Designation of ad hoc judge by the ECtHR in Wałęsa v. Poland

Share

Former Head of the Legal Affairs & Human Rights Department of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

More

Designation, by ECtHR Chamber President, of Judge Ktistakis as Ad Hoc Judge: Commentary by Andrzej Drzemczewski



In a solid, well-reasoned judgment in the case of Wałęsa v. Poland, rendered on 23 November 2023, a Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the ECHR, as regards Mr Wałęsa’s right to an independent and impartial tribunal established by law and the principle of legal certainty, and of Article 8 of the Convention in that the right to respect his private life had been violated.

 

Furthermore, in applying its pilot-judgment procedure, the Court specified that Poland must take appropriate legislative measures to comply with Article 6 requirements, including the principle of the independence of the judiciary. (WAŁĘSA v. POLAND (coe.int)   Zapadł wyrok ETPC w sprawie prezydenta Lecha Wałęsy | Helsińska Fundacja Praw Człowieka (hfhr.pl)).

 

As the title to this text suggests, this contribution does not relate to the merits of the judgment. Instead, it is focused on a specific procedural decision taken by the President of the said Court’s Chamber, namely the designation of the Greek Judge, Ioannis Ktistakis, to sit as an ad hoc judge in this case.

 

I have decided to do so after having come across a tweet of the outgoing Minister of Justice in which he claimed that the Court ‘itself broke the law and violated the ECHR’ by not appointing a judge from the country against which a complaint was lodged, as well as a statement issued by the Polish neo-KRS (National Council of the Judiciary) suggesting that “The ruling in this case is also questionable because of the European Court of Human Rights’ failure to comply with the Convention’s procedural standards, as the bench did not include a judge from the Republic of Poland as the state against which the complaint was directed, in violation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.” (My translation ; full text: Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (krs.pl).) See also, in this connection, ‘statement’ subsequently issued on the Ministry of Justice portal : Bezprawny wyrok ETPC w sprawie Lecha Wałęsy – Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości – Portal Gov.pl (www.gov.pl), as well as the views of Professor I. C. Kamiński  on his Facebook account: (20+) Mam ogromny problem z dzisiejszym… – Ireneusz Cezary Kamiński | Facebook .

 

Fortunately, there have been healthy ‘reactions’ to these unfounded allegations, such as the article by D. Sitnicka, entitled ‘Zbigniew Ziobro and the KRS attack the Court in Strasbourg for its judgment in the Wałęsa case. Are they right?’ (in OKO.press, 25 November 2023, my translation of the title of the article written in Polish, Zbigniew Ziobro i KRS atakują Trybunał w Strasburgu za wyrok w sprawie Wałęsy. Czy mają rację? – Archiwum Osiatyńskiego (archiwumosiatynskiego.pl)), as well as comments made by, in particular, Professor R. Wieruszewski and former ECtHR staff member M. Mierzewska, in the Facebook account of Professor I. C. Kamiński). Be that as it may, how best to show that the Court had obviously not acted ultra vires (and that the Polish State authorities were fully cognisant of this)? 

 

It was relatively easy for me to do so. On the basis of a request addressed to the Court, based on Article 40 of the Convention (European Convention on Human Rights (coe.int)) and Rule 33 of the Rules of Court, I obtained access to the case file, in Strasbourg, on 30 November 2023. 

 

Here is a short chronology of the pertinent correspondence on this subject :

 

  • On 21 June 2023 the Parties to the case were informed that Mr Krzysztof Wojtyczek, the judge elected in respect of Poland, was unable to sit in this case (Rule 28 of the Rules of Court) and that the President of the Chamber accordingly decided to appoint Mr Michal Kowalski, as an ad hoc judge, pursuant to Rule 29 of the Rules of Court. 
  • On 12 October 2023, the Parties to the case were informed that, following Mr Kowalski’s correspondence with the Court in which he stated that he personally knew Ms J. Lemańska, the President of the Supreme Court’s Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs, and that they were employed at the same Faculty of Law of the Jagiellonian Unversity, the matter of his participation in the case as an ad hoc judge was referred to the Court’s Chamber constituted to deal with this case (Rule 28 § 4Rules of Court – 30 October 2023 (coe.int)). 

 

The Chamber first studied the list of three ad hoc judges submitted by the Polish Government and it found that less than three of the persons indicated on the list satisfied the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 (c ) of Rule 29(Rules of Court – 30 October 2023 (coe.int)). 

 

In its consideration of Mr Kowalski’s participation, the Chamber took into account the fact that the applicant’s motion (i.e., that of Mr Walesa ; see § 34 of the Court’s judgmentWAŁĘSA v. POLAND (coe.int)) for exclusion of the judges of the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs from dealing with his case, included Mrs Lemańska. 

 

The Chamber then decided that in the particular circumstances of the case it would not be appropriate for Mr Kowalski to sit on the case as an ad hoc judge. 

 

Thereupon, the President of the Chamber decided, pursuant to Rule 29 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to appoint Mr Ioannis Ktistakis, Judge elected in respect of Greece, to sit as an ad hoc judge in this case.

 

The respondent government was, as indicated, fully appraised of the manner in which the Court dealt with this procedural issue ; all these steps were described in detail in the Court’s letters to the Parties dated 12 October 2023. Hence, the contents of the tweet by the outgoing Minister of Justice was obviously unbecoming, not to say outright dishonest ; ditto as concerns the statement issued by the neo-KRS (of which Mr. Z. Ziobro is an ex officio member). 

 

The European Court of Human Rights ‘speaks’ via its judgments ; it is not for the Court or its registry – as sometimes suggested – to ‘explain itself’ with respect to various  procedural aspects of its work carried out in conformity with Convention requirement. After having consulted the Parties, the Court may not find it necessary or appropriate to specify that, e.g., a certain individual, at a particular moment in time, may lack the necessary qualities and/or professional gravitas to be appointed as an ad hoc judge (qualifications required by Article 21 § 1 of the Convention). There also exists an intrinsic logic in the Rules of Court tailored precisely so as not to make it possible for proceedings to be paralised by the existence of a list of ad hoc judges composed of  inappropriately qualified persons or when such a list does not exist. The appointment of an elected judge from another State is then envisaged in order to permit the Court to fulfil its jurisprudential tasks and ensure real and effective protection of Convention rights and freedoms (see, in particular, Rule 29 § 2). Rules of Court – 30 October 2023 (coe.int)

 

As concerns the circumstances in which this judgment will become final, see Articles 42 and 44 § 2 of the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights (coe.int)/)

 

Andrzej Drzemczewski – Former Head of the Legal Affairs & Human Rights Department of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Strasbourg.



Author


Former Head of the Legal Affairs & Human Rights Department of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Strasbourg.


More

Published

December 6, 2023

Tags

Supreme CourtPolandConstitutional TribunalDisciplinary Chamberjudgesrule of lawdisciplinary proceedingsZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaCourt of JusticeMinister of JusticeEuropean Court of Human RightsAdam BodnarIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemneo-judgesmuzzle lawCJEUJarosław KaczyńskiNational Recovery PlanMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsWaldemar ŻurekCourt of Justice of the European UnionNational Council for JudiciaryPrzemysław RadzikdemocracyPiotr Schabjudiciarypresidential electionselectionscriminal lawKamil Zaradkiewiczelections 2023disciplinary commissionermedia freedomJulia PrzyłębskaK 3/21First President of the Supreme Courtelections 2020harassmentSupreme Administrative Courtpreliminary rulingsDagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaprosecutionHungaryMichał LasotaprosecutorsBeata MorawiecRecovery FundPresidentProsecutor GeneralPaweł JuszczyszynNational ProsecutorŁukasz PiebiakConstitutionEuropean Arrest WarrantPrime Ministerfreedom of expressionMaciej NawackiCOVID-19Marek SafjanVenice CommissionSejmimmunityCriminal ChamberRegional Court in KrakówIustitiaMaciej FerekMałgorzata GersdorfreformMinistry of JusticeNCJExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberOSCEcourtsWojciech Hermelińskidisciplinary liability for judgesEU budgetcorruptionStanisław PiotrowiczNational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsCouncil of EuropeAnna DalkowskaLGBTJustice FundPresident of the Republic of PolandWłodzimierz Wróbelconditionality mechanismTHEMISKrystian MarkiewiczAleksander StepkowskiStanisław BiernatPiSreformsLaw and Justicecommission on Russian influenceLabour and Social Security ChamberJarosław Dudziczconditionalityfreedom of assemblyPresident of PolandChamber of Professional LiabilityOrdo Iurismedia independenceDidier ReyndersReczkowicz and Others v. PolandSLAPPStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationBroda and Bojara v PolandXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsSupreme Court PresidentMarcin Romanowskielectoral codeAndrzej StępkaArticle 7Piotr PrusinowskiSenateSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeTVPmediaLech GarlickiLex Super OmniapoliceabortionNext Generation EUUrsula von der LeyenEAWJustice Defence Committee – KOSAmsterdam District CourtdefamationKrzysztof ParchimowiczFreedom HouseMichał WawrykiewiczEwa ŁętowskaArticle 6 ECHRMay 10 2020 elections2017Piotr GąciarekPegasussuspensionP 7/20acting first president of the Supreme CourtNational Electoral CommissionK 7/21PM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej ZollJarosław WyrembakLex DudaProfessional Liability ChamberCivil Chamberparliamentcivil societyNational Reconstruction PlanConstitutional Tribunal PresidentAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraKrakówBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaStanisław RymarMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaJanusz NiemcewiczAndrzej MączyńskiMarek MazurkiewiczAdam Synakiewiczstate of emergencyWojciech ŁączkowskiEdyta BarańskaMirosław GranatKazimierz DziałochaJoanna Misztal-Koneckajudcial independenceMaciej MiteraDariusz KornelukViktor OrbanOLAFrestoration of the rule of lawvetoMariusz KamińskisurveillanceK 6/21Józef IwulskiAstradsson v IcelandCentral Anti-Corruption BureauPATFoxSLAPPsTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaaccountabilityUkraineKrystyna PawłowiczRafał PuchalskitransparencyDariusz ZawistowskiOKO.pressright to fair trialDariusz DrajewiczPaweł FilipekMaciej Taborowskismear campaigninsulting religious feelingsNational Prosecutor’s OfficeMariusz MuszyńskiBelaruselectoral processcourt presidentsMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekmilestonesWojciech MaczugaMichał LaskowskiMarian BanaśJakub IwaniecSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczPiotr TulejaJerzy Stępieńelections fairnessAndrzej RzeplińskiSzymon Szynkowski vel SękFerdynand RymarzInternational Criminal CourtMarek PietruszyńskiMirosław WyrzykowskiBohdan ZdziennickiXero Flor v. Polandpublic mediaSupreme Audit OfficelexTuskcourt changeselections integrityMarek ZubikKonrad Wytrykowskiabuse of state resourcesGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesEuropean ParliamentZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczMarcin Warchoł11 January March in WarsawEuropean Association of JudgesZiobroFree CourtsdecommunizationEwa WrzosekEU law primacyhuman rightsPiebiak gaterecommendationreportLaw on the NCJlex NGORussiaCCBEpublic opinion pollHuman Rights CommissionerJarosław GowinPiotr PszczółkowskiLGBT ideology free zonesC-791/19coronaviruscriminal coderetirement ageNetherlandsAdam Tomczyńskidemocratic backslidingintimidation of dissentersThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeBogdan ŚwięczkowskitransferBelgiumJoanna Scheuring-WielgusNations in TransitCouncil of the EUElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikKatarzyna ChmuraSebastian MazurekJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiLIBE Committeedefamatory statementsMałgorzata FroncRafał LisakKarolina MiklaszewskaNGOKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczIrena BochniakoppositionEuropean Court of Huelectoral commissionsAct on the Supreme CourtdiscriminationJakub KwiecińskiWorld Justice Project awardTomasz Koszewskitest of independenceDariusz DończykGrzegorz FurmankiewiczAntykastaStanisław ZdunAdam Gendźwiłł2018Wojciech SadurskiFull-Scale Election Observation MissionODIHRMarek Jaskulskirepairing the rule of lawadvocate generalpress release#RecoveryFilesmedia pluralismMichał DworczykDworczyk leaksE-mail scandalAndrzej SkowronRights and Values ProgrammeTomasz SzmydtŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoMonika FrąckowiakEmilia SzmydtSwieczkowskiKasta/AntykastaBohdan BieniekStanisław ZabłockiJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczPetros TovmasyanJerzy KwaśniewskiPiotr MazurekGrzegorz PudaNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeWiesław KozielewiczFrans TimmermansMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakUS Department of StateMarcin KrajewskiEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaC-619/18Arkadiusz CichockiCT PresidentMarcin Matczakequal treatmentNational School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (KSSiP)codification commissiondelegationsWatchdog PolskaDariusz BarskiLasotafundamental rightsState Tribunalinsultcivil lawRadosław BaszukAction PlanJustice MinistryVěra JourováDonald Tuskjustice system reformAnti-SLAPP DirectiveHater ScandalpopulismNational Council for the Judiciarycivil partnerships billKRSJudicial Reformsmigration strategyPenal CodeLGBTQ+NIKProfetosame-sex unionsKatarzyna Kotulacivil partnershipsHelsinki Foundation for Human RightsPiotr HofmańskiC‑718/21preliminary referenceEU lawethicsChamber of Professional ResponsibilityThe Codification Committee of Civil LawInvestigationPoznańKrzysztof Rączkaextraordinary commissionZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaCourt of Appeal in WarsawOsiatyński'a Archivetransitional justiceUS State DepartmentAssessment ActCrimes of espionageJoanna KnobelAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszKoan LenaertsKarol WeitzKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiRThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFJustyna Wydrzyńskaenvironmentinvestmentstrategic investmentRafał WojciechowskiAleksandra RutkowskaGeneral Court of the EUArkadiusz RadwanLech WałęsaWałęsa v. Polandright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawpilot-judgmentDobrochna Bach-Goleckaelection fairnessNational Broadcasting Councilgag lawsuitslex RaczkowskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActdisinformationlustrationWhite PaperEUDonald Tusk governmentjudgePrzemysław CzarnekJózsef SzájerRafał TrzaskowskiKlubrádióSobczyńska and Others v PolandŻurek v PolandGazeta WyborczaGrzęda v PolandPollitykaJelenmedia lawIndex.huJacek CzaputowiczElżbieta KarskaPrzemysła Radzikmedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMABrussels IRome IILGBT free zonesFirst President of the Suprme CourtBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeOlsztyn courtPrzemysła CzarnekequalityMarek PiertuszyńskiChamber of Extraordinary VerificationArticle 2Forum shoppinghate speechEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian Kaletahate crimesC-156/21C-157/21Education Ministerthe Regional Court in Warsawproteststhe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońGermanyCelmermutual trustabortion rulingLMUnited NationsLeszek MazurAmsterdamIrena Majcherinterim measuresIrelandautocratizationMultiannual Financial FrameworkC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUC-487/19Norwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsNorwegian fundsNorwayKraśnikOmbudsmanZbigniew BoniekENAArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service Actpublic broadcasterForum Współpracy SędziówSimpson judgmentAK judgmentlegislative practiceforeign agents lawrepressive actMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitLSOtrans-Atlantic valuesDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandAmnesty InternationalThe First President of the Supreme CourtErnest BejdaJacek Sasinright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychAct of 20 December 2019Michał WośMinistry of FinancelawyersFrackowiakPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikKochenovPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderekct on the Protection of the PopulatioPechlegislationlex WośKaczyńskiPutinismCourt of Appeal in KrakówMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryECJMarek AstFreedom in the WorldEvgeni TanchevRome StatuteIsraelEuropean Public Prosecutor's OfficeEU valuesPolish National FoundationLux Veritatisinfringment actionMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykPKWENCJoligarchic systemclientelismIpsosOlimpia Barańska-MałuszeHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr Burasauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258Leon Kieresresolution of 23 January 2020Telex.huEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtAlina CzubieniakMaciej RutkiewiczharrassmentMirosław WróblewskiprimacyborderGerard BirgfellerTVNjournalistslexTVNpostal vote billPolish mediapostal voteEwa MaciejewskaRzeszówKoen Lenaerts