Landmark ruling of the CJEU in the case against public broadcaster TVP

Share political journalist.


‘There is an entitlement to protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation regardless of the basis of employment’ the CJEU ruled today. This applies to a case filed against TVP by a former employee. ‘I am pleased with the judgment, but it’s a pity that we have to go abroad for such obvious conclusions’

by Anton Ambroziak and Agata Szczęśniak


On 12 January 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union passed a judgment on the discrimination of a former employee of Poland’s state television. Jakub Kwieciński worked for TVP for eight years on a specific task contract. He worked in graphic design and editing. His contract was not renewed in December 2017, even though he was previously on the schedule for the following month. What had changed?


He and his boyfriend, Dawid, posted a Christmas video in the social media. It featured single-sex couples, including Jakub and Dawid. According to Kwieciński, the fact that he is gay directly affected the decision of the TVP authorities to discontinue the collaboration.


CJEU has no doubts

The CJEU issued a ruling stating that there is an entitlement to protection against discrimination regardless of the basis of employment.


According to the Campaign Against Homophobia, an NGO, the ruling is a landmark decision because it sets the standard for the protection of LGBT people in employment.


When considering the case, the Polish court had doubts as to whether the anti-discrimination laws applied to civil law contracts. It also wondered whether, since companies in the EU are free to choose their trading partners, perhaps self-employed people are not encompassed by the laws on discrimination, especially because of their sexual orientation.


The opinion of the Advocate General of the CJEU, Tamara Ćapeta, in September 2022 already rebutted the arguments of the Polish courts. According to the CJEU, contractual freedom does not justify any form of unequal treatment.


‘The Polish government is behaving like a pyromaniac, setting fire to our legal system,’ comments Jakub Kwieciński. ‘In this case, the Court holds the role of the fire brigade which puts out the fires caused by Ziobro’s reforms. I am happy with this ruling because it confirms that discrimination based on sexual orientation in all types of employment is illegal. It’s just a pity we have to go abroad for such obvious conclusions.’


What will happen now? The CJEU has answered the preliminary question posed by the Warsaw court. The case will therefore return to the court’s calendar and the court will issue a judgment based on the CJEU’s interpretation of the provisions of the anti-discrimination directive.


TVP suddenly fires a gay employee

‘My duties were taken away from me overnight and I was thanked for my cooperation. The order was supposed to have come from top management. The coincidence of dates, as well as the information we received from our colleagues, leads us to believe that the reason for this decision was my orientation. All my experience, knowledge and achievements were struck off in a single moment, all because I love David and I am not ashamed of talking about it. Just before I left, I also heard about comments that were supposed to have been passed when the decision against me was made: “he should be happy he had hidden himself away for so long and it was only after two years that we realized he was working for us,” wrote Jakub Kwieciński in the social media in December 2017.


Kwieciński and his partner, namely Jakub and Dawid, make up a popular duet in the social media. They got married in Madeira in June 2017.


Kwieciński went to court after the contract from TVP was not renewed – he accused TVP of discrimination based on his sexual orientation. He was legally supported by the Campaign Against Homophobia.


The Polish court asks the CJEU


The case went to the District Court for Warszawa-Mokotów.  This court approached the CJEU for an interpretation of EU law, i.e. it asked for a so-called preliminary ruling.


So it behaved like a European court: it asked the CJEU to explain how to apply Polish regulations so that they comply with the law and values of the whole of the EU. Meanwhile, the CJEU was not a ‘foreign’ court in this case – although it is located abroad – but a court of the highest instance, whose knowledge must be drawn upon because of the lameness of Polish laws.


What exactly did the court want to know? This was about the application of the anti-discrimination directive.


EU Directive 2000/78 prohibits discrimination ‘on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation as regards employment and occupation’.


Meanwhile, Article 3 of this Directive states that it also applies to self-employment.


However, the court in Mokotów acknowledged that ‘the extent to which self-employed people benefit from the protection afforded by the [EU] Directive is not clear.’


The court had one more doubt. Perhaps the provisions on discrimination do not apply to ‘freedom of choice of a party to a contract’, it wondered.


This is because, according to the Polish Act on Equality, contractual freedom can be restricted in order not to discriminate against someone, but the conditions do not encompass discrimination based on sexual orientation (but purely discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity or nationality).


Freedom of choice, not discrimination?


It was precisely the ‘freedom of choice of the party’ that the representative of the Polish government referred to during the hearing before the CJEU in June. According to him, the discrimination prohibition only applies at the time of setting up a business. Whereas terminating or entering into a contract with a specific person lies within the framework of the freedom to choose the trading partner.


TVP’s management argued in Luxembourg that this is not about sexual orientation:


‘The contract with Mr Kwieciński’s firm expired on 31 December 2017 and was not renewed, just as has taken place in several other cases. No considerations other than factual ones were taken into account when making this decision,’ said TVP’s representative.


Translated by Roman Wojtasz


The article was published in Polish in on 12 January 2023.

Author political journalist.



January 17, 2023


Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandZbigniew Ziobrorule of lawEuropean CommissionjudgesCourt of Justice of the EUNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaCourt of JusticeMałgorzata ManowskaIgor TuleyaEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary systemMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiWaldemar Żurekmuzzle lawdemocracypresidential electionsKamil ZaradkiewiczNational Recovery Plandisciplinary commissionerPiotr SchabPrzemysław RadzikjudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme CourtAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsSupreme Administrative CourtK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020Beata MorawiecprosecutorsŁukasz Piebiakneo-judgeselectionsNational Council for JudiciaryMichał LasotaEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiPrime MinisterJulia PrzyłębskaPresidentmedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19Małgorzata GersdorfPaweł Juszczyszynfreedom of expressionCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawDagmara Pawełczyk-Woickadisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPresident of the Republic of PolandSejmimmunityAnna DalkowskaNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamberconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetWłodzimierz WróbelCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorStanisław PiotrowiczJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisK 7/21May 10 2020 electionsLex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanProfessional Liability ChamberPresident of PolandLGBTMaciej FerekXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. Polandmedia independenceIustitiaJarosław DudziczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczArticle 6 ECHRTHEMISEAWUrsula von der LeyenChamber of Professional LiabilityTVPmedia2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaPiotr GąciarekRegional Court in KrakówRecovery FundP 7/20Justice FundPiSC-791/19National Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Piotr PszczółkowskiPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikorasuspensionJarosław GowinLGBT ideology free zonesparliamentUkraineKrystian MarkiewiczKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczDariusz DrajewiczRafał PuchalskidefamationcourtsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsharassmentMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekEwa WrzosekEU law primacyLex Super OmniaAdam Tomczyńskielections 2023BelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej Miterademocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetoJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJrecommendationTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiHuman Rights CommissionerMarek MazurkiewiczCCBEAndrzej MączyńskiThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław Rymarpublic opinion pollFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskireportBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersEuropean ParliamentOKO.pressZiobroMichał Laskowskiintimidation of dissentersMarek PietruszyńskitransferKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiPiebiak gatehuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyKrakówcoronavirusXero Flor v. PolandEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej Rutkiewiczresolution of 23 January 2020Mirosław WróblewskiCivil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaLeon Kieresright to protestSławomir JęksaPKWWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMariusz Kamińskiinfringment actionsurveillanceEU valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauENCJJacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiIsraelŁukasz Radkeforeign agents lawpolexitDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościLGBT free zonesAct sanitising the judiciaryequalityMarek AstChamber of Extraordinary VerificationEdyta Barańskahate crimesCourt of Appeal in Krakówhate speechPutinismcriminal codeKaczyńskiGrzęda v Polandright to fair trialPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasŻurek v PolandMałgorzata Wąsek-WiaderekSobczyńska and Others v Polandct on the Protection of the PopulatiolegislationRafał Trzaskowskilex Wośmedia lawRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtPrzemysła RadzikAntykastaSenateStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczMarcin WarchołKatarzyna ChmuraElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiGrzegorz FurmankiewiczJacek CzaputowiczMarek JaskulskiPrzemysław CzarnekJoanna Kołodziej-Michałowiczlegislative practiceEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaENAPaweł StyrnaZbigniew BoniekKasta/AntykastaAndrzej SkowronŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoOmbudsmanMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiKraśnikEmilia SzmydtNorwayTomasz SzmydtNorwegian fundssmear campaignNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał DworczykC-487/19media pluralism#RecoveryFilesArticle 10 ECHRmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentRegional Court in Amsterdamrepairing the rule of lawOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentBohdan BieniekSimpson judgmentMarcin KrajewskiForum Współpracy SędziówMałgorzata Dobiecka-Woźniakelectoral processChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairspublic broadcasterWiesław KozielewiczNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeGrzegorz PudaPiotr MazurekJerzy Kwaśniewskimutual trustPetros Tovmasyancourt presidentsLMODIHRIrelandFull-Scale Election Observation MissionNGOIrena MajcherWojciech MaczugaAmsterdamKarolina MiklaszewskaRafał LisakMałgorzata FroncJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiSebastian Mazurekthe Regional Court in WarsawElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikSzymon Szynkowski vel SękUnited NationsJoanna Scheuring-Wielgusinsulting religious feelingsLeszek Mazuroppositionelectoral codeAdam Gendźwiłłpopulisminterim measuresPiotr PrusinowskiLabour and Social Security ChamberDariusz Dończykautocratizationtest of independenceMultiannual Financial FrameworkTomasz Koszewskipublic mediaJakub Kwiecińskiabortion rulingdiscriminationequal treatmentabortionprotestsfundamental rightsthe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońCT PresidentGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justice2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUmedia taxStanisław Zabłockiadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióSLAPPLIBE CommitteeStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationFrans TimmermansGazeta WyborczaUS Department of StatePollitykaBrussels IRome IISwieczkowskiArticle 2Forum shoppingadvocate generalDariusz ZawistowskitransparencyEuropean Economic and Social Committeepress releaseSebastian KaletaRights and Values ProgrammeC-156/21C-157/21C-619/18Marek Piertuszyńskidefamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardNational Prosecutor’s OfficeWojciech SadurskiBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberjudgeTribunal of StatePechOlsztyn courtKochenovPrzemysła CzarnekEvgeni TanchevEducation MinisterFreedom in the WorldECJIpsosFrackowiakOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeretirement ageAmnesty InternationalHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr Bogdanowicztrans-Atlantic valuesPiotr BurasLSOauthoritarian equilibriumlawyersArticle 258Act of 20 December 2019clientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officerepressive actPolish National FoundationLux VeritatisKoen LenaertsMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykharrassmentMarian BanaśAlina CzubieniakSupreme Audit OfficeTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediapostal voteRzeszówborderpostal vote billprimacy