The European Court of Human Rights has found multiple violations of the Convention in the case of Beata Morawiec, holding that the body which lifted her judicial immunity and suspended her from office was not a tribunal established by law and that the measures taken against her breached her rights under Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the Convention.
Ms Morawiec, a judge and President of the Judges’ Association Themis, had been an outspoken critic of the Polish Government’s judicial reforms. In October 2020 the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, sitting in a single judge formation, lifted her immunity, suspended her from judicial duties and reduced her salary by 50 per cent following allegations of abuse of power, misappropriation of funds and bribery. In June 2021, a three judge formation of the same chamber quashed that decision, refused to lift her immunity and reinstated her.
Article 6
The Government argued that Ms Morawiec had lost victim status following the favourable decision of June 2021. The Court rejected that submission. While the adverse consequences of the initial decision had ceased, her complaint concerned the structural defect of the Disciplinary Chamber rather than the outcome of the proceedings. The appeal panel, composed of judges appointed under the same contested procedure, had dismissed her objection that the chamber was not a tribunal established by law.
Referring to its established case law concerning the Disciplinary Chamber, the Court held that the body which examined her case did not meet the requirements of an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
Article 8
The Court found that the lifting of immunity and suspension from judicial duties had seriously affected Ms Morawiec’s professional reputation and private life. As the impugned decision had been taken by a body that could not be regarded as a court within the meaning of the Convention, despite constitutional requirements to that effect, the interference was not in accordance with the law. A violation of Article 8 was therefore established.
Article 10
In assessing the complaint under Article 10, the Court examined the broader context of the reorganisation of the judiciary in Poland. Ms Morawiec had publicly criticised legislative reforms affecting judicial independence. The measures against her were initiated by prosecutors subordinate to the Prosecutor General, who also served as Minister of Justice and had been the subject of criticism by her association.
The Court found prima facie evidence of a causal link between her public statements and the decision to lift her immunity and suspend her. It concluded that the interference was not lawful, given that it was imposed by a body lacking the status of a court under the Convention. The measures were capable of producing a chilling effect, discouraging not only Ms Morawiec but also other judges from participating in public debate on matters concerning the rule of law and judicial independence.
The Court therefore found a violation of Article 10.