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


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


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 (   Zapadł wyrok ETPC w sprawie prezydenta Lecha Wałęsy | Helsińska Fundacja Praw Człowieka (


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 ( See also, in this connection, ‘statement’ subsequently issued on the Ministry of Justice portal : Bezprawny wyrok ETPC w sprawie Lecha Wałęsy – Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości – Portal (, 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, 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 (, 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 ( 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 ( 


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 ( 


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 ( 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 (


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 (


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


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



December 6, 2023


Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional TribunalPolandjudgesdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroCourt of Justice of the EUNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionMałgorzata ManowskaAndrzej DudaCourt of JusticeIgor TuleyaEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary systemMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiMateusz MorawieckiCJEUmuzzle lawCommissioner for Human RightsNational Recovery PlanAdam BodnardemocracyWaldemar ŻurekPrzemysław Radzikcriminal lawpresidential electionselectionsKamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerPiotr Schabmedia freedomneo-judgeselections 2023judiciaryFirst President of the Supreme Courtpreliminary rulingsSupreme Administrative CourtHungaryelections 2020K 3/21Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaNational Council for JudiciaryharassmentJulia PrzyłębskaProsecutor GeneralprosecutorsŁukasz PiebiakMichał LasotaBeata MorawiecPaweł JuszczyszynCourt of Justice of the European UnionPrime MinisterPresidentConstitutionCOVID-19European Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiCriminal ChamberRegional Court in KrakówRecovery FundExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberEU budgetfreedom of expressiondisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanMałgorzata GersdorfSejmMaciej Ferekfreedom of assemblyconditionalityLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeJustice FundNational ProsecutorPiSStanisław PiotrowiczAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPresident of the Republic of PolandIustitiacourtsTHEMISimmunityAnna DalkowskaNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsStanisław Biernatconditionality mechanismWłodzimierz WróbelLabour and Social Security Chambercommission on Russian influence2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiNational Electoral CommissionJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsPresident of PolandLGBTXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. Polandmedia independenceKrystian MarkiewiczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczMichał WawrykiewiczArticle 6 ECHREAWUrsula von der LeyenTVPmediaLex Super OmniaLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationAndrzej StępkaPiotr GąciarekcorruptionP 7/20K 7/21Lex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanProfessional Liability ChambersuspensionparliamentJarosław DudziczChamber of Professional Liabilityelectoral codePiotr Prusinowskidemocratic backslidingdecommunizationLaw on the NCJrecommendationHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europepublic opinion pollreportEuropean ParliamentZiobrointimidation of dissenterstransferretirement agePiebiak gatehuman rightsEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawcoronavirusC-791/19Piotr PszczółkowskiGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaJarosław GowinLGBT ideology free zonescriminal codeSenateZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczMarcin WarchołdefamationFree CourtsEwa WrzosekEU law primacyAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej MiteraViktor OrbanOLAFNext Generation EUvetoabortionJózef IwulskiTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiMarek MazurkiewiczAndrzej MączyńskiJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław RymarFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskiBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersSLAPPOKO.pressDariusz ZawistowskiMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiMarian BanaśSupreme Audit OfficeAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyKrakówXero Flor v. PolandAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Civil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaPegasusMariusz KamińskisurveillanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraEdyta Barańskaright to fair trialUkraineKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecDariusz DrajewiczRafał Puchalskismear campaignmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentMarzanna Piekarska-Drążekelectoral processWojciech Maczugapublic medialexTuskcourt changeselections integrityelections fairnessabuse of state resourcesPATFoxpopulismequal treatmentfundamental rightsCT PresidentEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justice2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUStanisław ZabłockiLIBE CommitteeFrans TimmermansUS Department of StateSwieczkowskiadvocate generalpress releaseRights and Values ProgrammeC-619/18defamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardWojciech SadurskijudgePechKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakAmnesty Internationaltrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote billresolution of 23 January 2020Leon KieresPKWinfringment actionEU valuesENCJIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawPrzemysła RadzikElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsC-487/19Article 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentSimpson judgmentForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited NationsLeszek Mazurinterim measuresautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingproteststhe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europemedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióGazeta WyborczaPollitykaBrussels IRome IIArticle 2Forum shoppingtransparencyEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian KaletaC-156/21C-157/21Marek PiertuszyńskiNational Prosecutor’s OfficeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOlsztyn courtPrzemysła CzarnekEducation MinisterIpsosOlimpia Barańska-MałuszeHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr Burasauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258clientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's OfficePolish National FoundationLux VeritatisMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykTVNjournalistslexTVNPolish mediaRzeszówborderprimacyEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej RutkiewiczMirosław Wróblewskiright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMichał WośMinistry of FinanceJacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryMarek AstCourt of Appeal in KrakówPutinismKaczyńskiPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderekct on the Protection of the Populatiolegislationlex WośRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtAntykastaStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczKatarzyna ChmuraGrzegorz FurmankiewiczMarek JaskulskiJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaKasta/AntykastaAndrzej SkowronŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiEmilia SzmydtTomasz SzmydtE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał Dworczykmedia pluralism#RecoveryFilesrepairing the rule of lawBohdan BieniekMarcin KrajewskiMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsWiesław KozielewiczNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeGrzegorz PudaPiotr MazurekJerzy KwaśniewskiPetros Tovmasyancourt presidentsODIHRFull-Scale Election Observation MissionNGOKarolina MiklaszewskaRafał LisakMałgorzata FroncJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiSebastian MazurekElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikSzymon Szynkowski vel SękJoanna Scheuring-Wielgusinsulting religious feelingsoppositionAdam GendźwiłłDariusz Dończyktest of independenceTomasz KoszewskiJakub KwiecińskidiscriminationAct on the Supreme Courtelectoral commissionsEuropean Court of HuKrzysztof RączkaPoznańKoan LenaertsKarol WeitzKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiRThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFJustyna WydrzyńskaAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszJoanna KnobelCrimes of espionageextraordinary commissionZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaCourt of Appeal in WarsawOsiatyński'a ArchiveUS State DepartmentAssessment Actenvironmentinvestmentstrategic investmentgag lawsuitslex RaczkowskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActdisinformationNational Broadcasting Councilelection fairnessDobrochna Bach-GoleckaRafał WojciechowskiAleksandra RutkowskaGeneral Court of the EUArkadiusz RadwanLech WałęsaWałęsa v. Polandright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawpilot-judgmentDonald Tusk governmentSLAPPscivil lawRadosław Baszuk