Rule of law cases – Poland

Polish cases on the rule of law at the cjeu

Dashboard Rule of Law Cases - Poland - CJEU

Case NumberNameDate of JudgementECLI:EU:C:Summary
C-192/18Commission v Poland05/11/20192019:924
independence of ordinary courts

retirement age of judges & public prosecutors; Art. 157 TFEU, Art. 5(a) & 9(1)(f) of Directive 2006/54/EC, Art. 19 TEU, Art. 47 CFR

C-216/18 PPUMinister for Justice and Equality v LM (Celmer-ruling)25/07/20182018:586
execution of European Arrest Warrant

execution of European Arrest Warrant by Polish court in Ireland, the meaning of the independence of the judiciary to be assessed in judicial test (general and invdividual; reiterating the Aranyosi and Căldăraru test; Art. 47 CFR, Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA)

C-522/18DŚ v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Jaśle29/01/20202020:42
retroactive lowering of Supreme Court retirement age

Art. 2, 4(3) and 19 TEU, Art. 47 CFR

C-537/18YV v Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa03/02/20202020:136
retirement age of judges, Disciplinary Chamber

lack of independence of Supreme Court's Disciplinary Chamber, case closed on 3/2/2020 due to ruling in C-585/18; Art. 47 CFR, Art 9(1) Directive 2000/78/EC

C-563/18 & C-558/18Miasto Łowicz and Prokurator Generalny26/03/20202020:234
disciplinary regime for judges

preliminary reference questioning the new Polish legislation relating to the disciplinary regime for judges, request for a preliminary reference inadmissible but inadmissible requests cannot lead to disciplinary sanctions for judges; Art. 19 TEU

C-585/18, C-624/18 & C-625/18A. K. and Others v Sąd Najwyższy19/11/20192019:982
independence of Disciplinary Chamber

appointment procedure of judges of the Supreme Court involving the NCJ, referring court must assess whether the new Disciplinary Chamber is independent; Art. 47 CFR, Art. 9(1) Directive 2000/78

C-619/18Commission v Poland24/06/20192019:531
legislation concerning retirement age of Supreme Court judges

legislation concerning the lowering of retirement age of Supreme Court judges is incompatible with principles of irremovability of judges and judicial independence; Art. 19 TEU, Art. 47 CFR

C-619/18 RCommission v Poland17/12/20182019:575
lowering of retirement age of Supreme Court judges

Poland ordered to suspend the application of national legislation concerning the lowering of the retirement age for Supreme Court judges

C-623/18Prokuratura Rejonowa w Słubicach v BQ06/10/20202020:800
new disciplinary regime for judges

new disciplinary regime for judges; Art. 19 TEU, Art. 47 CFR

C-668/18BP v UNIPARTS sàrl03/12/20192019:1093
retroactive lowering of Supreme Court retirement age

same key issue as in C-522/18, reference withdrawn by Polish Supreme Court on 23/10/2019

C-824/18A.B. and Others02/03/20212021:153
National Council of the Judiciary (KRS)

reference for preliminary ruling by the Polish Supreme Administrative Court in the context of legal proceedings against the appointment procedure of the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS), effective remedy aginst KRS decisions; Art. 15 and 20 TFEU, Art. 47 CFR

C-487/19W.Ż.06/10/20212021:798
status of Supreme Court chambers

composition of the “Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs” which includes individuals appointed on basis of prima facie unlawful procedure; Art. 2, 6 and 19 TEU, Art. 47 CFR

C-508/19Prokurator Generalny22/03/20222022:201
judicial independence of Supreme Court

Request for preliminary ruling inadmissible. Lack of jurisdiction of the referring court to review the validity of the appointment of a Supreme Court judge and inadmissibility of such an action under national law.

C-748/19 to C-754/19Prokuratura Rejonowa w Mińsku Mazowieckim and Others16/11/20212021:931
composition and appointment process of criminal court

composition of criminal court and appointment process (involvement of the Polish Council for the Judiciary in the appointment of judges to the Polish Supreme Court); Art. 19 TEU, Art. 47 CFR

C-763/19 to C-765/19D.S. and Others07/05/20202020:414
composition and appointment process of court

composition of court and appointment process, withdrawn on 20/2/2020; Art. 19 TEU, Art. 47 CFR

C-791/19Commission v Poland15/07/20212021:596
impartiality and independence of Disciplinary Chamber

lack of independence and impartiality of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court; Art. 19 TEU

C-791/19 RCommission v Poland08/04/20202020:277
order to suspend the activities of the Disciplinary Chamber

CJEU ordered the immediate suspension of the activities of the Disciplinary Chamber regarding disciplinary cases concerning judges, the Polish government disregarded the ruling and allowed the Disciplinary Chamber to make further decisions, such as lifting the immunity of judges with a view to prosecuting them if necessary

C-55/20Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości13/01/20222022:6
Disciplinary Court of the Bar

understanding of the notion of a court under EU law regarding the Disciplinary Court of the Bar; Directive 2006/123; notion of court under Art. 267 TFEU

C-354/20 PPU & C-412/20 PPUL and P/Openbaar Ministerie17/12/20202020:1033
European Arrest Warrant and independence of Polish judiciary

surrender to Poland on the basis of a European arrest warrant (EAW) questioned in view of existing evidence of systemic or generalised deficiencies concerning the independence of the judiciary; Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, Art. 47 CFR

Sąd Najwyższy and Others22/12/20222022:1046
 
 No need for interpretation EU law  


No need for interpretation of EU law to enable the referring court to give judgment, hence manifest inadmissibility.

 


C-819/21

Staatsanwaltschaft Aachen9/11/232023:841
Systemic or generalised rule of law deficiencies as an obstacle to mutual recognition

The CJEU addressed the concerns of a German Regional Court regarding the enforcement of a custodial sentence imposed by a Polish District Court, given that the Polish judicial system itself is no longer in conformity with the principle of the rule of law enshrined in Article 2 TEU. The Court ruled that a Member State may refuse to recognise and enforce a judgment imposing a criminal sentence delivered by a court of another Member State where it has evidence of systemic or generalised deficiencies in that Member State regarding the right to a fair trial, in particular so far as concerns the independence of the courts (in abstracto test), and where there are substantial grounds for believing that those deficiencies may have had a tangible influence on the criminal proceedings brought against the person concerned (in concreto test).

YP and Others13/07/20232023:562
Disciplinary Chamber

Interpretation of 2nd subparagraph of Art 19(1) TEU: Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Poland lacks independence and impartiality. It could hence not lift a judge’s immunity from prosecution and his or her suspension from duties.

M.M.--
Disciplinary Chamber

Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, can the President of a court change the composition of that court because the originally designated judge has been suspended by a body that does not satisfy the requirements of effective judicial protection; Art. 2 and 19(1) TEU. On 28 June 2022, a hearing took place before the Grand Chamber. The AG’s opinion will be delivered on 15 December 2022.

C-157/21Poland v Parliament and Council16/02/20222022:98
Conditionality Regulation

Poland challenged the legality of Regulation 2020/2092 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget as it lacks a valid legal basis

G.-2022:990
  Disciplinary Chamber  

The referring court is concerned that the panel (of judges which is to hear the case on the merits) would include a person appointed to a judicial post in breach of the rules which require the participation of judicial self-government bodies in the appointment process. Central in this case is the concept of a tribunal established by law pursuant to Article 2, Article 19(1) and Article 6(1) to (3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the CFREU. On 29 June 2022, a hearing took place before the Grand Chamber. The AG’s opinion will be delivered on 15 December 2022.

 
Commission v Poland05/06/20232023:442 (judgment); 2021:878 (interim relief); 2022:991
Disciplinary Chamber

Commission's action against Poland regarding the "Muzzle Law" and the (suspended) Disciplinary Chamber. On 28 June 2022, a hearing took place before the Grand Chamber. The AG’s opinion will be delivered on 15 December 2022. The Court ordered a periodic penalty payment as interim relief on 27 October 2021.

C‑562/21Openbaar Ministerie (Tribunal établi par la loi dans l’État membre d’émission)22/02/2022
European arrest warrant and independence of the judiciary

right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law art 47 CFR

C-657/21Parliament v Commission--
EP action against the EC for failure to apply the Conditionality Regulation

Infringement of the treaties by the Commission for failing to give full and immediate application to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092

C-269/21BC. & DC.--
Disciplinary Chamber

The referring court is concerned that the panel (of judges which is to hear the case on the merits) would include a person appointed to a judicial post in breach of the rules which require the participation of judicial self-government bodies in the appointment process. Central in this case is the concept of a tribunal established by law pursuant to Article 2, Article 19(1) and Article 6(1) to (3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the CFREU. On 29 June 2022, a hearing took place before the Grand Chamber. The AG’s opinion will be delivered on 15 December 2022.

C‑132/20Getin Noble Bank29/03/20222022:235
  Appointment of judges and their independence  

Article 2 and 19(1) TEU; Article 47 CFR

 
C-603/22 M.S. e.a.--
 
 Separation of Powers  


Judge in present case was removed from her office by order of the Minister of Justice. The referring court doubts whether an executing authority such as the Minister of Justice may, at the pre-trial phase and during the judicial proceedings, intervene in the process of direct application of EU law by linking powers of supervision of the courts with the powers arising from the exercise of the office of Attorney General.

 

C-711/22 Advance Pharma--
 
 Effective Judicial Protection  


The ECtHR found a violation of Article 6(1) ECHR, stating that the judicial formation involved in the case is not a "court established by law". Subsequently, the applicant requested the reopening of the national procedure. The preliminary question is about whether the refusal to reopen as a result of the ECtHR judgment led to the deprivation of the guarantee of effective judicial protection.

 

C-658/22 Sąd Najwyższy --
 
 Regularity of Composition of Judiciary  


Given doubts by the majority of judges of the Civil Chamber about the regularity of the appointments of judges in the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court), the latter asked a preliminary question about the regularity of the composition of the judicial formation.

 

C-114/23Sapira--
 
 Independence and impartiality  


The question is, among other things, whether EU law precludes national regulations that prevent a court from entering into proceedings for the enforcement of an irrevocable criminal conviction to investigate whether the judgment to be enforced was passed by a court that satisfies the requirements of an institution under law, independence and impartiality.

 

C-448/23Commission v Poland---
C-442/23 Poland v Parliament and Council---
C-444/23 Poland v Parliament and Council---
C-451/23Poland v Parliament and Council---
C-459/23 E.---
C-390/23Rzecznik Finansowy 27/06/2023
Independence of the judiciary and the right to an effective judicial protection

The referring court questions the compatibility with EU law of a national mechanism for reviewing final judgments performed by a court composed by members (i) who are not professional judges (or even lawyers), (ii) whose method of appointment differs from that of judges, and (iii) who do not benefit from all the guarantees of independence provided for in respect of judges.


Polish cases on the rule of law at the ECthr

This list only contains communicated cases.

Dashboard Rule Of Law Cases - Poland - ECtHR

Case NumberNameDate of JudgementSummary
35778/07 (discontinued)Żemek and others v. Poland
impartiality of judge

Article 6 § 1 ECHR; complaint that assigned judge in breach of the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that thejudge had not been impartial, alleged links of the judge with the Law and Justice party and close ties to the (current) Justice Minister Ziobro which later appointed the judge Secretary of State

65313/13Maciszewski and Others v. Poland23/06/2020
definition of a court/tribunal

Art. 6 ECHR; complaint under Article 6 § 1 that the Poznań District Court was not a “tribunal established by law” on account of the alleged irregularities concerning the secondment of the Regional Court’s Judge

62765/14, 62769/14, 62772/14 and 11708/18Sobczyńska and Others v. Poland
refusal to appoint judges to vacant posts

Art. 6 and 8 ECHR; refusals by Polish presidents Kaczynski and Duda to appoint the judges in 2008 and 2016 respectively to vacant posts in various courts without any reasoning and despite positive recommendations of the National Council of the Judiciary

26691/18Broda v. Poland29/06/2021
premature termination of judge's mandate

Art. 6 ECHR; premature termination of terms of judges without any reasoning who had been appointed as court vice-presidents and absence of any possibility to seek judicial review

27367/18Bojara v. Poland29/06/2021
premature termination of judge's mandate

Art. 6 ECHR; same issues as in Broda v. Poland - removal of judges from their positions as court vice-presidents during their terms of office without providing reasons

39650/18Żurek v. Poland16/06/2022
premature termination of judge's mandate

Art. 6 ECHR violated, as very essence of right of access to court impaired; Art 10 ECHR also violated, since measures, as part of intimidation strategy, had chilling effect on judges’ participation in public debate on legislative reforms affecting the judiciary and on its independence; interference not “necessary in a democratic society”.

43572/18Grzęda v. Poland15/03/2022
premature termination of judge's mandate

Violation of Art. 6 ECHR; interruption of the mandate of a supreme administrative court judge elected to the National Council of Judiciary before the end of its four-year term. In partucular lack of judicial review

4907/18Xero Flor v. Poland07/05/2021
unlawful appointmentof Constitutional Court judge

Art. 6 ECHR, unlawful appointment of one individual to the captured and unlawfully composed Constitutional Court; partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion of judge Wojtyczek

21181/19, 51751/20Tuleya v. Poland06/07/2023
Disciplinary proceedings against Polish judge Tuleya

Polish judge Tuleya, critic of judiciary reform, was suspended by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Polish Supreme Court and his immunity was lifted. The Court found a violation of arts. 6, 8 and 10 ECHR: (i) the Disciplinary Chamber cannot be regarded as an independent and impartial tribunal established by law; (ii) the measures are a deliberate strategy to intimidate and silence the complainant and other judges.

25226/18, 25805/18, 38378/19Pająk and others v Poland
retirement age of judges

Art. 6 ECHR; retirement age of judges, contrary to the irremovability of judges, alleged violation of Art. 6 ECHR as there was no remedy available to applicant for the refusal of the NJC to grant her permission to continue to work

50849/21

Wałęsa v. Poland23/11/2023
Systemic violations of the Polish judicial reform

The Court found a breach of the rights of the Polish former president Lech Wałęsa, namely the right to an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, the principle of legality and the right to respect for private and family life, because of the Polish reform of the judiciary. Most importantly, the Court seized the opportunity to apply the pilot-judgment procedure in this case, calling on Poland to implement measures to address “systematic violations” caused by the latest judicial reforms.

43447/19, 49868/19 and 57511/19Reczkowicz and two Others v. Poland22/07/2021
chambers of Supreme Court

Art. 6 ECHR; complaints brought by barrister and two judges in relation to the two new chambers of the Supreme Court (Disciplinary Chamber and thee Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs), which they claim were constituted in breach of the law following changes to the judiciary introduced in 2017

49868/19 and 57511/19Dolińska - Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland
08/11/2021
lack of independence of NCJ

Art. 6 ECHR; the case concerned complaints brought by two judges that the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs (one of the two new chambers of the Supreme Court), which had decided on cases concerning them, had not been a “tribunal established by law” and had lacked impartiality and independence, the ECtHR ruled that Poland must take rapid action to resolve the lack of independence of the National Council of the Judiciary

1469/20Advance Pharma Sp. z o.o v. Poland03/02/2022
National Council of the Judiciary

Art. 6 ECHR; complaint brought by a pharmaceutical company that the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, which decided on a case concerning it, was constituted on the recommendations of the National Council of the Judiciary and thus in breach of the law following changes to the judiciary introduced in 2017

13278/20Biliński v. Poland
National Council of the Judiciary

Art. 6 ECHR; the applicant was judge at a District court and ruled on many freedom-of-expression cases. Some of these cases were perceived as unfavourable by the government and therefore criticized by politicians of the ruling party. The applicant claims that his transfer to another court was handled in breach of Article 6 ECHR and that the National Council of Judiciary lacked impartiality.

26004/20Pionka v. Poland
disciplinary proceedings against judges

Art. 6 and 8 ECHR; the case concerns proceedings before the domestic courts following the applicant’s declaration of means lodged in accordance with his role as a prosecutor. He was prosecuted for alleged incorrect declaration of means, which eventually came before the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court. That body overturned the previous decision of the Disciplinary Court at the General Prosecutor and allowed the prosecution to go forward and suspended the applicant from his official duties

28122/20 and 48599/20Brodowiak and Dżus v. Poland
judicial independence

Art. 6 ECHR; the applicants complain that their cases were not heard by an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law”

35599/20Juszczyszyn v. Poland06/10/2022
Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, judicial independence

Violation of Art 6 ECHR, given grave irregularities in appointment of judges. Essence of  right to “tribunal established by law” undermined and independence and impartiality of Disciplinary Chamber compromised; Violation of Art 8 ECHR, as unlawful suspension of judge; Violation of Art 18 ECHR (in conjunction with Art 8 ECHR), as restriction for unauthorised purposes.

43949/19Jezierska v. Poland
retirement age of judge

Art. 6, 8 and 14 ECHR; complaint by judge that was forced to retire based on legislation that has been deemed unlawful by CJEU (C-192/18), concerns issues such as judicial independence, discrimination by age/gender, access to court

1819/21KB and others v. Poland
unlawful composition of Constitutional Court, abortion ruling by Constitutional Court

Art. 3, 6, and 8 ECHR; unlawful composition of Constitutional Court, impartiality of judges, violation of Art. 3/8 by abortion ruling of Polish Constitutional Court

18380/22Maciej Rutkiewcz v Poland
suspension of a judge by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court

Art. 3, 8, and 18 ECHR; impartiality of judges

3639/21K.C. and Others v. Poland
unlawful composition of Constitutional Court, abortion ruling by Constitutional Court

Art. 3, 6, and 8 ECHR; unlawful composition of Constitutional Court, impartiality of judges, violation of Art. 3/8 by abortion ruling of Polish Constitutional Court

3801/21 (discontinued)A.L. - B. and Others v. Poland
unlawful composition of Constitutional Court, abortion ruling by Constitutional Court

Art. 3, 6, and 8 ECHR; unlawful composition of Constitutional Court, impartiality of judges, violation of Art. 3/8 by abortion ruling of Polish Constitutional Court

40119/21M.L. v. Poland14/12/23
composition of Constitutional Court, restrictive abortion laws

The ECtHR ruled that the Poland's ban on abortion in cases of foetal abnormality, following a 2020 Constitutional Court judgment, violated the applicant's right to respect for private life under Article 8 ECHR. The ECtHR emphasized the importance of the rule of law, stating that any interference with Article 8 rights must come from a "lawful" body. However, it found that the Constitutional Court's composition involved judges appointed through a procedure previously deemed in breach of the Convention, undermining the legitimacy of the ruling.

32589/22, 35548/22 and 42267/22

Frankowski and Others v. Poland

14/12/2023
fair trial rights

The ECtHR found Poland in violation of Articles 6(1) and 13 ECHR due to excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of effective remedies in domestic law.