CASE OF WAŁĘSA v. POLAND  (Application no. 50849/21)

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, drafted in Rome on 4 November 1950, amended by Protocols No. 3, 5 and 8 and supplemented by Protocol No. 2 of 4 November 1950
(Dz.U. 1993 Nr 61, poz. 284 as amended)

link to provision: https://sip.lex.pl/akty-prawne/dzu-dziennik-ustaw/konwencja-o-ochronie-praw-czlowieka-i-podstawowych-wolnosci-rzym-1950-16795332

Article 6 Right to a fair trial
1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

Article 8 Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 46 Binding force and execution of judgments
1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.
2. The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution.
3. If the Committee of Ministers considers that the supervision of the execution of a final judgment is hindered by a problem of interpretation of the judgment, it may refer the matter to the Court for a ruling on the question of interpretation. A referral decision shall require a majority vote of two-thirds of the representatives entitled to sit on the committee.
4. If the Committee of Ministers considers that a High Contracting Party refuses to abide by a final judgment in a case to which it is a party, it may, after serving formal notice on that Party and by decision adopted by a majority vote of two-thirds of the representatives entitled to sit on the committee, refer to the Court the question whether that Party has failed to fulfil its obligation under paragraph 1.
5. If the Court finds a violation of paragraph 1, it shall refer the case to the Committee of Ministers for consideration of the measures to be taken. If the Court finds no violation of paragraph1, it shall refer the case to the Committee of Ministers, which shall close its examination of the case.

* Article 6(1) has been partially declared inconsistent with Article 173 in conjunction with Article 10(2), Article 175(1) and Article 8(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland by the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 24 November 2021, ref. no. K 6/21 (Dz.U.2021.2161) on 26 November 2021. Pursuant to this judgment, the aforementioned provision shall be repealed insofar as the concept of court used in this provision includes the Constitutional Court. 
Article 6(1) has been partially declared inconsistent with Article 194 in conjunction with Article 8(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland by the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 24 November 2021, ref. no. K 6/21 (Dz.U.2021.2161) on 26 November 2021. Pursuant to this judgment, the aforementioned provision shall be repealed insofar as it grants the European Court of Human Rights the competence to assess the legality of the election of judges of the Constitutional Court. 
Article 6(1) first sentence has been partially declared inconsistent with:
1) Article 8(1), Article 89(1)(2) and Article 176(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland by the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 10 March 2022, ref. no. K 7/21 (Dz. U. 2022.643) on 21 March 2022. Pursuant to this judgment, the aforementioned provision shall be repealed insofar as the term of “civil rights and obligations” includes the judge’s subjective right to occupy an administrative function within the structure of the ordinary judiciary in the Polish legal system;
2) Article 89(1)(2), Article 176(2), Article 179 in conjunction with Article 187(1) in conjunction with Article 187(4) and Article 190(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland by the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 10 March 2022, ref. no. K 7/21 (Dz.U.2022.643) on 21 March 2022. Pursuant to this judgment, the aforementioned provision shall be repealed insofar as it allows the European Court of Human Rights or national courts to disregard the provisions of the Constitution, laws and judgments of the Polish Constitutional Court when assessing whether the condition of a “court established by law” is met.
3) Article 89(1)(2), Article 176(2), Article 179 in conjunction with Article 187(1) in conjunction with Article 187(4) and Article 190(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland by the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 10 March 2022, ref. no. K 7/21 (Dz.U.2022.643) on 21 March 2022. Pursuant to this judgment, the aforementioned provision shall be repealed insofar as, in assessing whether the condition of a ‘tribunal established by law’ is met, it allows the European Court of Human Rights or national courts to independently create norms regarding the nomination procedure of national court judges in the process of interpreting the Convention;
4) Article 188(1) and (2) and Article 190(1)(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland by the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 10 March 2022, ref. no. K 7/21 (Dz. U.2022.643) on 21 March 2022. Pursuant to this judgment, the aforementioned provision shall be repealed insofar as, in assessing whether the condition of a ‘tribunal established by law’ is met, it allows the European Court of Human Rights or national courts to assess the compatibility with the Constitution and the Convention of laws concerning the organisation of the judiciary, the jurisdiction of courts and the law defining the organisation, scope of activities, working procedures and method of election of members of the National Council of the Judiciary.;
(source of information: https://sip.lex.pl/akty-prawne/dzu-dziennik-ustaw/konwencja-o-ochronie-praw-czlowieka-i-podstawowych-wolnosci-rzym-1950-16795332 )