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 ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• beck-aktuell.de (Kurzinformation)

  Polen: Friedensnobelpreisträger Walesa gewinnt vor EGMR

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 ... (42)Zitiert selbst (35)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• 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.

  Rn. 153 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).

  Rn. 170 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 Dolińska-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, 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, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

  FONTES MOREIRA FERREIRA c. PORTUGAL

  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, 29.06.2021 - 26691/18

  BRODA c. POLOGNE et 1 autre affaire

  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. Muszyński (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, Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek and Advance Pharma sp.

• 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; Năstase 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, 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 Roşca 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; Şamat v. Turkey, no. 29115/07, § 53, 21 January 2020; and Tığrak 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 Şamat v. Turkey, no. 29115/07, § 61, 21 January 2020).

• 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.

• EuGH, 05.06.2023 - C-204/21

  Rechtsstaatlichkeit: Die polnische Justizreform von Dezember 2019 verstößt gegen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21

  Rn. 129 On 5 June 2023 the Grand Chamber of the CJEU delivered its judgment in case of Commission v. Poland (Independence and private life of judges, C-204/21, EU:C:2023:442) upholding the Commission's action.
• EuGH, 02.03.2021 - C-824/18

  Polen: Besetzung des Obersten Gerichts könnte rechtswidrig sein

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21

  The first plea concerns the infringement by the aforementioned judgments of the Constitutional Court of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union, in particular in the judgments of 2 March 2021, A.B. and Others (Appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court - Actions), C-824/18, EU:C:2021:153, and of 6 October 2021, W.Ż.
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  Denisov v. Ukraine
• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79
• EuGH, 27.10.2021 - C-204/21

  As it has not suspended the application of the provisions of national legislation …
• EuGH, 06.10.2021 - C-487/19

  Nicht einvernehmliche Versetzungen von Richtern an andere Gerichte oder zwischen …
• EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTER OF LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CAMPEANU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13

  Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny
• EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE
• EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 46852/13

  BURMYCH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 50003/99

  WOLKENBERG AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15

  ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 26.03.2020 - 10090/16
• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 25226/18

  PAJÄ"K c. POLOGNE et 2 autres affaires
• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 30491/17

  SOLSKA v. POLAND and 1 other application
• EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 3485/02

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 47414/99

  SZOTT-MEDYNSKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 39650/18

  ?"UREK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.03.2005 - 6267/02

  ROSCA v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 65020/13

  ANASTASOV AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 06.07.2021 - 70306/10

  TIGRAK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 80563/12

  NASTASE c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 42600/05

  OOO LINK OIL SPB v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 44180/17

  SADLIK v. POLAND

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.01.2025 - 51567/14

  Giftmüll im "Land der Feuer": Italien hat zu wenig gegen die Ökomafia getan

  That assessment necessarily encompasses the procedure for similar cases - both those currently pending and those liable to be lodged with the Court in the future (and Wałęsa v. Poland, no. 50849/21, § 333, 23 November 2023).
• EGMR, 15.01.2026 - 13278/20

  BILI?ƒSKI v. POLAND

  Rn. 2 The instant application belongs to a series of cases concerning the overhaul of the judiciary which was initiated in 2017 and has been implemented by successive amending laws (for an overview of the Court's case-law on the matter see Wałęsa v. Poland, no. 50849/21, §§ 2-4, 23 November 2023).

  At the relevant time, the Warsaw-Śródmieście District Court's President was Judge M. Mitera, appointed to that post in February 2018 by Minister of Justice Z. Ziobro (for background information on the latter, see Wałęsa v. Poland, no. 50849/21, § 13, 23 November 2023).

  Lastly, the Court reiterates that it has already found that the NCJ, as established under the 2017 Amending Act, no longer offered sufficient guarantees of independence from the legislative or executive powers (see Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek, cited above, §§ 290-320 and Wałęsa v. Poland, no. 50849/21, § 169, 23 November 2023).

• EuGH, 24.03.2026 - C-521/21

  Rechtsstaatlichkeit: Die Schlussfolgerung, dass ein Richter nicht unabhängig ist, …

  Rn. 62 Im Übrigen ist auch anzumerken, dass der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte in seinem im Piloturteilverfahren ergangenen Urteil vom 23. November 2023, Wałęsa/Polen (CE:ECHR:2023:1123JUD005084921), im Wesentlichen entschieden hat, dass die festgestellten, miteinander verknüpften systemischen Probleme vom polnischen Staat gesetzgeberische und andere geeignete Maßnahmen erforderten, um die mit Reformen in diesem Staat zusammenhängenden Probleme der Unabhängigkeit der Justiz anzugehen.

• EGMR, 24.06.2025 - 4986/24

  A AND B v. MALTA

  Rn. 70 The Court has reached similar conclusions concerning judges deciding on challenges about their own independence, a situation which gives no guarantee that the matter would be decided objectively, in breach of the fundamental principal of nemo iudex in causa propria (no one may be judge in his own cause) (see Wałęsa v. Poland, no. 50849/21, § 324, 23 November 2023).

  Rn. 10 In the present case, Judge F was the subject of the challenge upon which she decided, a situation which gave rise to further objectively justified doubts as to the impartiality of the tribunal (see Wałęsa v. Poland, no. 50849/21, § 324, 23 November 2023, and Bosev v. Bulgaria, no. 62199/19, § 73, 4 June 2024).

• EGMR, 01.04.2025 - 51455/21

  MANOWSKA v. POLAND and 5 other applications

  z o.o (cited above, §§ 95-225), Grzęda (cited above, §§ 64-167) and Wałęsa v. Poland (no. 50849/21, §§ 106-21, 23 November 2023).

  Firstly, the Government argued that the applications should be considered incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention on account of the alleged effect of the judgment of the Constitutional Court of 10 March 2022 in case K 7/21 (see Wałęsa v. Poland, no. 50849/21, §§ 107-08, 23 November 2023).

• EGMR, 05.02.2026 - 46238/20

  MORAWIEC v. POLAND

  Rn. 2 The instant application belongs to a series of cases concerning the overhaul of the judiciary which was initiated in 2017 and has been implemented by successive amending laws (for an overview of the Court's case-law on the matter see Wałęsa v. Poland, no. 50849/21, §§ 2-4, 23 November 2023).

  The Government argued that the application should be considered incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention on account of the alleged effect of the judgment of the Constitutional Court of 10 March 2022 in case no. K 7/21 which found Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to be incompatible with various provisions of the Constitution (for details of that judgment see Wałęsa v. Poland, no. 50849/21, §§ 107-08, 23 November 2023).

• EGMR, 09.05.2025 - 56297/21

  SADOMSKI v. POLAND

  z o.o (cited above, §§ 95-225), Grzęda (cited above, §§ 64-167) and Wałęsa v. Poland (no. 50849/21, §§ 106-21, 23 November 2023).

  Rn. 37 The instant case is another one in a series of cases concerning the overhaul of the judiciary which was initiated in 2017 and has been implemented by successive amending laws (for the most recent overview of the Court's case-law on the matter see Wałęsa v. Poland, no. 50849/21, §§ 2-4, 23 November 2023).

• EGMR, 02.07.2026 - 54708/20

  IVANYUSHCHENKO c. SUISSE

  Rn. 115 Sur ces points, la présente affaire se distingue fondamentalement de l'affaire Wałęsa c. Pologne (no 50849/21, § 272, 23 novembre 2023), dans laquelle le requérant était reconnu en Pologne et dans le monde comme l'une des personnalités les plus éminentes de l'histoire contemporaine polonaise pour avoir dirigé le syndicat Solidarność et mené des activités anticommunistes clandestines qui lui avaient valu le prix Nobel de la paix, contribuant ainsi au démantèlement du communisme en Europe centrale et orientale en 1989-1990.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 16.07.2026 - C-273/24
  {FN:3} Cour EDH, 23 novembre 2023 (CE:ECHR:2023:1123JUD005084921).
• EGMR, 21.05.2026 - 62765/14

  SOBCZY?ƒSKA c. POLOGNE et 3 autres affaires

  Rn. 2 Although the case touches upon issues concerning the organisation of the judiciary, the material events took place before the overhaul of the judiciary, which was initiated in 2017 (for an overview, see Wałęsa v. Poland, no. 50849/21, §§ 2-4, 23 November 2023).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 01.08.2025 - C-748/23

  Gekus - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Art. 267 AEUV - Art. 19 Abs. 1 EUV - Art. …
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 29.04.2025 - C-521/21

  Generalanwalt Spielmann: Die Einbindung eines Organs ohne Unabhängigkeitsgarantie …
• EGMR, 09.07.2026 - 22360/25
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 19.06.2025 - C-320/24

  Soledil - Vorabentscheidungsersuchen - Verbraucherschutz - Richtlinie 93/13/EWG - …
• EGMR, 25.03.2025 - 6904/22

  WRÓBEL v. POLAND
• EGMR, 08.10.2024 - 41097/20

  DUDEK v. POLAND and 11 OTHER APPLICATIONS
• EGMR - 3347/25 (anhängig)

  DE LUCA c. ITALIE et 5 autres requêtes
• EGMR, 20.11.2025 - 37483/20

  KIE?�TYKA v. POLAND and 3 other applications
• EGMR, 24.04.2025 - 16497/20

  SYTNYK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 05.12.2024 - 43727/21

  LABUDEK AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 07.11.2024 - 53778/20

  SZCZEPANIAK AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR - 22821/24 (anhängig)

  SZUMNIAK v. POLAND and 4 other applications
• EGMR, 16.10.2025 - 35463/21

  PORĘBA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 23.01.2025 - 16199/22

  KLIMEK AND KRAKOWIAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 23.01.2025 - 9988/22

  HETNAROWICZ-SIKORA AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 19.12.2024 - 2415/21

  SARATA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 05.12.2024 - 3685/20

  STERKOWICZ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 05.12.2024 - 12689/22

  NAWROT AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 05.12.2024 - 31053/21

  PROKOPCOW AND MACIEJKO v. POLAND
• EGMR, 07.11.2024 - 1412/21

  MODZELEWSKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 08.10.2024 - 42668/21

  I.G. AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR - 37817/25 (anhängig)

  DUBROWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR - 23591/25 (anhängig)

  KOWALIK v. POLAND
• EGMR - 25348/25 (anhängig)

  ROŻAŃSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR - 21563/25 (anhängig)

  KOMSTA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 27.02.2025 - 52771/22

  SOKOLOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.10.2024 - 4859/12

  FURDUI c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 07.05.2025 - 1470/22

  BURCHARD v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.02.2025 - 43211/21

  PÓ?�TORAK-LIBURA AND LIBURA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 23.01.2025 - 18380/22

  RUTKIEWICZ v. POLAND
• EGMR - 12135/25 (anhängig)

  KAMIENIOWSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 05.12.2024 - 30049/22

  CUPAL AND OTHERS v. POLAND