CJC Database

National Follow Up Of (when relevant): The case discusses and references decisions by the ECtHR as well as the jurisprudence of the CJEU. Specifically, the judgment mentions the ECtHR rulings related to the legitimacy of the judicial appointments in Poland and their impact on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary(e.g. Reczkowicz v. Poland, Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland, Advance Pharma Sp. z o.o. v. Poland). Moreover, it also discusses the CJEU ruling that interprets EU law concerning judicial independence (Case C-487/19). However, while the Polish Supreme Court's decision in this case heavily references and is influenced by these European courts' decisions, it is not a direct follow-up to a specific CJEU or ECtHR decision.

ECtHR jurisprudence: European Convention on Human Rights:Article 6.The Supreme Court referenced several key ECtHR cases to underline the importance of judicial independence and impartiality in ensuring the right to a fair trial:Reczkowicz v. Poland (Application No. 43447/19, Judgment of 22 July 2021):The ECtHR ruled that the composition of Poland's National Council of the Judiciary (KRS), influenced by political powers, compromised judicial independence, violating the applicant's right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland (Applications Nos. 49868/19 and 57511/19, Judgment of 8 November 2021):The Court found that the judicial appointment process under the restructured KRS did not adhere to the standards of independence and impartiality required by Article 6(1) of the Convention.Advance Pharma Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (Application No. 1469/20, Judgment of 3 February 2022):The ECtHR determined that irregularities in the judicial appointment process undermined the applicant’s right to a tribunal established by law, as protected by Article 6(1) of the Convention.These judgments, as cited by the Supreme Court, highlight the importance of maintaining judicial independence and impartiality to ensure compliance with the right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.

TRIIAL CASE

Romania, Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (High Court of Cassation and Justice), 450/07.09.2023, supreme instance, appeal in cassation

Deciding court: High Court of Cassation and Justice

Topic: Rule of law, independence, impartiality

National Follow Up Of (when relevant): N/A

ECtHR jurisprudence: art. 7 of ECtHRDecision Del Rio Prada against Spain, Grand Chamber, Kokkinakis against Greece, Vasiliuskas against Lithuania MC, Jamil against France, M against Germany, Gurguchiani against Spain, Scoppola against Italy, Maktouf and Damjanovic against Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cantoni against France, Kafkaris against Ciprus, Ruban against Ukraine (CE: ECHR:2016:0712JUD000892711), Dragptoniu and Militaru-Prodhorni against Romania

TRIIAL CASE

Portugal, Supreme Court of Justice, 27/16.0GEMMN.E1-A.S1, Supreme, 08.06.2022.

Deciding court: Supreme Court of Justice

Topic: Judicial independence; Impartiality

National Follow Up Of (when relevant): N/A

ECtHR jurisprudence: Articles 6 and 10 of the ECHR. Piersack v. Belgium, (8692/79); Cubber v. Belgium (9186/80); Borgers v. Belgium (12005/86); Micallef v. Malta (17056/06).

TRIIAL CASE

Slovenia, Judicial Council of the Republic of Slovenia, Decision Su 12/2023-13, instance: ordinary, 11 May 2023

Deciding court: Judicial Council of the Republic of Slovenia

Topic: Independence, accountability, impartiality, freedom of expression

National Follow Up Of (when relevant): N/A

ECtHR jurisprudence: N/A