Human rights court says Poland violated human right convention

Barrister Joanna Reczkowicz was suspended for three years "following several incidents when she was representing a client".

Reczkowicz appealed against the decision but her case was dismissed in 2019 by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court.

The barrister decided to file a complaint against Poland with the European Court of Human Rights, claiming that her case had not been heard by an "independent and impartial tribunal established by law". She accused the newly created National Council of the Judiciary (KRS) and the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, contested by this very court itself, of lacking independence. She argued that judges appointed to the Supreme Court by the new KRS were not a tribunal established by law.

W czwartek ETPCz orzekł, że w sprawie, w której decydowała Izba Dyscyplinarna, Polska naruszyła prawo do sprawiedliwego procesu i bezstronnego sądu. Reczkowicz ma otrzymać odszkodowanie w wysokości 15 tysięcy euro.

The European Court of Human Rights on Thursday ruled that Poland violated the applicant's right to a fair trial and independent tribunal.

"The Court held that Poland was to pay the applicant 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 420 in respect of costs and expenses," reads the court's press release regarding the verdict.

The ECHR also said that "the procedure for appointing judges had been unduly influenced by the legislative and executive powers".

"That amounted to a fundamental irregularity that adversely affected the whole process and compromised the legitimacy of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, which had examined the applicant’s case," the court argued.

"The Disciplinary Chamber was not therefore a 'tribunal established by law' within the meaning of the European Convention," we read.

According to the court, "there had been a manifest breach of domestic law which adversely affected the fundamental rules of procedure for the appointment of judges to the Disciplinary Chamber". The court also said the judges of this chamber had been appointed by the new KRS, a body that "did not provide sufficient guarantees of independence from the legislative or executive powers".

The ECHR therefore concluded that "the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, which examined the applicant’s case, was not a 'tribunal established by law'". "There had therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention," we read in the ruling.