ECtHR Finds Violation of Fair Trial Rights in Polish Judicial Appointments Case

The case involves a legal challenge to a resolution by the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ) in Poland, which led to the appointment of seven judges to the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court and the rejection of other candidates, including the applicant. The case raises concerns under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which ensures the right to a fair trial.

The applicant alleged a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, arguing that the judicial review of his case had been inadequate and failed to effectively protect his rights. He specifically referenced his constitutional right to equal access to public service under Article 60 of the Polish Constitution.

In the course of the proceedings, concerns arose over the enforcement of the National Council of the Judiciary’s (NCJ) resolution, which had recommended seven candidates for appointment to the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court and rejected others, including the applicant.

On 20 September 2018, another participant in the same judicial competition requested an interim order from the Supreme Administrative Court before filing a formal appeal. In response, on 27 September 2018, the court issued an interim order suspending the resolution’s implementation, both regarding the recommended appointments and the rejection of the appellant. This decision was publicly reported and formally served to the involved parties, including the NCJ.

Following this, on 1 October 2018, the applicant himself applied for an interim order. On 8 October 2018, the Supreme Administrative Court granted his request, similarly staying the execution of the resolution in both the parts affecting the appointments and his own rejection. The court found that proceeding with the resolution could result in irreparable harm and noted that the NCJ had not yet forwarded the applicant's appeal to the court as required.

Although the Supreme Administrative Court had ruled in his favour by annulling the NCJ's resolution, the applicant claimed the judgment had no practical impact and thus did not constitute an effective remedy. He highlighted two key concerns: first, legislative changes to the Act concerning the NCJ that he believed were designed to obstruct meaningful judicial oversight of Supreme Court appointments; and second, the decision by the President of Poland to appoint the seven recommended candidates despite interim orders from the Supreme Administrative Court to halt the implementation of the contested resolution. The Polish Government argued that the applicant’s case should be deemed inadmissible under the European Convention on Human Rights due to the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 10 March 2022 , which declared Article 6 § 1 of the Convention incompatible with certain provisions of the Polish Constitution.

To conclude, The Polish Government contended that Article 6 § 1 did not apply, arguing that judicial appointments were matters of public law, not civil rights. They cited a Constitutional Court ruling from 2022 declaring Article 6 § 1 incompatible with the Polish Constitution in such contexts. The European Court of Human Rights, however, found Article 6 § 1 applicable. It ruled that the applicant had a civil right to equal access to a judicial position, and the domestic proceedings were decisive for that right. The Court found that actions by both the executive and legislative branches had extinguished the effectiveness of judicial review. This deprived the applicant of any real remedy, thus violating his right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1.

Share

Resources

Sustaining Partners