PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 66484/09) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Polish national, Mr Mariusz Lewandowski (“the applicant”), on 30 November 2009.

The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant complained that in proceedings in which a court had imposed a penalty of solitary confinement on him he had not received a hearing by an impartial tribunal. He further complained that his right to freedom of expression had been breached.

On 10 January 2011 the application was communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Elblag.

In 2009 the applicant was serving a prison sentence. On 8 March 2009 he applied for a stay of the execution of his sentence.

On 8 June 2009 a penitentiary judge, E.O., refused the application.

On 18 June 2009 the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against that decision. In his appeal, the applicant referred to a paragraph in the decision in which the judge had referred to his wife’s situation instead of his mother’s. The relevant part of the applicant’s appeal read as follows: “As to page 3 of the reasoning of the decision, I claim that E.O. must have drafted it under the influence of intoxicating substances, for instance alcohol or other narcotic substances. (...) [H]is mental functions being impaired, I therefore request the Court of Appeal to examine the capacity of that judge to decide cases.”

On 24 June 2009 his appeal was rejected for failure to comply with the relevant time-limit.

On 26 June 2009 Judge E.O. gave a decision imposing on the applicant, as a punishment for his accusation contained in the letter of appeal, twenty-eight days’ solitary confinement, referring to section 49 of the Act on Common Courts (ustawa o sądach powszechnych, hereinafter referred to as the Courts Act).

On 28 June 2009 the applicant appealed against that decision, complaining that the judge had lacked impartiality. He submitted that he had been penalised for exercising his right to freedom of expression and requested the court to stay the execution of the punishment until his appeal had been examined.

On the same date the applicant lodged a further appeal against the court’s decision of 24 June 2009 to reject his appeal. He submitted that the decision of 8 June 2009 with its reasoned grounds had been served on him late and therefore the seven-day time-limit for lodging an appeal should have been counted from the date of delivery of that decision.

On 9 July 2009 Judge E.O. refused to grant a stay of the execution of the decision concerning the applicant’s detention in solitary confinement.

On 22 July 2009 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 26 June 2009, holding that it had been unlawful. The court observed that section 49 of the Courts Act conferred on a judge the power to immediately apply measures necessary to ensure the peaceful conduct of a hearing in a courtroom, including the power to order immediate imprisonment as a penalty for contempt of court or for disturbing order in the courtroom. However, the case-law of the Supreme Court, established in a resolution adopted by a seven-judge bench of that court, had made it clear that these powers could not be used in situations where insults or disparaging statements about a judge or a court had been made in writing, in a context different from that of maintaining order in a courtroom. The Court of Appeal further observed that the applicant had already served the period of detention in solitary confinement imposed by the impugned decision.

The Court of Appeal noted in passing that there was disagreement in the doctrine as to the scope of judges’ powers to apply section 49 of the Courts Act . Certain writers were of the view that it could also be applied in other circumstances than those of a hearing or a court session held in a courtroom.

On the same date the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the order of 24 June 2009, finding that it was not open to doubt that the applicant had submitted his appeal against the refusal to stay the execution of his sentence outside the seven-day time-limit, which under the applicable provisions of procedural law had started to run from the date on which the court had read out its decision to the applicant.

The applicant later repeatedly complained about Judge E.O.’s conduct and requested that he be excluded from the composition of the penitentiary court dealing with his case in the future.

In its reply of 19 August 2009 the President of the Elbląg Regional Court stated that Judge E.O. felt offended by the allegations made in the applicant’s letter and that he was envisaging bringing criminal proceedings against the applicant for defamation punishable under Article 212 of the Criminal Code.

In its reply dated 29 September 2009, the Gdansk Court of Appeal stated that it had not found any grounds to discipline the judge. It was true that the judge had mistakenly referred to the applicant’s non‑existent “wife” in one paragraph of his initial decision instead of his mother, on whose situation the applicant had relied in his application, but that did not suffice to pursue disciplinary proceedings against him.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e1
001-111839_a4_em1
CODE
DIRECT
66484/09
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-111839_a4_e2
001-111839_a4_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Republic of Poland
ETHNIC
insert
001-111839_a4_e3
001-111839_a4_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
Polish national
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e4
001-111839_a4_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Mariusz Lewandowski
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e5
001-111839_a4_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
30 November 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-111839_a4_e6
001-111839_a4_em6
ORG
NO_MASK
Polish Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e7
001-111839_a4_em7
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr J. Wołąsiewicz
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-111839_a4_e8
001-111839_a4_em8
ORG
NO_MASK
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e9
001-111839_a4_em9
DATETIME
QUASI
10 January 2011
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e10
001-111839_a4_em10
DATETIME
QUASI
1966
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e11
001-111839_a4_em11
LOC
QUASI
Elblag
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e12
001-111839_a4_em12
DATETIME
QUASI
2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e13
001-111839_a4_em13
DATETIME
QUASI
8 March 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e14
001-111839_a4_em14
DATETIME
QUASI
8 June 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-111839_a4_e15
001-111839_a4_em15
PERSON
QUASI
E.O.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e16
001-111839_a4_em16
DATETIME
QUASI
18 June 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-111839_a4_e15
001-111839_a4_em17
PERSON
QUASI
E.O.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e17
001-111839_a4_em18
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e18
001-111839_a4_em19
DATETIME
QUASI
24 June 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e19
001-111839_a4_em20
DATETIME
QUASI
26 June 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e15
001-111839_a4_em21
PERSON
QUASI
001-111839_a4_em15
Judge E.O.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e20
001-111839_a4_em22
DATETIME
QUASI
twenty-eight days’
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e21
001-111839_a4_em23
DATETIME
QUASI
28 June 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e18
001-111839_a4_em24
DATETIME
QUASI
24 June 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e14
001-111839_a4_em25
DATETIME
QUASI
8 June 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e22
001-111839_a4_em26
DATETIME
QUASI
9 July 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e15
001-111839_a4_em27
PERSON
QUASI
Judge E.O.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e23
001-111839_a4_em28
DATETIME
QUASI
22 July 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e24
001-111839_a4_em29
ORG
NO_MASK
Gdańsk Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e19
001-111839_a4_em30
DATETIME
QUASI
26 June 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e25
001-111839_a4_em31
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-111839_a4_e17
001-111839_a4_em32
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e17
001-111839_a4_em33
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-111839_a4_e24
001-111839_a4_em34
ORG
NO_MASK
Gdańsk Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e18
001-111839_a4_em35
DATETIME
QUASI
24 June 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e15
001-111839_a4_em36
PERSON
QUASI
Judge E.O.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-111839_a4_e26
001-111839_a4_em37
DATETIME
QUASI
19 August 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e27
001-111839_a4_em38
ORG
QUASI
Elbląg Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e15
001-111839_a4_em39
PERSON
QUASI
Judge E.O.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e28
001-111839_a4_em40
DATETIME
QUASI
29 September 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-111839_a4_e29
001-111839_a4_em41
ORG
NO_MASK
Gdansk Court of Appeal
Mariusz Lewandowski
POL
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Mariusz Lewandowski