Budweiser-Streit
- EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75
- EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 32181/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 15227/19
Albanien: erfolglose Klage vor dem EGMR gegen Entlassung als Verfassungsrichterin …
- EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 1571/07
BILGEN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 45434/12
J.B. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
- EuGH, 11.07.2002 - C-139/00
Kommission / Spanien - "Vertragsverletzung eines Mitgliedstaats - Richtlinie …
- EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 26691/18
BRODA c. POLOGNE et 1 autre affaire
- EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 58812/15
POLYAKH v. UKRAINE and 2 other applications
- EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 30491/17
SOLSKA v. POLAND and 1 other application
- EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 81024/12
BAGIROV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 11423/19
GUMENYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 40378/10
ALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 36889/18
BOGDAN c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 16.12.2003 - 35943/02
TRANSADO-TRANSPORTES FLUVIAIS DO SADO, S.A., c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 76730/12
BALLIKTA?ž BINGÖLLÜ v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 53176/17
GRAZULEVICIUTÄ- v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 74354/13
NAMAZOV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 25.05.1999 - 46483/99
PASTORE v. ITALY
- 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 - 59433/18
EGMR zu den Rechten von Beamten: Lehrer dürften nicht streiken
In accordance with Article 32 of the Convention, the Court provides the final authoritative interpretation of the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of the Convention (see Juszczyszyn v. Poland, no. 35599/20, § 208, 6 October 2022, and Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 163, ECHR 2009). - 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 Vučković 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, 06.07.2023 - 21181/19
TULEYA v. POLAND
The Court has recently examined the issue of applicability of Article 8 to measures affecting judges in the case of Juszczyszyn v. Poland, no. 35599/20, 6 October 2022.
- 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. 33 In reply, referring to the Court's findings in Juszczyszyn v. Poland (no. 35599/20, §§ 207-09, 6 October 2022) the applicant submitted that the Constitutional Court was not authorised to issue rulings regulating the jurisdiction of the Court and that the judgment relied upon by the Government should be considered legally ineffective.
- EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 25226/18
PAJÄ"K c. POLOGNE et 2 autres affaires
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, 17.09.2026 - 44015/22
PIOTROWSKA v. POLAND and 1 other application
- EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 22716/12
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, 04.07.2023 - 41047/19
THANZA v. ALBANIA
Having examined the parties' submissions and the available material, the Court considers that in the present case the vetting bodies' interpretation of the legal provisions on which the applicant's dismissal was based was not arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see NIT S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 28470/12, § 160, 5 April 2022 ; Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others v. Iceland, no. 71552/17, § 64, 18 May 2021; and Centre for Democracy and the Rule of Law v. Ukraine, no. 10090/16, §§ 108-09, 26 March 2020; and Juszczyszyn v. Poland, no. 35599/20, § 264, 6 October 2022). - EGMR, 13.11.2025 - 6030/21
Grundsatzdebatte gefordert: Polen verletzt EMRK, Schwangere erhält Entschädigung
Rn. 108 The expression "in accordance with the law" requires, firstly, that the impugned measure must have a basis in domestic law and be compatible with the rule of law, which is expressly mentioned in the Preamble to the Convention and is inherent in the subject matter and aim of Article 8. It states the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof (see, among many other authorities, Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, §§ 66-68, Series A no. 82, and Juszczyszyn v. Poland, no. 35599/20, § 261, 6 October 2022). - EGMR, 05.05.2026 - 30989/20
GEROVSKA-POPCHEVSKA v. NORTH MACEDONIA
- EGMR, 12.05.2026 - 37954/21
SKRCHESKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA
- EGMR, 19.02.2026 - 14396/24
SIMONCINI v. SAN MARINO
- EGMR, 09.05.2025 - 56297/21
SADOMSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 25240/20
GYULUMYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 21141/20
BALA v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 04.04.2023 - 29943/18
GASHI AND GINA v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 13.02.2025 - 56310/15
K.P. v. POLAND
- EGMR, 06.07.2023 - 54588/13
GULIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 15.01.2026 - 13278/20
BILI?ƒSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 11.07.2024 - 31842/20
W.W. v. POLAND
- EGMR, 03.02.2026 - 44794/19
SALVADOR COUTINHO DOS SANTOS AMADO c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 10.10.2023 - 66292/14
PENGEZOV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 28003/15
VANCHEV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 07.03.2023 - 54003/20
KOGAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 28371/23 (anhängig)
WALĘSA v. POLAND (No. 2)
- EGMR, 22.02.2024 - 16974/14
KACZMAREK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 19371/22
STOIANOGLO c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR - 18166/23 (anhängig)
KUQO v. ALBANIA
- EGMR - 9311/22 (anhängig)
AGOLLI v. ALBANIA
- EGMR - 1093/22 (anhängig)
NUSHI v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 09.07.2024 - 47070/20
LEVRAULT c. MONACO
- EGMR - 2203/23 (anhängig)
GRZEGORCZYK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 04.11.2025 - 19088/21
GEO SOLAR DOOEL DELCHEVO v. NORTH MACEDONIA
- EGMR - 17392/26 (anhängig)
DZIURDA AND OTHERS v. POLAND
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".