The European Court of Human Rights has held that Poland violated the rights of three judicial candidates who were refused appointment as judges by the President of the Republic without explanation and without any possibility of judicial challenge.
The applicants, Aleksandra Sobczyńska, Adrian Klepacz and Rafał Brukiewicz, were Polish nationals working as junior judges in various district courts at the relevant time. In 2006, they applied for vacant district court judge positions. Their candidacies were approved by the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ), which submitted motions recommending their appointment to the President of the Republic.
On 3 January 2008, however, the President refused to appoint the applicants. The decision, published in the Official Gazette on 16 January 2008, contained no reasons. It marked the first occasion on which a Polish President declined to appoint judicial candidates recommended by the NCJ.
The applicants unsuccessfully attempted to challenge the decision domestically, with the national courts finding that they lacked jurisdiction to review presidential decisions concerning judicial appointments.
Before the European Court of Human Rights, the applicants argued under Article 6 of the Convention that they had been denied access to a court because the domestic courts refused to hear their challenges to the President’s decision.
The Strasbourg court observed that while Polish law did not confer a specific “right to become a judge”, constitutional principles guaranteed equal access to public office, including judicial office, and required transparent procedures protecting candidates from arbitrary refusal. The court noted that domestic administrative courts had themselves expressed concern in previous judgments about the constitutional implications of allowing the President unlimited discretion to refuse judicial appointments.
The court further emphasised that the applicants were already serving as junior judges exercising functions substantially identical to those of fully qualified judges. Their eligibility for appointment arose from an established statutory framework governing progression to full judicial office. Following assessment of their competency and integrity, the NCJ formally recommended them for appointment.
In those circumstances, the court found that the applicants had a legitimate expectation that their applications would receive proper consideration through a transparent and objective process free from arbitrariness.
The court attached particular significance to the fact that the applicants received no reasons whatsoever for the refusal of their appointments and no formal decision capable of challenge before a court. As a result, the applicants could legitimately suspect arbitrariness in the presidential decision-making process.
While the court did not exclude the possibility that, under domestic law, the President might exceptionally request the NCJ to reconsider a recommendation for appointment, it stated that any such intervention would have to be properly reasoned.
The court concluded that the applicants possessed a right to a fair procedure in the examination of their applications for judicial office and that, by denying them reasons and access to judicial review, the Polish authorities failed to protect them against potentially arbitrary decision-making.
Accordingly, the court found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in respect of the applicants’ right of access to a court.
By way of just satisfaction, the court awarded each applicant €13,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.