Lexploria

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 15189/10 Adam CICHOPEK against Poland and 1,627 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 May 2013 as a Chamber composed of:

Ineta Ziemele, President, Päivi Hirvelä, George Nicolaou, Ledi Bianku, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Faris Vehabović, judges, and Francoişe Elens-Passos , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the applications listed on the appendix,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. A list of all the applicants is set out in the appendix.

A. Background

2. The so-called “public security authorities” (“aparat bezpieczeństwa publicznego ” or “ organy bezpieczeństwa publicznego ), i.e. a Polish communist secret police apparatus, operated in 1944-1990.

The apparatus, which was reshaped several times, consisted of different services and institutions, comprising the political police and special armed forces. It was patterned on the NKVD ( Народный комиссариат внутренних дел/Narodnyy Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del , i.e. the Soviet People ’ s Commissariat for Internal Affairs) and the KGB ( Комитет государственной безопасности/ Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti , i.e. the Committee for State Security) and established (under the supervision of the NKVD) in 1944 with a view to securing Communist rule and combating, suppressing and eliminating groups of political opposition, including the post-war underground resistance against Communism and the Polish Church. In the 1950s these organs were in charge of prisons and labour camps; at that time, they were also competent to conduct criminal investigations under the rules of criminal procedure (see Domalewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 4610/97, ECHR 1999-V).

From 1956 onwards, when the level and nature of repression changed, their tasks involved in the protection of the communist system included, among other things, the control and infiltration of Polish society secured by its own members and through a system of paid or unpaid informers and secret collaborators, denunciation, monitoring of persons in, or cooperating with, the opposition, political opponents, priests and other persons suspected of being in any way associated with anti-communist ideas or critical of the communist party ’ s programme, its role and members

3. The general information concerning the public security service published on the official website of the Institute of the National Remembrance - Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation ( Instytut Pamięci Narodowej – Komisja Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu – “the IPN” ) [1] reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:

“Since 1944 until 1990 the functionaries of the security services constituted “the armed arm of the communist party”. The main goal of the services was to protect the communists from society and to eliminate opposition.

...

First, the Security Services operated within the Ministry of Public Security which was created in summer 1944. The executive staff of the Ministry had been trained in NKVD school in Kuibyshev (USSR). Apart from the central office, the ‘ soviet advisers ’ were sent to all newly-created regional Offices of Public Security throughout Poland.

The official activity of the Ministry of Public Security started on 1 January 1945 and its wide range of power was not limited by law. The Ministry focused on achieving goals set by the Polish Workers ’ Party (PPR) [ Polska Partia Robotnicza ] and later the Polish United Workers ’ Party (PZPR) [ Polska Zjednoczona Partia Robotnicza ]. At the peak of its expansion in 1953 there were 33,000 functionaries working within the ministry structures. Additionally, a network of 73,000 informers (in the mid 1950s) collaborated with the ministry. The informers were recruited by means of brutal intimidation or promises of financial gain. Nevertheless, some of the informers, especially members of the communist party, volunteered for the work.

Offices of Public Security and their informants kept under surveillance the political parties, national and local public administration, social and religious organisations, factory workers and, in general, social attitudes. One third of adult Poles were registered in the ministry ’ s files because they constituted ‘ a dubious element ’ .

In 1954 the Ministry of Public Security was replaced by the Ministry of Interior Affairs (MSW) and the Committee of Public Security Affairs. In 1956 the Committee was disbanded and its competences and staff transferred to the Ministry of [the] Interior ....

The Security Service (SB) operated in Poland between 1956 and 1990. The fall of the communist system in Poland in 1989 brought an end to the existence of this political police and organ of terror, which was hostile to Polish society throughout its existence. ...”

4. The Security Service operated through the following main structures: Department I (for intelligence), Department II (for counter-intelligence); Department III (for anti-State activities against the country in the sphere of ideology, culture and education; the tasks involved, inter alia , infiltration of artistic, intellectual, academic, journalist and similar circles, finding secret collaborators within those groups as well as monitoring of targeted persons), Department IV (church and religious associations; the tasks involved infiltration of targeted groups, monitoring etc.), Department V (for protection of industry and anti-State activities in industry and within workers unions and circles), the Office of Foreign Passports ( Biuro Paszportów ), the so-called Bureau "A" (cipher); Bureau "B" (observation) and Bureau "W" (oversight of correspondence), Bureau “T” (operational techniques). The subordinate units at local level had departments organised in the same way. In 1983-1990 they were organised in regional ( wojewódzkie ) and district ( rejonowe ) offices for internal affairs ( urzędy spraw wewnętrznych ).

5. Following the fall of Communism in Poland, the Security Service was dissolved by virtue of the law of 6 Apri1 1990 on the Office for State Protection ( ustawa o Urzędzie Ochrony Państwa ) (“the 1990 Act”), a new body responsible for intelligence and counter-intelligence. At that time the Security Service comprised around 30,000 persons, including some 24,000 functionaries. They could be re-employed by the Office for State Protection on condition that they successfully passed a vetting procedure, which some 14,000 officers underwent. 10,439 persons were eventually found suitable for re-employment and 3,595 were vetted negatively and not retained (see also paragraphs 57-62 below).

6. On 23 January 2009 Parliament enacted the Act on amendments to the law on old-age pensions of professional soldiers and their families and to the law on old-age pensions of functionaries of the police, the Internal Security Agency, the Intelligence Agency, the Military Counter-Intelligence Service the Military Intelligence Service, the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau, the Border Guard, the Government Protection Bureau, the State Fire Service, the Prison Service and their families ( ustawa o zmianie ustawy o zaopatrzeniu emerytalnym żołnierzy zawodowych oraz ich rodzin oraz ustawy o zaopatrzeniu emerytalnym funkcjonariuszy Policji, Agencji Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego, Agencji Wywiadu, Służby Kontrwywiadu Wojskowego, Służby Wywiadu Wojskowego, Centralnego Biura Antykorupcyjnego, Straży Granicznej, Biura Ochrony Rządu, Państwowej Straży Pożarnej i Służby Więziennej oraz ich rodzin – “the 2009 Act”). The 2009 Act, which entered into force on 16 March 2009, introduced new rules for the calculation of the pensions of former functionaries of the State security service into the law of 18 February 1994 on old-age pensions of functionaries of the police, the Internal Security Agency, the Intelligence Agency, the Military Counter-Intelligence Service, the Military Intelligence Service, the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau, the Border Guard, the Government Protection Bureau, the State Fire Service, the Prison Service and their families ( ustawa o zaopatrzeniu emerytalnym funkcjonariuszy Policji, Agencji Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego, Agencji Wywiadu, Służby Kontrwywiadu Wojskowego, Służby Wywiadu Wojskowego, Centralnego Biura Antykorupcyjnego, Straży Granicznej, Biura Ochrony Rządu, Państwowej Straży Pożarnej i Służby Więziennej oraz ich rodzin –“the 1994 Act”). In particular, one of the coefficients relevant for the calculation of pensions of former functionaries was lowered from 2.6% to 0.70% for each year of service with the former communist State security authorities in the period from 1944 to 1990 (see also paragraphs 68-72 below).

For the purposes of the 2009 Act, the State security authorities are those listed in the law of 18 October 2006 on the disclosure of information of documents of the State security authorities in the years 1944-1990 and the content of such documents ( ustawa o ujawnianiu informacji o dokumentach organów bezpieczeństwa państwa z lat 1944-1990 oraz treści tych dokumentów – “the 2006 Act” (see also paragraphs 66-67 below).

B. The circumstances of the cases

7. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

1. Cichopek v. Poland (no. 15189/10)

8. The applicant, Mr Adam Cichopek, is a Polish national who was born in 1943. He lives in Chrzanów.

9. From 1969 to 1990 the applicant served in the Security Service, holding various posts. Starting as an operational inspector in 1969, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Commandant of the District Office for Internal Affairs ( Rejonowy Urząd Spraw Wewnętrznych ) responsible for the Security Service. In 1990, on his dismissal from service, he held the rank of major.

10. On 4 November 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration ( Dyrektor Zakładu Emerytalno-Rentowego Ministerstwa Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji) , pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN (see also paragraphs 70-72 below), issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant ’ s pension, whereby his benefit was reduced from 3,038.38 Polish zlotys (PLN) to PLN 1,652.60 monthly. According to the applicant, after taxation, the net amount of his current pension was PLN 1,380.87.

11. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision with the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division ( Sąd Okręgowy – Wydział Ubezpieczeń Społecznych ). He sought to have his previous pension restored, submitting that the impugned decision was based on legal provisions which were incompatible with Articles 2, 10, 31 § 3 and 31 of the Constitution (see also paragraphs 77-84 below) and that it had been contrary to international law.

12. On 23 April 2012 the Regional Court dismissed his appeal as unfounded. Relying on the Constitutional Court ’ s judgment of 24 February 2010, whereby a challenge to the constitutionality of the 2009 Act had meanwhile been examined and rejected (see also paragraphs 85-106 below), the court held that the relevant provisions of the 2009 Act had been applied correctly in the applicant ’ s case.

13. The applicant lodged an appeal on 1 June 2012. According to the most recent information supplied by the applicant on 31 December 2012, the proceedings were still pending before the Warsaw Court of Appeal ( SÄ…d Apelacyjny ) and no hearing date had yet been set.

2. Romański and Others v. Poland (no. 24434/10)

14. The application was lodged by eleven Polish nationals: Mr Janusz Romański (“the first applicant”) was born in 1937, Mr Andrzej Gomuliński (“the second applicant”) was born in 1943, Ms Barbara Gomulińska (“the third applicant”) was born in 1944, Ms Janina Męcik (“the fourth applicant”) was born in 1942, Ms Danuta Makuch (“the fifth applicant”) was born in 1945, Mr Lech Męcik (“the sixth applicant”) was born in 1938, Ms Wanda Wacławik (“the seventh a pplicant”) was born in 1942, Ms Stanisława Fortuna (“the eighth a pplicant”) was born in 1931, Ms Elżbieta Duda (“the ninth applicant”) was born in 1941, Ms Wiesława Giera (“the tenth applicant”) was born in 1936 and Ms Wiesława Przewrocka (“the eleventh applicant”) was born in 1946. The applicants, except for the fourth applicant who lives in Mysiadło, live in Warsaw. In the proceedings before the Court they were represented by Ms M. Gąsiorowska, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.

15. Except for the first applicant who was positively vetted in 1990, the remaining applicants were not subjected to the vetting procedure (see also paragraph 5 above and paragraphs 57-62 below).

16. On 16 November 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment of the first applicant ’ s pension, whereby h is benefit was reduced from PLN 2,365.95 (gross) to PLN 1,676.76 monthly. After taxation, the net amount of his current pension was PLN 1,399.85.

17. Similar decisions reducing their pensions were issued in respect of the remaining applicants:

– on 22 October 2009 the second applicant ’ s benefit was reduced from PLN 3,273. 85 (gross) to PLN 1,411.68 (gross). After taxation, the net amount of his current pension was PLN 1,186.63;

– on 29 October 2009 the third applicant ’ s retirement pension was reduced to PLN 1,370.97 (gross)/PLN 1,308,97 (net); the applicant failed to indicate the previous amount. However, at the same time, payment of this benefit was suspended because she had also the right to a disability pension, which was more advantageous. The amount of her current disability pension was PLN 1,563.70;

– on 9 November 2009 the fourth applicant ’ s retirement pension was reduced to PLN 1,500.88 (gross); the applicant failed to indicate the previous amount. However, at the same time, payment of this benefit was suspended because she had also the right to a disability pension, which was more advantageous. The amount of her current disability pension was PLN 1,512.99 (gross);

– on 16 October 2009 the fifth applicant ’ s benefit was reduced to PLN 1,063.69 (gross)/PLN 904.93 (net); the applicant failed to indicate the previous amount;

– on 9 November 2009 the sixth applicant ’ s benefit was reduced from PLN 3,895.61(gross) to PLN 2,892.73 (gross);

– on 3 November 2009 the seventh applicant ’ s benefit was reduced from PLN 2,478.47 (net) to PLN 1,766.51 (gross)/PLN 1,472.52 (net);

– on 13 October 2009 the eight applicant ’ s benefit was reduced to PLN 1,429.74 (gross); the applicant failed to indicate the previous amount;

– on 27 October 2009 the ninth applicant ’ s retirement pension was reduced from PLN 2,689.44 to PLN 1,243.87 but, at the same time, payment of this benefit was suspended because she had also the right to a disability pension, which was more advantageous. The amount of her current disability pension was PLN 1,344.72;

– on 19 October 2009 the tenth applicant ’ s old-age pension was reduced from PLN 2,407.22 to PLN 1,687.11;

– on 2 December 2009 the eleventh applicant ’ s old-age pension was reduced from PLN 1,671.45 to PLN 1,002.79.

18. The applicants on various dates appealed to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division, submitting in essence that the social security authority had misinterpreted the provisions of the 2009 Act and that the impugned decisions were unlawful and contrary to the Constitution and international treaties ratified by Poland. In particular, they relied on Articles 2, 8, 10 30 and 32 of the Constitution, asserting that the legislature had overstepped its competence because it had imposed collective punishment on them, that it had failed to respect the principle of protection of acquired rights and that they were discriminated against on account of their service in the State security authorities. They also invoked Articles 6, 7, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

19. The applicants have not informed the Court about the outcome of the appeal proceedings, except for the second applicant who produced a copy of the Supreme Court ’ s decision of 23 November 2012, refusing to entertain his cassation appeal against the judgment of the Warsaw Court of Appeal. It emerges from that decision that the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal against the pension decision on 16 May 2011 and that his appeal against that judgment was dismissed by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 12 January 2012.

3. Giętkowska v. Poland (no. 34213/12)

20. The applicant, Ms Ewa Giętkowska, is a Polish national born in 1954 and living in Serock. In the proceedings before the Court she was represented by Mr S. Pikulski, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.

21. From 16 July 1984 to 1 October 1989 the applicant was employed in the Office of Foreign Passports of the Warsaw District Headquarters of the Civic Militia. From 2 October 1989 to 15 July 2003 she was a policewoman in the Warsaw-Ochota District Police Headquarters and then in the Warsaw-City District Police Headquarters. She worked in the Investigation Department and the Homicide Department. The applicant retired on 15 July 2003.

22. On 19 October 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant ’ s pension, whereby her benefit was reduc ed from PLN 3,010 to PLN 2,462.95 monthly. That meant that instead of receiving as before 78.84% of her pension ’ s basis of assessment, she received 52.80% of that amount.

23. On 12 November 2009 the applicant appealed to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division. The court dismissed her appeal on 7 January 2011. The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment. On 7 July 2011 the Warsaw Court of Appeal rejected the appeal.

24. On 10 October 2011 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal ( skarga kasacyjna ). The Court of Appeal rejected it as inadmissible on 17 October 2011. The applicant ’ s further interlocutory appeal ( zażalenie ) against that decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 3 February 2012.

4. Poniecki v. Poland (no. 57285/12)

25. The applicant is a Polish national, born in 1954 and living in Łódź. In the proceedings before the Court he was represented by Mr T. Srogosz, a lawyer practising in Częstochowa.

26. From 16 April 1976 to 30 May 1999 the applicant was a functionary of the Civic Militia and, after having been positively vetted in 1990, of the Police ( Policja ). He began his career from a clerk in the field of operational techniques ( referent techniki operacyjnej ) in the Office of Foreign Passports and, until 31 July 1990, he held various posts in units of Bureau “B” and Bureau “T” of the Security Service (see also paragraph 4 above). In June ‑ September 1982 the applicant participated in a special course for the Security Service. In 1983-1986 he followed extramural studies at the Legionowo Officer Academy of the Ministry of the Interior ( Wyższa SzkoÅ‚a Oficerska Ministerstwa Spraw WewnÄ™trznych ), an academy which trained officers for the Security Service.

27. On 1 June 1999 the applicant retired and was granted the right to an old-age pension corresponding to 63.19% of its basis of assessment.

28. On 16 November 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant ’ s pension, whereby his benefit was reduced from PLN 3,318.51 gross to PLN 2,549.03 gross monthly.

29. In a subsequent decision, issued on 17 December 2009, the applicant ’ s pension was assessed at PLN 2,549.03 gross and PLN 2,104.62 net.

30. The applicant appealed against both decisions to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division. He argued, among other things, that they were in breach of the constitutional principles of non ‑ discrimination, protection of acquired rights and presumption of innocence, and also incompatible with Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

The court, noting that from 8 January 1978 to 31 July 1990 the applicant had been a functionary of the Security Service, which justified the application of the 2009 Act, and having regard to the Constitutional Court ’ s judgment of 24 February 2010 (see paragraphs 91-106 below), rejected the appeal on 15 July 2011. The judgment, following the applicant ’ s further appeal, was upheld by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 5 April 2012. The court stressed that the amount of the applicant ’ s benefit – even after the reduction – remained higher that the average old-age pension under the general social security scheme.

5. Przybylski v. Poland (no. 32251/10)

31. The applicant is a Polish national born in 1948 and living in Poznań. In the proceedings before the Court he was represented by Mr P. Sowisło, a lawyer practising in Poznań.

32. The applicant was a functionary of the Security Service from 16 December 1973 to 31 March 1990. On the latter date he retired.

33. On 27 October 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant ’ s pension, whereby his benefit was reduced from PLN 2,163.42 to PLN 1,537.78 monthly.

34. The applicant appealed to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division, arguing that the provisions of the 2009 Act on which the impugned decision was based were unconstitutional. In particular, he alleged a breach of the principles of the protection of acquired rights, the separation and balance of powers, proportionality, equality before the law and non-discrimination.

On 18 April 2011 the Regional Court, relying on the Constitutional Court ’ s judgment of 24 February 2010, dismissed the appeal. The applicant appealed.

On 22 February 2012 the Warsaw Court of Appeal heard the appeal and partly amended the first-instance judgment, holding that in respect of the period from 1 October 1975 to 1 August 1978, during which the applicant had studied at the Legionowo Officer Academy of the Ministry of the Interior, the relevant coefficient for the pension ’ s basis of assessment should be 2.6%, not 0.7%.

The applicant has not informed the Court of the current, increased amount of his old-age pension.

6. Weber v. Poland (no. 12248/11)

35. The applicant is a Polish national, born in 1949 and living in Warsaw. In the proceedings before the Court the applicant was represented by Mr D. Sucholewski, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.

36. The applicant was a functionary of the Security Service from 6 December 1976 to 31 July 1990.

On 16 May 1990 the Vetting Commission for Central Personnel gave a positive opinion on the applicant ’ s suitability for re-employment in the new state security institutions (see also paragraph 5 above and paragraphs 57-62 below). She continued service in the Office for State Protection until 30 June 1998, when she retired.

37. On 16 November 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant ’ s pension, whereby her benefit was reduced from PLN 2,267.72 to PLN 1,787.64 monthly.

38. On 24 November 2009 the applicant appealed to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division, maintaining that the provisions of the 2009 Act on which the impugned decision was based were unconstitutional. In particular, she alleged a breach of the principles of the protection of acquired rights, the separation and balance of powers, proportionality, equality before the law and non-discrimination. She has not informed the Court of the outcome of the proceedings.

7. Czajka v. Poland (no. 58207/11)

39. The applicant is a Polish national born in 1934 and living in Suwałki. In the proceedings before the Court he was represented by Ms B. Świątkiewicz, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.

40. The applicant was a functionary of the Security Service from 1 May 1960 to an unspecified date in 1990. He held various posts, beginning his career as an operational inspector. On the termination of service he held the rank of lieutenant colonel. The applicant was granted the right to a disability pension on 30 April 1990. He did not undergo the vetting procedure.

41. On 26 October 2009 and 17 December 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant ’ s pension, whereby his benefit was reduced from PLN 4,365.30 to PLN 2,183.96 gross (1,982.50 net) monthly.

42. The applicant appealed against both decisions to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division, arguing that the provisions of the 2009 Act on which the impugned decision was based were unconstitutional. In particular, he alleged a breach of the principles of the protection of acquired rights, the separation and balance of powers, proportionality, equality before the law, non-discrimination and the right to social security. He submitted that the 2009 Act imposed collective punishment on former functionaries of the Security Service and that they were refused the right to a hearing and could not defend themselves against charges of a criminal nature laid against them in the preamble to that Act. The applicant also invoked Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention.

On 30 May 2011 the Regional Court, relying on the Constitutional Court ’ s judgment of 24 February 2010 (see paragraphs 91-106 below) dismissed the appeal. The applicant appealed to the Warsaw Court of Appeal. He has not informed the Court of the outcome of the proceedings.

8. Kosiorek v. Poland (no. 44980/12)

43. The applicant is a Polish national, born in 1950 and living in Rogoźnik. In the proceedings before the Court she was represented by Ms A. K. Wojcieszuk-Kwiatkowska, a lawyer practising in Katowice.

44. The applicant was a functionary of the Security Service from 1 January 1970 to 31 May 1987. She held various posts, starting her career as a typist in the Investigation Department of the Katowice Security Service. On the termination of her service, she was a senior clerk in the field of operational techniques. She retired on 23 June 1987.

45. On 4 November 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant ’ s pension, whereby her benefit was reduced from 52% to 31.15% of the pension ’ s basis of assessment. This corresponded to PLN 862,70 monthly.

46. The applicant appealed to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division, maintaining that the provisions of the 2009 Act on which the impugned decision was based were unconstitutional and in breach of the Convention.

On 25 May 2011 the Regional Court, relying on the Constitutional Court ’ s judgment of 24 February 2010 (see paragraphs 91-106 below), dismissed the appeal. The applicant ’ s appeal against the judgment was heard, and rejected, by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 15 March 2012.

9. Aleksiuk v. Poland (no. 22543/12)

47. The applicant is a Polish national born in 1946 and living in Hajnówka. In the proceedings before the Court he was represented by Ms Z. Daniszewska-Dek, a lawyer practising in Białystok.

48. The applicant was a functionary of the Security Service from 1 November 1970 to 1 September 1975 and from 1 August 1978 to 1 January 1990.

49. On 27 October 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant ’ s pension, whereby his benefit was reduced from PLN 2,728.87 to PLN 1,509.28 monthly.

50. The applicant appealed to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division, maintaining that the provisions of the 2009 Act on which the impugned decision was based were unconstitutional, that that Act of itself was a form of political repression and revenge based on collective responsibility and that it was in breach of the Convention. He alleged, in particular, a violation of the constitutional principles of the protection of acquired rights, the separation and balance of powers, proportionality, equality before the law and non-discrimination and also invoked Articles 1 and 14 of the Convention.

On 4 May 2011 the Regional Court, relying on the Constitutional Court ’ s judgment of 24 February 2010 (see paragraphs 91-106 below), dismissed the appeal. The Warsaw Court of Appeal rejected the applicant ’ s appeal against the first-instance judgment on 15 October 2011.

10. Wyszomirska and Others v. Poland (no. 62131/10)

51. The application was lodged by 15 Polish nationals: Ms Renata Wyszomirska (“the first applicant), born in 1946; Ms Ewa Linowska (“the second applicant”), born in 1958, Ms Grażyna Piasny (“the third applicant”), born in 1957; Ms Anna Kończak (“the fourth applicant”), born in 1947, Ms Katarzyna Pilarska (“the fifth applicant”), born in 1935, Ms Ewa Kamińska (“the sixth applicant”), born in 1957; Ms Urszula Kaczorowska (“the seventh applicant”) born in 1944; Mr Zbigniew Wyszomirski (“the eight applicant”) born in 1943; Mr Mariusz Klauzo (“the ninth applicant”), born in 1940; Mr Sławomir Kazimierz Tokarski (“the tenth applicant”) born in 1943; Mr Juliusz Kowalski (“the eleventh applicant”) born in 1950; Mr Stanisław Laskowski (“the twelfth applicant”), born in 1946; Ms Halina Czapska (“the thirteenth applicant”) born in 1961; Ms Ewa Stępniewska (“the fourteenth applicant”) born in 1957 and Ms Teresa Pieńkowska (“the fifteenth applicant”) born in 1951. The applicants, except for the seventh and the twelfth applicants who reside in Legionowo, live in Warsaw. In the proceedings before the Court they were represented by Ms M. Gąsiorowska, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.

52. On 9 October 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment of the first applicant ’ s pension, whereby her benefit was reduced from PLN 2,015.53 (net) to PLN 1,780.46 (gross)/ PLN 1,484.22 (net) monthly.

53. Similar decisions were issued in respect of the remaining applicants:

– on 12 October 2009 the second applicant ’ s benefit was reduced to PLN 3,072.16 (gross)/PLN 2,526.67 (net); the pension ’ s basis of assessment was reduced from 75% to 52.94%. Pursuant to an indexation decision of 12 March 2010, the applicant ’ s pension was fixed at PLN 2,689.41 (net). The applicant has failed to specify the amount before the decrease but an indexation decision of 4 May 2009, which she produced, stated that her pension was fixed at PLN 3,560.62 (net).

– on 26 February 2010 the third applicant ’ s benefit was reduced to PLN 3,103.40 (net); she has failed to specify the amount before the decrease. On 16 June 2010 her old-age pension was lowered to PLN 2,455.04 (net) due to the fact that she was in paid employment, which justified a statutory reduction of her social security benefits;

– on 28 October 2009 the fourth applicant ’ s benefit was reduced from PLN 1,669.85 (net) to PLN 1,100.97 (gross)/PLN 934.88 (net);

– on 23 October 2009 the fifth applicant ’ s benefit was reduced to PLN 944.38 (gross)/PLN 809.39 (net). The applicant has failed to specify the amount before the decrease;

– on 12 October 2009 the sixth applicant ’ s benefit was reduced from 4,341.31 (gross) to PLN 3,261.77 (gross); the pension ’ s basis of assessment was reduced from 75% to 56.35% ;

– on 24 November 2009 the seventh applicant ’ s benefit was reduced from PLN 2,368.61(gross) to PLN 1,344.31 (gross);

– on 28 October 2009 the eighth applicant ’ s benefit was reduced to PLN 1,805.61 (gross); according to the applicant, his pension ’ s basis of assessment was reduced from 75% to 43.53%. He has not specified clearly the amount before the decrease but an indexation decision of 27 February 2009, which he submitted, stated that the net amount of his pension was fixed at PLN 2,557.98 (net) in 2009. In his case, the social security authority issued three decisions: the first of 28 October 2009 (described above), the second of 17 December 2009 specifying the gross (PLN 1,805.61) and net (PLN 1,504.11) amounts of his pension and the third (indexation decision) of 26 February 2010 fixing his pension at PLN 1,699.94 (net);

– on 15 October 2009 the ninth applicant ’ s benefit was reduced from PLN 2,698.19 (net) to PLN 1,596.77 (gross)/PLN 1,336.06 (net) ;

– on 8 October 2009 the tenth applicant ’ s benefit was reduced from PLN 3,504.73(gross) to PLN 2,245.65 (gross);

– on 4 November 2009 the eleventh applicant ’ s benefit was reduced to PLN 1,703.78 (gross). The applicant has failed to state clearly the amount before the decrease but an indexation decision of 27 February 2009, which he submitted, indicated that for 2009 his pension was increased to PLN 1,952.69 (gross)/PLN 1,622.95 (net). Subsequently, by an indexation decision of 26 February 2010, the applicant ’ s gross pension of PLN 1,782.50 was reduced by PLN 1,336.87 due to the fact that he was in paid employment, which justified a statutory reduction of his old-age benefits. In consequence, the applicant ’ s pension was fixed at PLN 1,125.55 (net) for 2010.

– on 23 September 2009 the twelfth applicant ’ s benefit was reduced from PLN 2,321.01 (net) to PLN 1,765.00 (gross)/PLN 1,471.15 (net);

– on 9 October 2009 the thirteenth applicant ’ s benefit was reduced to PLN 1,742.45 (gross)/PLN 1,453.63; the pension ’ s basis of assessment was reduced from 45.75% to 35.46%. The applicant has failed to state clearly the amount before the decrease but an indexation decision of 27 February 2009, which she submitted, indicated that her pension was fixed at PLN 2,258.40 (gross)/PLN 1,870.14 (net) for 2009;

– on 13 October 2009 the fourteenth applicant ’ s benefit was reduced to PLN 1,450.51 (gross)/PLN 1,217.96 (net); the pension ’ s basis of assessment was reduced from 55.19% to 42.52%. The applicant has failed to state clearly the amount before the decrease;

– on 19 October 2009 the fifteenth applicant ’ s benefit was reduced from PLN 3,418.28 (gross)/PLN 2,806.63 (net) to PLN 2,954.31 (gross)/ PLN 2,432.42 (net).

54. The applicants, on various dates, appealed to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division, submitting in essence that the social security authority had misinterpreted the provisions of the 2009 Act and that the impugned decisions were unlawful and contrary to the Constitution and international treaties ratified by Poland. In particular, they relied on Articles 2, 8, 10, 30 and 32 of the Constitution, asserting that the legislature had overstepped its competence because it had imposed collective punishment on them, that it had failed to respect the principle of protection of acquired rights and that they were discriminated against on account of their service with the State security authorities. They also invoked Articles 6, 7, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

The applicants have not informed the Court about the outcome of the appeal proceedings.

11. Remaining cases listed in the appendix

55. In the remaining 1,618 cases the applicants, on various dates between September and December 2009, received similar decisions reducing their pensions with effect from 1 January 2010 issued by the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration. As in the cases described above, those decisions were based on section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and information on their employment in the State security authorities received from the IPN.

56. Most applicants contested – unsuccessfully – the decisions before the Warsaw Regional Court. The court, rejecting their appeals, relied on the same grounds as those cited above. Subsequently, the vast majority of the applicants lodged appeals with the Warsaw Court of Appeal. The appeals, except for a few cases where certain parts of the first-instance judgments relating to technical points or mistakes in the calculations were amended, were dismissed (see also paragraphs 12, 30, 34, 42, 46 and 50 above). Certain applicants have failed to inform the Court of the outcome of the appeal proceedings and, as it emerges from the material in the Court ’ s possession, some cases are still pending before the domestic courts.

C. Relevant domestic law and practice

1. Vetting procedure for former functionaries of the Security Service

(a) The 1990 Act

57. The 1990 Act entered into force on 10 May 1990. It was repealed on 29 June 2002 and replaced by the law of 24 May 2002 on the Internal Security Agency and the Intelligence Agency ( ustawa o Agencji Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego oraz Agencji Wywiadu ).

Section 129(1) of the 1990 Act read:

“The Security Service shall be dissolved once the Office for State Protection has been set up.”

Section 131 read:

“1. Once the Office for State Protection has been set up, functionaries of the Security Service shall be dismissed from the service by virtue of law.

2. The [preceding] provision shall also apply to functionaries of the Civil Militia ( Milicja Obywatelska ) who were functionaries of the Security Service on 31 July 1989.”

58. Pursuant to section 132 § 2, the Cabinet was to determine, within ten days following the 1990 Act ’ s entry into force, the procedure and conditions for admission to service and re-employment of former functionaries of the Security Service. On 21 May 1990 the Cabinet issued Resolution 69 on the procedure and conditions for admitting functionaries of the Security Service to service in the Office for State Protection and other organisational units under the Minister of the Interior, and on their employment in the Ministry of the Interior ( uchwała w sprawie trybu i warunków przyjmowania byłych funkcjonariuszy Służby Bezpieczeństwa do służby w Urzędzie Ochrony Państwa i w innych jednostkach organizacyjnych podległych Ministrowi Spraw Wewnętrznych oraz zatrudniania ich w Ministerstwie Spraw Wewnętrznych – “the 1990 Resolution”).

59. Under section 133 of the 1990 Act, functionaries of the former Security Service and Civic Militia who were admitted to service or re-employed in organisational units under the Minister of the Interior preserved continuity of their service or employment.

(b) The 1990 Resolution

60. The 1990 Resolution (which was repealed on 30 March 2001) set up the Vetting Commission for Central Personnel ( Komisja Kwalifikacyjna do Spraw Kadr Centralnych) and regional vetting commissions ( wojewódzkie komisje kwalifikacyjne ). Pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 6, the regional vetting commissions instituted a procedure on an application from a former functionary and gave opinions on candidates. The Vetting Commission for Central Personnel was responsible for the supervision of the process, handling appeals against the regional commissions ’ opinions and reporting on the conduct of vetting proceedings to the Cabinet.

61. Pursuant to paragraph 7.1, a regional vetting commission evaluated the usefulness of a candidate for service on the basis of his application, personal files, records of service and other documents supplied. It could also, of its own motion or at the candidate ’ s request, conduct an interview.

62. Paragraph 8.1 of the 1990 Resolution read as follows:

“A regional vetting commission shall give a positive opinion on a candidate if it is satisfied that he meets the requirements for a functionary of a given service or for an employee of the Ministry of the Interior specified by law and if it is convinced that he has moral standing ( kwalifikacje moralne ) to perform service, in particular:

1) in the course of his service he has not infringed the law;

2) he has performed his duties in a manner not infringing the rights and dignity of other persons;

3) he has not used his function for unofficial purposes.”

2. The 1994 Act

63. Section 13 of the 1994 Act in the version applicable until 15 March 2009, before the entry into force of the 2009 Act (see paragraph 6 above), read as follows:

“1. The following types of service shall be treated as equivalent to service in the police, the Office for State Protection, the Border Guard, the State Fire Service or the Prison Service:

1) service performed as a functionary of the national police, the State security service, public order and national security authorities, other than service referred to in subsection 2;

2) military service relevant for the determination of the right to a military pension;

3) service performed as a functionary of the Rail Security Guard ( Służba Ochrony Kolei ) if [the person concerned] was transferred directly to service in the Civic Militia or the Prison Service before 1 April 1955;

4) employment or service in professional units for fire protection and education in firefighter schools, as a member of the Fire Service Technical Corps, or as a functionary of the Fire Service before 31 January 1992.

2. Subsection 1 shall not apply to service performed between 1944 and 1956 as a functionary of the State security service, public order and national security authorities if, in the course of performing his duties, a functionary committed an offence against justice or [offence] infringing the personal rights of a citizen and, in consequence, was dismissed from service in disciplinary proceedings or if criminal proceedings against him were discontinued in view of the minimal degree of social danger of his act, or if he was convicted for an intentional offence by a final judgment of a court.”

64. Section 15(1) of the 1994 Act, in the version applicable until 16 March 2009, read, in so far as relevant:

“The retirement pension of a functionary who remained in service before 2 January 1999 shall amount to 40% of its basis of assessment [2] for the first fifteen years of service and shall be increased by:

1) 2.6% of the basis of assessment – for each subsequent year of service;

2) 2.6% of the basis of assessment – for each year of contributory periods preceding service but not for more than three years from those contributory periods;

3) 1.3% of the basis of assessment – for each year of contributory periods over and above the three year contributory period referred to in subsection 2;

4) 0.7% of the basis of assessment – for each non-contributory year preceding service.”

65. Under the 1994 Act and previous uniformed services pension laws a professional soldier and a functionary of a uniformed service were entitled to a retirement pension after 15 years of service. Accordingly, a condition for the acquisition of pension rights was the requisite period of service, not the reaching of a certain age. The right to a retirement pension under the uniformed services pension scheme as applicable in the past and currently was not linked with the requirement to pay contributions by the person concerned since those pensions were financed from State funds.

3. Definition of “State security authorities” under the 2006 Act

66. The preamble to the 2006 Act reads as follows:

“We hereby recognise that employment or service in the security authorities of the Communist state, or assistance provided to those authorities by an informer, consisting in combating democratic opposition, trade unions, associations, churches and religious organisations, violations of the right to freedom of expression and assembly, the right to life, liberty, property and security of citizens, was inextricably linked with violations of human and civil rights committed in the name of the Communist totalitarian regime.

Having regard to the foregoing and the need to ensure that functions, posts and professions requiring public confidence are held by persons whose conduct shows, and has showed in the past, their honesty, nobility, a sense of responsibility for their words and acts, civil courage and integrity; also having regard to the constitutional guarantees securing to citizens the right to information on persons who have held such positions, have enacted as follows ...”

67. The relevant parts of section 2 of the 2006 Act read as follows:

“1. State security .... authorities, within the meaning of this Act, shall be:

1) the Department of Public Security of the Polish Committee of National Liberation;

2) the Ministry of Public Security;

3) the Committee for Public Security;

4) organisational units subordinate to the authorities mentioned in points 1-3, in particular the units of the Civic Militia in the period up to 14 December 1954;

5) central bodies of the Security Service of the Ministry of the Interior and their subordinate local units in the regional, district, and equivalent Civic Militia headquarters, as well as in the regional, district, and equivalent offices for internal affairs;

6) the Academy of Internal Affairs;

7) the Reconnaissance Unit of the Border Defence Force;

8) the Main Board of the Internal Service of the military units of the Ministry of the Interior and their subordinate sections;

9) the Military Information Corps;

10) the Military Internal Service;

11) Directorate II of the General Staff of the Polish Army;

12) other services of the Armed Forces providing operational intelligence or conducting investigative activities, including those within various armed services and branches and within military districts.

...

3. Within the meaning of this Act the State security service units shall be those units of the Ministry of the Interior which were dissolved by virtue of law upon the reorganisation of the Office for State Security, as well as their predecessors.”

4. The 2009 Act

68. The 2009 Act opens with a preamble, the relevant parts of which read as follows:

“Recognising that the system of communist power was mainly based on a widespread network of State security authorities, which essentially performed the function of a political police, applying unlawful methods and infringing fundamental human rights,

noting that crimes were committed against organisations and persons defending independence and democracy and, at the same time, [their] perpetrators were exempted from responsibility and escaped justice,

seeing that functionaries of the State security service performed their duties without risking their health or life, taking advantage of various economic and legal privileges in exchange for the preservation of the inhuman regime,

...

rewarding the conduct of those functionaries and citizens who, taking a huge risk, took the side of freedom and the injured citizens,

being guided by the principle of social justice which does not permit toleration and reward of lawlessness,

have enacted as follows ...”

69. Section 2 of the 2009 Act introduced a number of amendments to section 13 of the 1994 Act (see paragraph 63 above).

Point 1) in subsection (1) was rephrased as follows:

“Periods of service as a functionary of the Office for State Protection”.

New points 1a) and 1b) were also added to subsection (1):

“1a. Periods of service as a functionary of the Civic Militia, except for service referred to in subsection 2.

1b. Periods of service as a functionary of the State security service referred to in section 2 of the [2006 Act] in accordance with the principles mentioned in section 15b, except for service described in subsection 2.”

70. Section 2 added a new section 13a to the 1994 Act. This provision, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:

“1. On a request from the relevant pension authority, [the IPN] shall prepare on the basis of personal files in its possession information on the course of service of named functionaries of the State security service referred to in section 2 of [the 2006 Act] and shall transmit it to that authority within four months of receipt of the request.

...

4. Information on the course of service referred to in subsection 1 shall contain;

1) the functionary ’ s personal data ...

2) an indication of the periods of service in the State security service referred to in section 2 of [the 2006 Act],

3) information whether documents in [the IPN] archives show that during that period the functionary, without his superiors ’ knowledge, cooperated and actively supported persons or organisations acting for the Polish State ’ s independence.”

71. New section 15b was also added. It reads as follows:

“1. For a person who served in the State security authorities referred to in section 2 of [the 2006 Act] and who was in service before 2 January 1999, his pension shall amount to:

1) 0.7% of its basis of assessment – for each year of service in the State security authorities between 1944 and1990;

2) 2.6% of its basis of assessment – for each year of service or periods equivalent to service referred to in section 13 (1) (1-1a) and (2-4).

2. Sections 14 and 15 shall apply accordingly.

3. At a [functionary ’ s] request, the full period of service in the State security service can be added to the periods referred to in section 13(1) if he can show that before 1990, without his superiors ’ knowledge, he cooperated with and actively supported persons or organisations acting for the Polish State ’ s independence.

4. In the situation mentioned in subsection 3, evidence can comprise information described in section 13 a (1) and, equally, other kinds of proof, in particular a criminal conviction, even if not final, in connection with an activity, [undertaken] without his superiors ’ knowledge and consisting of cooperating with and actively supporting persons or organisations acting for the Polish State ’ s independence when serving in the State security service between 1944 and 1990.”

72. The relevant part of section 3 of the 2009 Act reads as follows:

“2. For persons in respect of whom information referred to in section 13a ... shows that between 1944 and 1990 they worked in the State security service referred to in section 2 of [the 2006 Act] and who on the date of entry into force of this Act receive benefits accorded under [the 1994 Act], the relevant pension authority ... shall of its own motion institute proceedings for the determination of the right to benefits and their amounts. [An] appeal to a court against a decision of the pension authority shall not stop the enforcement of that decision.

3. Payment of benefits determined in accordance with subsection ... (2) shall be made with effect from 1 January 2010.”

5. Retirement pensions under the general social security scheme

73. The rules for the determination of retirement pensions under the general social security scheme are laid down in the law of 17 December 1998 on pension benefits from the Social Insurance Fund ( ustawa o emeryturach i rentach z Funduszu Ubezpieczeń Społecznych ).

The general system operates on the basis of two schemes, known as “the old scheme” and “the new scheme”.

74. Under the old scheme, which applies essentially only to persons born before 1 January 1949 [3] , the right to a retirement pension is generally acquired by women aged 60 with at least a twenty-year contributory and/or non-contributory period and men aged 65 years with at least a twenty-five contributory and/or non-contributory period. A retirement pension amounts to 24% of the so-called “base amount” ( kwota bazowa ) (i.e. 100% of the average salary in Poland [4] in the previous calendar year, reduced by compulsory social insurance contributions deducted from the salary) + 1.3% of the basis of assessment for each contributory year + 0.7% of the basis of assessment for each non-contributory year. The basis of assessment is, to simplify the rules, calculated with reference to the average salary (reduced by social insurance contributions) received by the person concerned in ten years selected from the last twenty years of employment or twenty years chosen by the person concerned.

75. The new scheme is composed of the so called “three pillars” ( trzy filary ).

The first pillar is managed by the Social Security Board, which is a public institution and the second and the third pillars are managed by private institutions. The third pillar manages supplementary, private pension plans based on voluntary contributions and is not relevant to the present cases.

In the first and second pillars social insurance contributions are compulsory and the scheme applies to persons born after 31 December 1948 [5] . The right to a retirement pension is acquired by persons who have reached the statutory retirement age (from 60 to 67 years for women and from 65 years and five months to 67 years for men). The amount of a retirement pension is the equivalent of the total amount of pension contributions after indexation collected since 31 December 1998 and what is known as “initial capital” (contributions collected before 1 January 1999) after indexation, divided by the average life expectancy expressed in months for a person whose age is the same as the retirement age of the person concerned.

76. According to an official communiqué on the minimum statutory pension, issued by the President of the Social Security Board on 16 November 2011 (published in the Official Gazette ( Monitor Polski ) of 2011 no. 15, item 162), in 2012 the minimum statutory pension was fixed at 728.18 Polish zlotys (PLN).

6. Relevant provisions of the Constitution

77. Article 2 of the Constitution states:

“The Republic of Poland shall be a democratic state ruled by law and implementing the principles of social justice.” [6]

78. Article 10 of the Constitution states:

“1. The system of government of the Republic of Poland shall be based on the separation of and balance between the legislative, executive and judicial powers.

2. Legislative power shall be vested in the Sejm [7] and the Senate, executive power shall be vested in the President of the Republic of Poland and the Council of Ministers, and judicial power shall be vested in courts and tribunals.”

79. Article 18 of the Constitution states:

“Marriage, being a union of a man and a woman, as well as the family, motherhood and parenthood, shall be placed under the protection and care of the Republic of Poland.”

80. Article 30 of the Constitution states:

“The inherent and inalienable dignity of the person shall constitute a source of freedoms and rights of persons and citizens. It shall be inviolable. The respect and protection thereof shall be the obligation of public authorities.”

81. Article 31 § 3 of the Constitution states:

“Any limitation upon the exercise of constitutional freedoms and rights may be imposed only by statute, and only when necessary in a democratic state for the protection of its security or public order, or to protect the natural environment, health or public morals, or the freedoms and rights of other persons. Such limitations shall not violate the essence of freedoms and rights.”

82. Article 32 of the Constitution states:

“1. All persons shall be equal before the law. All persons shall have the right to equal treatment by public authorities.

2. No one shall be discriminated against in political, social or economic life for any reason whatsoever.

83. Article 42 of the Constitution states:

“1. Only a person who has committed an act prohibited by a statute in force at the moment of commission thereof, and which is subject to a penalty, shall be held criminally responsible. This principle shall not prevent punishment of any act which, at the moment of its commission, constituted an offence within the meaning of international law.

2. Anyone against whom criminal proceedings have been brought shall have the right to defence at all stages of such proceedings. He may, in particular, choose counsel or avail himself - in accordance with principles specified by statute - of counsel appointed by the court.

3. Everyone shall be presumed innocent of a charge until his guilt is determined by the final judgment of a court.

84. Article 67 § 1 of the Constitution states:

“A citizen shall have the right to social security whenever incapacitated for work by reason of sickness or disability as well as having attained retirement age. The scope and forms of social security shall be specified by statute.”

7. Constitutional Court ’ s judgment of 24 February 2010 (case no. K 6/09)

(a) Arguments before the Constitutional Court

(i) The applicant deputies

85. On 23 February 2009 a group of members of Parliament belonging mostly to the Democratic Left Alliance ( Sojusz Lewicy Demokratycznej ) asked the Constitutional Court ( Trybunał Konstytucyjny ) to declare that the 2009 Act was in its entirety incompatible with Articles 2, 10, 31 § 3 and 32 of the Constitution. Subsequently, in their pleading of 30 August 2009, they also relied on Articles 18, 30, 42, 45 and 67 § 1 of the Constitution.

86. The main thrust of the very extensive arguments submitted in support of the application, which were made both in writing and at an oral hearing can be summarised as follows.

1) The 2009 Act, drastically reducing the pensions of former functionaries, had deprived some of them of the possibility of living with dignity and consequently was contrary to the principle of respect for human dignity laid down in Article 30 of the Constitution. At the same time, it infringed the very essence of the right to socia l security set forth in Article 67 § 1 of the Constitution.

2) All the functionaries of the State s ecurity service who had been re ‑ employed after 1990 had undergone a vetting procedure under the 1990 Resolution and had been considered fit for service in the democratic Republic of Poland. They had obtained their pension rights lawfully under the 1994 Act, a law enacted by independent, democratic Poland. The 2009 Act extinguished their rights acquired under a democratic system in an arbitrary fashion and unjustifiably, in breach of the principle of the protection of acquired rights laid down in Article 2 of the Constitution.

3) Vetting and re-employing former functionaries of the State security service constituted a special declaration, made on behalf of the Republic of Poland by the State authorities, that they would be treated on an equal basis with all functionaries of services created after 1990. In turn, the functionaries, under oath, took upon themselves an obligation to serve the nation faithfully and protect the legal order established by the Constitution, and the security of the State and its citizens. They fulfilled their duties; otherwise, they would not have been granted their pensions.

The 2009 Act, enacted some twenty years later, amounted to a breach of this special pact and, consequently, violated the principle of the citizens ’ confidence in the State and the laws made by it laid down in Article 2 of the Constitution.

4) The 2009 Act was based on the rule of collective responsibility and presumption of guilt on the part of former functionaries of the State security service. It applied an automatic restriction of pension rights of all former State security service functionaries, notwithstanding their actual individual conduct and the nature of the duties they had performed in the past. As a result, the 2009 Act, drastically lowering the coefficient used for the determination of their pensions, constituted a form of unjustified repression against positively vetted and re-employed functionaries.

This was tantamount to consid ering service before 1990 a non ‑ contributory period. In particular, the legislature did not put functionaries on an equal footing with other persons receiving pensions under the general social security scheme, where a coefficient of 1.3% applies, which could give the deceptive appearance of a “withdrawal of privileges”, but placed them in a decisively more disadvantageous position. This constituted a breach of the principle of social justice laid down in Article 2 of the Constitution.

5) The legislature also violated the principle of separation and balance of powers laid down in Article 10 § 1 of the Constitution. It imposed collective punishment on all persons who had been functionaries of the State security service before 1990. The mere fact of service in those authorities was decisive. No legal procedure was available to review the legality, justification, adequacy and proportionality of the sanction imposed. For all practical purposes, the legislature took over the role of the courts of law. In consequence, functionaries were punished collectively, regardless of whether they had indeed been responsible for any acts which were unlawful, infringed human dignity or were morally reprehensible.

6) The 2009 Act was in breach of the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 31 § 3 of the Constitution because it constituted an extremely serious restriction on the pension rights of positively vetted and re-employed functionaries and imposed an excessive burden on them. Moreover, the 2009 Act entirely disregarded the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1096 (1996) on measures to dismantle the heritage of former communist totalitarian systems (“the 1996 PACE Resolution”) and its accompanying guidelines, recommending that that process should be terminated within ten years of the fall of the communist dictatorship (see also paragraph 115 below).

7) The 2009 Act, contrary to the principles of equality before the law and non-discrimination laid down in Article 32 of the Constitution, introduced discrimination between functionaries who had been vetted positively and subsequently re-employed and functionaries who had not served in the State security authorities before 1990. There was no basis for this difference in treatment as both groups had the same characteristics.

87. The deputies also stressed that the legislature had ignored the fact that functionaries of the State security service had performed various duties and that, in particular, many of them had been administrative personnel, had been teachers, secretaries, or drivers or they had dealt with common or economic crime and had not been involved in surveillance of or combat against the opposition. In their view, these persons should not be affected by the 2009 Act. It was profoundly unjust that a functionary who had worked all his professional life in the State security service in a lowly technical or administrative position, not infringing the rights of others, not combating the opposition and not acting for the preservation of the communist regime should now receive a pension of only PLN 600 zlotys [8] .

(ii) Other parties

88. The other parties to the proceedings, namely the Sejm, represented by its Speaker ( Marszałek ) and the Prosecutor General, also submitted extensive arguments.

89. The Speaker of the Sejm asked the Constitutional Court to dismiss the application, stressing, in particular, that the impugned reduction could not be regarded as disproportionate or excessive having regard to the lowest benefits available under the general social security scheme or those received by persons who had been subjected to political repression under the totalitarian system.

90. The Prosecutor General asked the Constitutional Court to dismiss the application in part contesting the reductions in pensions, and to discontinue the proceedings in respect of the remainder.

(b) The ruling

91. The Constitutional Court, sitting in a panel of fourteen judges [9] , heard the application on 13 and 14 January and 24 February 2010. It gave judgment on the last of these dates, holding that the contested amendments to the 1994 Act introduced by the 2009 Act were compatible with the Constitution. Five judges voted against the ruling and submitted dissenting opinions (see paragraphs 107-111 below). One of the judges [10] submitted a concurring opinion.

92. The judgment contains very extensive reasoning, which can be summarised as follows.

93. As regards the scope of the constitutional review in the case, the Constitutional Court held that the application would eventually be examined under Articles 2, 10, 30, 32, 42 and 67 § 1 r ead in conjunction with Article 31 § 3 of the Constitution (see also paragraphs 77-84 above) and, finding that the deputies had not advanced meritorious arguments concerning the other alleged breaches, discontinued the proceedings in that respect.

94. In an introductory part of the judgment the Constitutional Court referred at length to various general issues, such as the Polish Parliament ’ s resolutions condemning the former communist regime and the de ‑ c ommunisation laws adopted by Poland. It also had regard to resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in particular, the 1996 PACE Resolution and the Resolution 1481 (2006) on the need for international condemnation of crimes of totalitarian communist regimes (“the PACE 2006 Resolution”; see also paragraphs 115-116 below), as well as to laws and measures affecting pension rights of functionaries of the former communist State security service in other countries (in particular, in Germany, the Czech Republic, Latvia and Romania). It referred to the Court ’ s case-law on lustration and de-communisation measures and its own jurisprudence on settling accounts with the communist past.

95. The Constitutional Court next referred to the essential features and activities of the communist State security service. This part of the reasoning reads, in so far as relevant, as follows [11] :

“6.2. ... The State security authorities of the Polish People ’ s Republic and their functionaries safeguarded the communist regime in Poland in the years 1944-89, they preserved the situation in which in Poland there w as no liberty and democracy, no market economy and no affiliation with the Western world. [A] direct consequence thereof was a degradation of the country ’ s civilisation, which was demonstrated by, among other things, a deep disintegration of its economy and financial situation.

The [communist] system was founded on a secret political police apparatus which was extensive in terms of its structure and number [of employees]. The main objective of this apparatus was to preserve and support the communist regime. To this end, functionaries of the State security service of the Polish People ’ s Republic in the initial period used terror and, routinely, humiliation, surveillance of innocent people, and fabrication of evidence; they violated fundamental human rights and freedoms. The methods they used and the scale and intensity [of their activities] changed over time, but their essence was the same – to support a political regime which was hostile to human rights. In reward, the ruling communist party gave those functionaries practical impunity for abuses of power, promotions that were faster than in other uniformed services, a high remuneration for service, other numerous additional economic and social privileges, and high retirement pension benefits.

6.3. This court does not judge the individual motivations of the tens of thousands of people who chose voluntarily to serve in the State security authorities of the Polish People ’ s Republic, mostly young men. It is likely that purely professional motivation (service in the secret police) was similar to that which exists today. A considerable difference lies in the object of the choice. In no case does the choice of service in the secret political police of the communist State merit approval, notwithstanding the organisational unit and the grade of the functionary ...

By the closing days of the Polish People ’ s Republic about 30,000 functionaries were employed by the State security authorities. Today there are in total about 10,000. This is not just one-third of the previous total. The security authorities of the Polish People ’ s Republic, instead of serving to protect the political, social and economic aspirations of Poles, constituted a highly specialised net of institutions which worked against these aspirations. The “product” that remained after those security authorities had been disbanded is over eighty-six kilometres of files, of which only 850 m are important for national security today and are in the restricted archives of the IPN ...”

96. In respect of the deputies ’ argument that the functionaries adversely affected by the 2009 Act had been either positively vetted or not subjected to the vetting procedure, the Constitutional Court held, among other things, that:

“6.4 ...[A]s a result of democratic transformation in Poland the Security Service was ... dissolved. The ... sovereign Polish State needed new services, which would ensure its security and would at the same time act in accordance with the standards of a democratic state ruled by law. There were two possible options: 1) constructing the new services from scratch, and recruiting exclusively persons who had not served in the Security Service, with the prospect of a long period of preparation for their tasks or 2) setting up a new State protection police quickly, taking unavoidably large numbers of former functionaries of the dissolved Security Service, the legislature chose the second option. It meant that former functionaries of the Security Service could be admitted to service in the Office for State Protection.

6.4.1. The object of the vetting procedure was not to issue certificates of good moral standing to functionaries of particular departments of the Security Service ...”

97. A considerable part of the reasoning was devoted to a comparison between pensions under the general social security scheme and the uniformed services system.

In respect of the calculation of pensions under the general rules, it was noted that the system was organised in such a way that an ordinary employee on his retirement received 40% of his salary calculated for a period of ten calendar years chosen by him from the last twenty years preceding his retirement, including contributory and non-contributory periods. The longer the period of employment, the higher the pension. In practice, in order to receive a pension close to half the average salary in the last ten years, a person had to be employed for at least thirty years.

In contrast, a functionary of the uniformed services acquired the right to a pension equal to 40% of his average salary after only fifteen years of service. The average salary of persons insured under the general scheme was 50% that of the uniformed services personnel and this difference was even more marked in comparison to the special services. Accordingly, a pensioner insured in the general scheme received 40% of his average salary for the last ten years for a period of employment which was twice as long.

98. As regards the belated introduction of the new rules and non ‑ conformity of the 2009 Act with the 1996 PACE Resolution, the Constitutional Court observed, inter alia , the following:

“ ... The lapse of time since the Polish State gained sovereignty in 1989, although not without significance, cannot be a decisive criterion for the evaluation of constitutionality of the regulations adopted by the legislature in order to settle accounts with the former functionaries of the communist regime. There is no provision in the Constitution which would impose a prohibition on enacting such regulations. The Constitution does not set time-limits for the settling of accounts with the past communist regime. It is not within the competence of the Constitutional Court to give an opinion on whether, and if so by when, the legislature of free Poland can introduce such laws ... How much time elapses between the collapse of the communist regime and the adoption of a given law depends on the existence of a configuration of power capable of enacting the law during its parliamentary term. As shown by the examples of Poland and other countries in our region of Europe, as well as certain countries in South America, many years may elapse after the establishment or re ‑ establishment of democracy before laws are enacted regulating a certain aspect of responsibility for systemic abuses of power ...

8.4. Referring to the argument that the 2009 Act of 23 January 2009 is in ‘ flagrant contradiction ’ of the 1996 Pace Resolution and of the guidelines to that document ... the Constitutional Court finds that there is no suggestion in those documents that settling of accounts with the communist period should only take place during the first ten years after the overthrow of the dictatorship. Laws on settling accounts have been introduced in various [countries] and in various years over the past two decades, including in recent years ... As the Constitutional Court has noted above, pursuant to § 14 of the 1996 PACE Resolution: ‘ In exceptional cases, where the ruling elite of the former regime awarded itself pension rights higher than those of the ordinary population, these should be reduced to the ordinary level ’ ”

99. As regards the argument that an interference with the functionaries ’ right to social security was excessive, the Constitutional Court noted that, in essence, the legislature reduced the coefficient of the pension ’ s basis of assessment from 2.6% to 0.7% only in respect of functionaries of the State security service who were in service before 2 January 1999 and who had been employed for at least fifteen years. Other elements relevant to the assessment of pensions remained unchanged, in particular the right to a pension after fifteen years of service, advantageous calculation of the pensions ’ basis of assessment in comparison to the general system, rules and terms regarding indexation, invalidity and survivor pensions benefits, special allowances and increases in pensions due to, for instance, service during the war, combating terrorism, serving in hazardous conditions or in the counter-intelligence service.

In that context, the Constitutional Court also cited various information supplied by the social security authorities, concerning levels of pensions of functionaries as determined under the 2009 Act in comparison to ordinary pensioners. In January 2010 the average pension of the former amounted to 2,558.82 Polish zlotys (PLN), whereas the average pension received under the general social security scheme was PLN 1,618.70. At the material time the minimum statutory pension was PLN 675.10.

In February 2010 the average pension received by former functionaries of the State security service was lowered by PLN 346 and was still higher by 58% than the average pension under the general scheme. Only in respect of ordinary functionaries was the average pension (PLN 1,499.64) slightly lower than under the general scheme. Junior officers received PLN 2,102.12 on average (formerly PLN 2,670.930, senior officers PLN 3,479.67 (formerly PLN 4,156.21) and generals received PLN 8,598.43 (formerly PLN 9,578.41).

100. According to information produced by the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration on 5 February 2010, the board issued 38,563 decisions re-assessing pensions of former functionaries. In 7,227 cases the pensions remained unchanged due to the fact that certain periods of employment, which had not previously been included, were taken into account. In 589 cases the application of the 0.7% coefficient as established by the 2009 Act would have resulted in reducing pensions below the statutory minimum and, therefore, those pensions were increased so as to reach that amount.

In view of the foregoing, the Constitutional Court held that the legislature, being guided by the principle of social justice, pursued the legitimate aim of adjusting the pensions of former functionaries of the State security service to the average level of pensions under the general social security scheme. In consequence, in January 2010 the average pension of a functionary was still higher that the average ordinary pension. This reduction limited, but did not extinguish, the excessive, unjustly acquired generous benefits of former state security functionaries. This demonstrated that the legislature was not seeking revenge but greater social justice.

101. Considering the above circumstances, the Constitutional Court concluded that the impugned provisions wer e not incompatible with Article 67 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 31 § 3 of the Constitution. It held, inter alia, as follows:

“8.9. The Constitutional Court finds that the legislature did not infringe the essence of the right to social security by introducing the 2009 Act. Although it considers that the reduction in retirement pensions of ... the functionaries of the State security service of the Polish People ’ s Republic was significant, it nevertheless remained within the margin of appreciation determined by the Constitution. An infringement of [their] right to social security would, in particular, have occurred if the legislature had taken away all their retirement pension rights or reduced their pensions to a level below the social minimum standards. By reducing [their] retirement benefits the legislature not only guaranteed that their benefits would not be lower than the minimum statutory retirement pension under the general social security system ... but also ensured that the amount of [their] average retirement pension under the new provisions remains still significantly higher than the average retirement pension paid under the general social security system.”

102. Rejecting the arguments as to the alleged incompatibility of section 13(1) and (1b) and section 15b of the 1994 Act as introduced by the 2009 Act with Article 30 of the Constitution (the principle of respect for human dignity), the Constitutional Court held:

“9.2. The impugned provisions are neither aimed at depriving the functionaries of security authorities of the minimum means of subsistence, nor at humiliating them. [The] aim is to reduce their retirement pension benefits, which ... stem from the privileged system of social security. As ... already established above .... after the entry into force of the 2009 Act, the average reduced retirement pension of a functionary of the State security authorities ... is still 58% higher than the average retirement pension in the general retirement pension system, and almost four times higher than the minimum statutory retirement pension. In this situation, the legislature under the impugned provisions still provides retired functionaries of the State security authorities .... with adequate, justified and fair social security benefits for the period of their service before 1990 ... In conclusion, the contested provisions conform to Article 30 of the Constitution.”

103. The Constitutional Court further rejected the arguments in respect of the alleged incompatibility of sections 13(1) and (1b) and 15b(1) of the 1994 Act as introduced by the 2009 Act with Article 2 of the Constitution (the principle of citizens ’ confidence in the state and the law made by it, the principle of protection of acquired rights and the principle of social justice). The relevant part of the reasoning reads as follows:

“10.2. ... The legislature was entitled – despite the lapse of over nineteen years since the transformation of the system – to introduce provisions reducing retirement pensions for periods of service in the State security authorities ... It does not follow from the constitutional principle of protection of citizens ’ confidence in the State and the laws made by it that everyone, regardless of his or her personal circumstances, may assume that the rules governing his social rights will never change to his disadvantage in the future ...

The protection of acquired rights does not mean that those rights are inviolable, and does not exclude the enactment of less advantageous regulations. The Constitutional Court has stressed on many occasions that departure from the principle of protection of acquired rights is permissible, provided it has a basis in other constitutional principles, provisions or values .... According to the well-established jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, the principle of protection of acquired rights does not apply to rights acquired unjustly or dishonourably, nor to rights which lacked a basis in the constitutional order binding at the time of adjudication ...

By enacting the contested provisions the legislature expressed a negative opinion on the activities of ... the security authorities of the communist State, which was confirmed in the course of legislative work and in the preamble to the 2009 Act. In the preamble, the legislature declared it had been guided by the ‘ principle of social justice, which does not permit the toleration and reward of lawlessness ’ . ... As already stated above, the legislature of free Poland has never expressed a single positive opinion on the secret political police of the years 1944-89, and in the years 1989-2009 this opinion has been reflected in laws and adopted resolutions many times. As long as constitutional principles and values are respected, the legislature has the right to draw conclusions from the historical experience of the Polish People ’ s Republic ...

The applicant seems to suggest that the impugned provisions would conform to the constitutional principle of social justice if the coefficient of the basis of assessment for the retirement pension was 1.3% ... which, in the applicant ’ s opinion, might give a deceptive appearance of a “withdrawal of privileges”. The 0.7%, however ...placed those affected by it in a position where their pension was significantly lower than in the general retirement pension system, which, according to the applicant, amounts to repression ...

This argument is ill-founded ...

As this court has already found ... the ... 0.7% for every year of service must be assessed taking into account the fact that functionaries of the State security authorities had been receiving remunerations significantly higher than the average salary in Poland .... The amount of the retirement benefit is not determined by the coefficient for the basis of assessment alone (2.6%, 1.3% or 0.7%), but is a result of the “base amount” and other factors, relevant to the establishment of the final amount of the whole benefit ...

This court has already established that, after the 2009 Act ’ s entry into force, the average reduced retirement pension of a functionary of the State security authorities ... is still 58% higher than the average retirement pension in the general old-age pension system, and almost four times the statutory minimum retirement pension. ...

10.7. In sum, the privileges in respect of retirement pension rights [of the functionaries] have been acquired dishonourably. The aims and methods of ... the State security service of the Polish People ’ s Republic cannot be considered legitimate. This court finds that service in State institutions and authorities which systemically violated fundamental human rights and the rule of law may not justify claims that privileges acquired before the fall of the regime should be preserved in a democratic state ruled by law.

One of the ways of rewarding [the functionaries] ... for service was, among many other things, providing them with retirement pension privileges. These privileges were preserved by their beneficiaries in free Poland, which was confirmed in the 1994 Act. In 2009, assessing negatively the State security authorities of the Polish People ’ s Republic, the legislature was able to resort to the abolition or limitation of unjustly acquired retirement pension benefits. ... This court considers that the manner in which the legislature ... reduced unjustly acquired retirement privileges in 2009 was balanced, restrained and proportional.”

104. The argument that the impugned provisions were incompatible with Article 32 of the Constitution (the principle of equality before the law and non-discrimination) because all the functionaries were treated in the same way, despite the fact that most of them had been positively vetted, was likewise rejected. In that regard, the Constitutional Court once again stressed that the positive outcome of the vetting procedure did not mean an approval of service in the former communist secret political police and it did not eradicate the fact that the functionaries concerned had served in that institution voluntarily. All the functionaries were treated in exactly the same way and they were partly deprived of their pension benefits on the same ground, which was the fact that they had served in an institution which had engaged in reprehensible activities over the relevant period. Their service after the cut-off date in 1990 for democratic Poland was treated without discrimination since they acquired the same pension rights as the others, notwithstanding their past.

105. The Constitutional Court found no breach of Article 10 of the Constitution (the principle of division and balance of power) in respect of the allegation that the legislature enacted the 2009 Act in order to impose a collective punishment on the former State security functionaries. It observed that Parliament had not overstepped its competences set out in the Constitution and that the contested provisions were not designed to punish the functionaries collectively but to reduce their pensions to the level of the average pension under the general social security scheme.

106. Lastly, as regards the argument that the contested provisions of the 2009 Act were based on collective responsibility and presumption of guilt since all the functionaries of the State security service were equally considered criminals who did not deserve any rights, the Constitutional Court found that Article 42 of the Constitution (the principles of the right to defence, presumption of innocence, nulla poena sine lege ) did not apply in the case. It stressed that this provision concerned only criminal responsibility and criminal proceedings and could not be interpreted extensively. There were no criminal sanctions included in the impugned provisions. Nor did they prejudge criminal guilt of functionaries, and they did not constitute a form of repression.

(c) Dissenting opinions

107. In Judge Jamroz ’ s view the 2009 Act was in its entirety incompatible with Article 2 and Article 10 of the Constitution. In his dissenting opinion he stated, among other things, the following:

“Changes in the retirement pension system are obviously permissible, and also in certain circumstances justly acquired rights cannot be absolute. However, this needs to be done with respect for constitutional principles, and in particular those in Article 2 of the Constitution ...

The 2009 Act is in breach of Article 10 of the Constitution, since the legislature has imposed collective punishment on all those who were functionaries of the State security authorities before 1990, without considering the conduct of individual functionaries. The decisive factor is the mere fact of serving in the State security authorities of the Polish People ’ s Republic. In this way the legislature entered the realm of authority which is constitutionally restricted to judicial bodies, without taking any action to check or verify the legitimacy, adequacy, legality, fairness and proportionality of the sanction imposed. As a consequence the legislature, relying on the principle of collective responsibility, has imposed severe punishment, regardless of whether the functionaries are responsible for any unlawful acts which violated human dignity, or whether their actions were morally reprehensible ...

The judgment ... following the intentions of the legislature which have been expressed in the preamble, passes on political and moral judgment regarding the functioning of the State security authorities in the Polish People ’ s Republic and draws from it legal consequences with regard to constitutional matters. However, I object to the methodology of adjudicating in the name of “pure justice” which has been assumed by the Constitutional Court, which has been inspired by political and moral opinions but has omitted the constitutional principles reflecting contemporary long-standing standards of a democratic state ruled by law established in its jurisprudence ... .”

108. Judge Łętowska considered that the Preamble to the 2009 Act was incompatible with Article 2 of the Constitution, that sections 1 and 2 read in conjunction with Article 3 of the 2009 Act were incompatible with Articles 2 and 67 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 31 § 3 of the Constitution and disagreed with the majority with regard to certain general ideas expressed in the reasoning. The relevant parts of her opinion read as follows:

“I do not question the constitutional admissibility (and legitimacy) of reducing retirement pensions for the staff who formed a kind of “Praetorian Guard” of the totalitarian regime, subsequently discredited in the democratic system. I question the way in which it has been carried out. ...

The preamble to the Act first of all stigmatises the persons to whom the reduction of retirement pensions applies and, secondly, specifies the aims of the Act. With regard to the former, it states that, as functionaries of State security authorities, they received pensioner status granted ‘ in exchange for the preservation of the inhumane regime ’ in which, at the same time, ‘ the perpetrators were exempted from responsibility and escaped justice”. These charges contain a strong emotional, moral and legal condemnation. When such a charge is made globally assertion of humiliation is thereby justified.

The mere fact of the above-mentioned stigmatisation of all persons to whom the 2009 Act applies, constitutes, in my view, a breach of the principle of proper legislation (Article 2 of the Constitution), as the scope ratione personae of the Act is broader than the group of persons at whom the Act is aimed, as indicated in the preamble, (deprivation of privileges unjustly acquired during the period of the totalitarian regime). ...

I do not share the view expressed in the judgment that the positive vetting of the staff of the Civic Militia and the Security Service, carried out in 1990, is irrelevant to an assessment of the constitutionality of the 2009 Act. ...

It cannot be assumed (as it has been in the judgment) that nobody guaranteed through the vetting the prospects of a retirement pension under the uniformed services system. The uniformed service brings with it not merely an obligation to perform work and the right to remuneration, but an entire legal status related to that service. The status also includes acquiring (as a continuous process during the period of service) retirement pension entitlements appropriate for uniformed services. That entitlement was granted to the positively vetted persons by allowing them to perform service in the democratic state ... .”

109. Judge Mazurkiewicz stated that the Preamble to the 2009 Act was incompatible with Articles 2 and 10 of the Constitution, that section 1 taken together with section 3(1) and (3) and section 2 taken together with section 3(2) and (3) of the 2009 Act were incompatible with Articles 2, 10, 32 § 2 and Article 67 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 31 § 3 of the Constitution. The relevant passages of his dissenting opinion read as follows:

“The Constitutional Court is a court of law, and not a court passing judgments on history. Respecting the principles of proper legislation is functionally linked with legal certainty and security, as well as with the protection of citizens ’ confidence in the State and the laws made by it ... The principle of legal security requires that the legislature respects the existing legal relations. Introducing amendments during the legislative process which are not objectively justified and which divert the previous direction of the legislative process that was set by ... the 1994 Act infringes the principle of a democratic state ruled by law ...

The principle of legality obliges the legislature to formulate laws to be enacted in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution ... The challenged provisions of the 2009 Act are also inconsistent with the constitutional ri ght to social security (Article 67 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 31 § 3 of the Constitution), and the variation in the level of retirement pensions under the uniformed services system: 1) due to the lack of connection between the distinction which has been introduced between pensioners from the uniformed services and the main aim of the statutes on retirement pensions, 2) due to the lack of proportionality of the applied legal solutions and 3) without any justification arising from a possible need for the protection of another, more important, constitutional value – must be regarded as inconsistent with Article 32 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 31 § 3 of the Constitution. ... .”

110. Judge Wyrzykowski stated that the preamble to the 2009 Act was incompatible with Articles 2, 10 and 42 of the Constitution and that section 15b of the 1994 Act as introduced by the 2009 Act was incompatible with Article 2 read in conjunction with Articles 67 § 1 and 31 § 3, as it infringed the principle of protection of acquired rights and that it was also incompatible with Articles 10 and 42 of the Constitution.

The dissenting opinion reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:

“The first problem that arises in connection with the judgment concerns the significance of the passage of time for limitations on the legislature ’ s activities. The 2009 Act was enacted almost twenty years after the change of the political and social system in Poland. ...

The citizens of the Republic of Poland affected by the 2009 Act had all the reasons to assume that the rules which were binding for the last twenty years would not be changed unless there were new circumstances justifying radical amendment of the legal provisions. ...

The legal fiction introduced by the legislature, namely applying the 0.7% coefficient to the basis of assessment for every year of service in the State security authorities in the years 1944-90, which means that the legislature treats those affected as though they had not worked in that period, cannot be regarded as consistent with the Constitution. [Under the general social security scheme] the 0.7% coefficient applies to persons who have not paid pension contributions ... The functionaries employed in the State security authorities performed work (service) and the application of the fiction in 2009, changing the rules for the calculation of retirement pensions, must be justified in a particularly convincing way. The legislature did not delegalise work (service) [in the State security authorities] or [those] authorities, but only condemned them in the preamble to the 2009 Act ... The application of the 0.7% coefficient is not, by its nature, a revocation of a privilege, but a kind of individually addressed sanction. ...

The preamble to the 2009 Act contains a statement which may be regarded as crucial for understanding the essence of the changes introduced to the rules for the calculation of retirement pension benefits. As the justification for the Act, it is stated that ‘ crimes were committed against organisations and persons defending independence and democracy and, at the same time, the perpetrators were exempted from responsibility and escaped justice ’ . ...

This is not a mere stigmatisation of particular individuals to whom the decisions specifying the new amount of retirement pensions were addressed, but is also about the use of rhetoric which at very least suggests that the adopted statutory solutions concerning retirement pensions are a form of punishment for undetected crimes against organisations and persons defending independence and democracy, and that those crimes were committed by perpetrators who escaped responsibility and justice ...

If behind the legislature ’ s decision ... is an assumption that the addressees committed crimes and did not bear responsibility for their acts, then this means that the legislature qualifies certain acts. The point is that such qualification should be done by a criminal court, and not by the legislature. Whether a crime has been committed must be determined in the course of court proceedings, and not in the course of the legislative work. There is no doubt that the legislature has infringed Articles 10 and 42 of the Constitution ...”

111. Judge Zdziennicki stated that the 2009 Act taken as a whole was unconstitutional and incompatible with all the provisions cited by the deputies. The relevant parts of his dissenting opinion read as follows:

“The drastic reduction of retirement pensions vis-à-vis their level estimated under the rules previously and currently applicable under the uniformed services retirement pension system constitutes economic repression directed against specific recipients and, it should be stressed, their families. This repression is accompanied .... by penal stigmatisation of pensioners, in the form of describing their service in the Polish People ’ s Republic as nothing but unlawful activities and continual commission of crimes violating fundamental human rights – all this in order to ‘ preserve the inhuman regime ’ .

In the present case what happened is not a revocation of ‘ unjustly acquired privileges ’ since ... retirement pensions paid under the uniformed services system are not privileges, and the rules for granting them have always been the same for everyone. The ostensible action conceals the real legislative aim, namely collective repression directed against the functionaries of the State security authorities of the Polish People ’ s Republic ... by means of a drastic reduction (twenty years after the fall of the communist regime) of the retirement pensions they have so far received. ...

Subjecting certain individuals to ex lege repression (by drastically reducing the retirement pensions which they have so far received) means that the legislative power has decided to substitute itself for the judiciary, although there is a constitutional requirement that guilt and punishment should be determined in court. This amounts to a breach of both the principle of separation of powers (Article 10 of the Constitution) and the constitutional right to a court.

Reducing ex lege pensions already being awarded ... without individual inquiry proceedings, and passing a condemnatory moral judgment with regard to a specific group of citizens, means assigning collective responsibility, which is inadmissible in a democratic state ruled by law (compare Articles 2 and 42 of the Constitution) ...

[The measure] applied leaves no doubt that the 2009 Act has introduced inadmissible, extra-judicial and collective criminal responsibility in respect of persons regarded as former political opponents of the current parliamentary majority. ... ”

8 . Supreme Court ’ s resolution of 3 March 2011(case no. II UZP 2/11)

112. On 3 March 2011 the Supreme Court dealt with a legal question submitted in the case of a certain E.C. by the Warsaw Court of Appeal, asking whether the provision of section 15b(2) of the 1994 Act (as amended by the 2009 Act) that stated that section 15 of the 1994 Act should apply accordingly meant that persons who had been functionaries of the State security service preserved the right to a retirement pension equal to 40% of its basis of assessment for the first fifteen years of employment.

113. The Supreme Court ruled that its response to the question would be as follows:

“ For every year of service in [the State security authorities] between 1944 and 1999 the pension should be 0.7% of its basis of assessment (section 15b (1)(1) of the 1994 Act), which means that the amount of the pension calculated exclusively in respect of the period of such service may be lower than 40% of the basis of assessment.”

114. The relevant parts of the reasoning read as follows:

“No ways or means of interpretation of reference to section 15 of the 1994 Act contained in section 15b(2) gives persons who have served in the [State security authorities] any legal possibility or arguments to assert the determination of their pensions on any other basis of assessment than 0.7% for each year of service ... In contrast, the legal provisions under consideration are unambiguously plain, and therefore clear and not requiring any deeper legal analysis. However, having regard to a considerable number of persons who are concerned by ... reductions in pensions, this court has decided to resolve the submitted legal question ...

Taking 40% of the basis of assessment for fifteen years of service as a minimum ... would lead to an inadmissible and unjustified negation of the [2009 Act ’ s] aim. Chronologically, as a matter of principle, service in the years 1944-90 would correspond to the ‘ first ’ (initial) years of service giving an entitlement to uniformed services ’ pension rights. [An] interpretation that they would preserve at least 40% of the basis of assessment ... would exclude or at least considerably limit ... the rule that their pensions should be calculated with reference to the 0.7% coefficient of the basis of assessment for each year of service in the State security authorities between 1944 and 1990 ...

It should be firmly stressed that the aim of the provisions under consideration, added by [the 2009 Act], was not to deprive pensioners of the rights acquired due to service in the totalitarian State security authorities between 1944 and 1990. [T]he legislature did not take away from them the right to take advantage of the uniformed services ’ pension scheme, including for their periods of service in the State security authorities of the Polish People ’ s Republic, but, in accordance with the constitutional principles of social justice and elementary (ordinary) decency, adjusted the levels of their benefits ... only in respect of periods of service which consisted in betraying the values of independence, freedom and democracy – to the level of benefits under the general social security scheme, without a further ( pro futuro ) possibility of taking advantage of the privileges unjustly or dishonourably acquired due to service in the totalitarian State security authorities between 1944 and 1990. Including this period in the ‘ pensionable service ’ under the unformed services ’ pension scheme and giving them 0.7% of the basis of assessment calculated in relation to the last, namely in principle the highest monthly salary in their last post, does not in any way discriminate against these persons. On the contrary, this is still a comparable, and even more advantageous [solution] than under the general social security scheme, having regard to the fact that [a pension ’ s basis of assessment under the general scheme] is determined not with reference to the highest income in one (last) month of employment but to the average basis for social security contributions for ten subsequent calendar years selected from the last twenty years, or twenty calendar years selected from the entire contributory period ....

In that context, the impugned legislation does not constitute any breach of the common principle of equality or proportionality of benefits received under the pension scheme for uniformed services by persons who served in the security authorities of the totalitarian state, who engaged in unlawful and dishonourable acts or methods of political violence against compatriots – in comparison to benefits available under the general social security system.

It is worth noting that the provisions governing pension rights of victims of political repression by the State security service are still less advantageous [Their] periods of imprisonment on political grounds are included in the contributory periods but the relevant coefficient for a pension ’ s basis of assessment is 0% because of their lack of income ... whereas those who subjected them to that repression are entitled to the 0.7% coefficient ...

Moreover, the 0.7% coefficient calculated with reference to the highest remuneration normally does not differ unfavourably from the 1.3% coefficient of the basis of assessment under the general social security scheme ... having regard to the fact that uniformed services pensions are calculated with reference to a higher (2.6%) or at least equal (1.3%) coefficients of the basis of assessment for periods before or after the termination of service ...

Admission to ... public service in the State security institutions of the democratic state governed by the rule of law restored in Poland after 1990 does not constitute rehabilitation for the time of service in the security structures of the totalitarian state according to the standards of the democratic state ... which does not have the right or duty to maintain the privileges [acquired] on account of unlawful suppression of citizens ’ inherent rights and freedoms by the State security service of the totalitarian state. ...

The Supreme Court unequivocally criticises and disqualifies any arguments for maintaining privileges acquired due to, or in connection with, participation in the system of enslavement and political repression by the State security service of the communist totalitarian state ... The privileges so acquired are not protected in a democratic system where there is domestic law, community law and international law, because persons who fight against fundamental human rights, rights of the nation and fundamental freedoms do not have the right or moral authority to assert that their pension privileges must be preserved in respect of the periods when the Polish nation ’ s aspirations for independence, freedom and democracy were suppressed ...”

D. Relevant Council of Europe ’ s instruments

1. The 1996 PACE Resolution

115. On 27 June 1996 PACE adopted Resolution 1096 (1996) on measures to dismantle the heritage of former communist totalitarian systems. It reads, in so far as relevant:

“1. The heritage of former communist totalitarian systems is not an easy one to handle. On an institutional level this heritage includes (over)centralisation, the militarisation of civilian institutions, bureaucratisation, monopolisation, and over ‑ regulation; on the level of society, it reaches from collectivism and conformism to blind obedience and other totalitarian thought patterns. To re-establish a civilised, liberal state under the rule of law on this basis is difficult - this is why the old structures and thought patterns have to be dismantled and overcome. ...

4. Thus a democratic state based on the rule of law must, in dismantling the heritage of former communist totalitarian systems, apply the procedural means of such a state. It cannot apply any other means, since it would then be no better than the totalitarian regime which is to be dismantled. A democratic state based on the rule of law has sufficient means at its disposal to ensure that the cause of justice is served and the guilty are punished - it cannot, and should not, however, cater to the desire for revenge instead of justice. It must instead respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, such as the right to due process and the right to be heard, and it must apply them even to those people who, when they were in power, did not apply them themselves. A state based on the rule of law can also defend itself against a resurgence of the communist totalitarian threat, since it has ample means at its disposal which do not conflict with human rights and the rule of law, and are based upon the use of both criminal justice and administrative measures.

5. The Assembly recommends that member states dismantle the heritage of former communist totalitarian regimes by restructuring the old legal and institutional systems, a process which should be based on the principle(s) of:

i. demilitarisation, to ensure that the militarisation of essentially civilian institutions, such as the existence of military prison administration or troops of the Ministry of the Interior, which is typical of communist totalitarian systems, comes to an end;

ii. decentralisation, especially at local and regional levels and within state institutions;

iii. demonopolisation and privatisation, which are central to the construction of some kind of a market economy and of a pluralist society;

iv. debureaucratisation, which should reduce communist totalitarian over-regulation and transfer the power from the bureaucrats back to the citizens.

6. This process must include a transformation of mentalities (a transformation of hearts and minds) whose main goal should be to eliminate the fear of responsibility, and to eliminate as well the disrespect for diversity, extreme nationalism, intolerance, racism and xenophobia, which are part of the heritage of the old regimes. All of these should be replaced by democratic values such as tolerance, respect for diversity, subsidiarity and accountability for one ’ s actions.

7. The Assembly also recommends that criminal acts committed by individuals during the communist totalitarian regime be prosecuted and punished under the standard criminal code. If the criminal code provides for a statute of limitations for some crimes, this can be extended, since it is only a procedural, not a substantive matter. Passing and applying retroactive criminal laws is, however, not permitted. On the other hand, the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which at the time when it was committed did not constitute a criminal offence according to national law, but which was considered criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations, is permitted. Moreover, where a person clearly acted in violation of human rights, the claim of having acted under orders excludes neither illegality nor individual guilt. ...

9. The Assembly welcomes the opening of secret service files for public examination in some former communist totalitarian countries. It advises all countries concerned to enable the persons affected to examine, upon their request, the files kept on them by the former secret services. ....

11. Concerning the treatment of persons who did not commit any crimes that can be prosecuted in accordance with paragraph 7, but who nevertheless held high positions in the former totalitarian communist regimes and supported them, the Assembly notes that some states have found it necessary to introduce administrative measures, such as lustration or de-communisation laws. The aim of these measures is to exclude persons from exercising governmental power if they cannot be trusted to exercise it in compliance with democratic principles, as they have shown no commitment to or belief in them in the past and have no interest or motivation to make the transition to them now.

12. The Assembly stresses that, in general, these measures can be compatible with a democratic state under the rule of law if several criteria are met. Firstly, guilt, being individual, rather than collective, must be proven in each individual case - this emphasises the need for an individual, and not collective, application of lustration laws. Secondly, the right of defence, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and the right to appeal to a court of law must be guaranteed. Revenge may never be a goal of such measures, nor should political or social misuse of the resulting lustration process be allowed. The aim of lustration is not to punish people presumed guilty - this is the task of prosecutors using criminal law - but to protect the newly emerged democracy.

13. The Assembly thus suggests that it be ensured that lustration laws and similar administrative measures comply with the requirements of a state based on the rule of law, and focus on threats to fundamental human rights and the democratisation process.

14. Furthermore, the Assembly recommends that employees discharged from their position on the basis of lustration laws should not in principle lose their previously accrued financial rights. In exceptional cases, where the ruling elite of the former regime awarded itself pension rights higher than those of the ordinary population, these should be reduced to the ordinary level. ...”

2. The 2006 PACE Resolution

116. On 25 January 2006 PACE adopted Resolution 1481 (2006) on the need for international condemnation of crimes of totalitarian communist regimes in which it referred, in particular, to its Resolution 1096(1996), cited above (see paragraph 115 above). It read, in so far as relevant, as follows:

“2. The totalitarian communist regimes which ruled in central and eastern Europe in the last century, and which are still in power in several countries in the world, have been, without exception, characterised by massive violations of human rights. The violations have differed depending on the culture, country and the historical period and have included individual and collective assassinations and executions, death in concentration camps, starvation, deportations, torture, slave labour and other forms of mass physical terror, persecution on ethnic or religious grounds, violation of freedom of conscience, thought and expression, of freedom of the press, and also lack of political pluralism. ...

5. The fall of totalitarian communist regimes in central and eastern Europe has not been followed in all cases by an international investigation of the crimes committed by them. Moreover, the authors of these crimes have not been brought to trial by the international community, as was the case with the horrible crimes committed by National Socialism (Nazism).

6. Consequently, public awareness of crimes committed by totalitarian communist regimes is very poor. Communist parties are legal and active in some countries, even if in some cases they have not distanced themselves from the crimes committed by totalitarian communist regimes in the past.

7. The Assembly is convinced that the awareness of history is one of the preconditions for avoiding similar crimes in the future. Furthermore, moral assessment and condemnation of crimes committed play an important role in the education of young generations. The clear position of the international community on the past may be a reference for their future actions. ...

13. Furthermore, [the Assembly] calls on all communist or post-communist parties in its member states which have not yet done so to reassess the history of communism and their own past, clearly distance themselves from the crimes committed by totalitarian communist regimes and condemn them without any ambiguity.

14. The Assembly believes that this clear position of the international community will pave the way to further reconciliation. Furthermore, it will hopefully encourage historians throughout the world to continue their research aimed at the determination and objective verification of what took place.”

COMPLAINTS

117. In the 1,628 cases before the Court the applicants, although they sometimes formulated their Convention grievances in different terms, made the following complaints.

118. They first of all alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention in that the 2009 Act had arbitrarily reduced their pensions to levels that could not be justified by any legitimate aim pursued in the public interest. In that regard, they heavily relied on the arguments put forward by the group of deputies before the Constitutional Court (see paragraphs 85-87 above), essentially repeating their submissions.

They stated that the impugned reductions were disproportionate, unfair and imposed an excessive burden on them. The abrupt and drastic lowering of the coefficient used for the determination of their pensions from 2.6% per year of pensionable employment to a mere 0.7% in respect of the service performed between 1944 and 1990 could not, in their view, be regarded as compatible with that provision.

The Polish State ’ s interference with their acquired right to a pension – a property right protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – in fact constituted a collective punishment and political repression for their past employment with the former State security authorities, despite the fact they had been either positively vetted or not subjected to the vetting procedure in the democratic Poland of 1990. In their view, admission to the newly ‑ established State security service or police at that time meant that the authorities had recognised that they had moral qualities required of a member of the uniformed services in a democratic state and, consequently, the right to the status attached to the service, including the full right to benefits accorded under the special retirement pension scheme. Those rights were further recognised in the 1994 Act, under which they had been entitled to the same pensions as functionaries who had not been employed in the State security service between 1944 and 1990.

The applicants also attached importance to the fact that the 2009 Act had been introduced nearly 20 years after the change of the political system of the State. The interference with their property rights was therefore not only excessive but also belated. The State was entitled to introduce laws aimed at settling accounts with the communist past and the communist authorities. This, however, was subject to the condition that such measures, in addition to passing the test of proportionality, were taken in good time.

Also, as confirmed by the 1996 PACE Resolution, laws designed to settle accounts could not be motivated by revenge or amount to collective punishment. In contrast, as emerged from the preamble to the 2009 Act, the State attributed to them collectively, without any consideration being given to their individual actions and conduct, general responsibility for communist repressions, violations of human rights and even crimes of the totalitarian system.

Moreover, the reductions in pensions applied automatically and no regard had been given to the nature of the duties actually performed, the function held or the scope of activities. The 2009 Act operated without any distinction between functionaries who had in reality committed the acts condemned in its preamble or stifled the democratic opposition and those who had merely belonged to the administrative personnel or had been employed in low technical or administrative positions.

In the applicants ’ submission, this demonstrated that the aim of reductions was to seek revenge and penalise them on account of their past employment, and not, as declared by the authorities, to pursue the principles of social justice.

119. The applicants next complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 read in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention that they had been subjected to discrimination on the ground of their past employment in the former State security service.

In particular, the years of their employment in that service between 1944 and 1990 were accorded the 0.7% coefficient per year, which under the general social security scheme applied only to non-contributory periods, whereas contributory periods were accorded 1.3%. Those years were treated as non-existent, as if they had not been employed at all. In consequence, they were discriminated against in the enjoyment of their pension rights in comparison to other pensioners in Poland.

120. The applicants also alleged a violation of their right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 and, in particular, a breach of the principle of presumption of innocence laid down in Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.

In that regard, citing the dissenting opinions to the Constitutional Court ’ s judgment (see paragraphs 107-111 above), they maintained that the preamble to the 2009 Act stated, in unambiguous terms, that all the functionaries of the former State security service had “committed crimes”. They had, accordingly, been charged, presumed guilty and collectively condemned to the payment of a financial penalty without any possibility of being heard by a court and have the criminal responsibility attributed to them determined individually.

121. The applicants also alleged a violation of Article 7 of the Convention, submitting that the radical reductions of their pensions on the ground that they bore collective responsibility for, as stated in the preamble to the 2009 Act, “crimes ... against organisations and persons defending independence and democracy” were tantamount to punishment without law, prohibited by that provision.

122. Invoking Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complained that their right to the protection of their reputation had not been respected because the preamble to the 2009 Act in a general but unequivocal manner assigned to them full responsibility for the crimes, wrongs and injustices of the communist system. In consequence, they had been labelled as persons who had committed morally reprehensible acts, without having any legal or practical means to clear their name and protect their right to good reputation.

123. Furthermore, the applicants alleged a breach of Article 8 read in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention in that they had been discriminated against on the ground of their past employment because they had been collectively attributed negative personal characteristics in the preamble to the 2009 Act.

124. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants maintained that they had been subjected to degrading treatment and severely humiliated.

First, the State had attributed to them without any concrete evidence collective responsibility for acts described in the preamble to the 2009 Act such as “applying unlawful methods, infringing fundamental human rights”, and committing “crimes ... against organisations and persons defending independence and democracy”.

In that respect, they cited the views expressed in the dissenting opinions to the Constitutional Court ’ s judgment as regards the humiliating nature of the preamble (see paragraphs 107-111 above) and stated that it stigmatised them as persons who had received their pensions not because they had worked but “in exchange for the preservation of the inhumane regime”.

Secondly, the excessive reductions applied under the 2009 Act deprived them of a significant part of their means of subsistence and exposed them to financial hardship. As a result, many of them had been deprived of the possibility to continue to live in dignity.

125. Lastly, under Article 13 read alone and in conjunction with Articles 3, 6 § 1, 6 § 2, 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicants complained that they had no effective remedy to contest collective responsibility and morally reprehensible conduct attributed to them by the preamble to the 2009 Act and the resultant restrictions on their pension rights.

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

126. In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides that the present applications should be joined.

II . ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION

A. Preliminary issues

1. Scope of the Court ’ s ruling

127. All the present 1,628 cases originated in the same legislation – the 2009 Act – under which pensions of functionaries of the former communist State security authorities were reduced due to the introduction of a less favourable coefficient used for the determination of their pensions in so far as they had been acquired through employment in those authorities between 1944 and 1990. As shown by the facts of the ten cases described above, the same pattern, in terms of the same provisions of substantive law and procedure, applied to each applicant. The pension reductions were predetermined by the contested regulations, which left no room for discretion in their application. The applicants ’ complaints are similar and are directed against the legislative provisions of a general character (see paragraphs 117-125 above). In the Court ’ s view, for the purposes of its ruling, the cases described in detail above demonstrate sufficiently the effects that the 2009 Act had on the asserted Convention rights of the persons affected by the impugned legislation. Accordingly, the conclusions reached below apply to all the cases listed in the appendix (see also paragraph 126 above).

2. Exhaustion of domestic remedies

128. The Court notes that in some cases before it proceedings in which the applicants contested the pension authority ’ s decisions re-assessing their pensions in accordance with the 2009 Act have not yet terminated. Also, in certain cases the applicants failed to appeal against first-instance judgments or had their appeals rejected on procedural grounds. Some applicants have not informed the Court of the outcome of the proceedings (see paragraphs 8-56 above). However, the Court does not find it necessary to determine in each and every case whether the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies has been complied with since it considers that the applications are in any event inadmissible for the reasons given below.

B. As regards Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention

129. The applicants alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, maintaining that under the 2009 Act their pensions had been reduced in a manner incompatible with that provision (see paragraph 118 above).

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 states as follows:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

1. Principles deriving from the Court ’ s case-law

130. A ll principles which apply generally in cases concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are equally relevant when it comes to pensions.

To begin with, that Article does not guarantee a right to become the owner of property. By the same logic, it cannot be interpreted as securing a right to a pension of a particular amount. It places no restriction on the Contracting State ’ s freedom to decide whether or not to have in place any form of social-security scheme, or to choose the type or amount of benefits to provide under any such scheme. If, however, a Contracting State has in force legislation providing for the payment as of right of a pension – whether conditional or not on the prior payment of contributions – that legislation must be regarded as generating a proprietary interest falling within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 for persons satisfying its requirements ( see Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 77, with further references, in particular to Stec v. United Kingdom (dec.), nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2005-X and to Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland , no. 60669/00, § 39, ECHR 2004 ‑ IX; and Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 64, ECHR 2010) . The reduction or the discontinuance of a pension may therefore constitute interference with possessions that needs to be justified (see Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 2033/04, 19125/04, 19475/04, 19490/04, 19495/04, 19497/04, 24729/04, 171/05 and 2041/05 , § 84, 2 5 October 2011 with further references, in particular to Rasmussen v. Poland , no. 38886/05, § 71, 28 April 2009; and Panfile v. Romania (dec.), no 13902/11, § 15, 20 March 2012).

131. The first and most important requirement of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is that any interference by a public authority with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions should be lawful. Any interference with the enjoyment of the right of property must also pursue a legitimate aim (see Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 147-148, ECHR 2004 ‑ V, with further references and Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], no. 35014/97, §§ 163-164, ECHR 2006 ‑ VIII ).

132. Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to appreciate what is in the “public”, or “general”, interest. Under the system of protection established by the Convention, it is thus for the national authorities to make the initial assessment as to the existence of a problem of public concern warranting measures to be applied in the sphere of the exercise of the right of property. Here, as in other fields to which the safeguards of the Convention extend, the national authorities accordingly enjoy a margin of appreciation (ibid.).

133. Furthermore, the notion of “public interest” is necessarily extensive. Finding it natural that the margin of appreciation available to the legislature in implementing social and economic policies should be a wide one, the Court has on many occasions declared that it will respect the legislature ’ s judgment as to what is “in the public interest” unless that judgment is manifestly without reasonable foundation (see, among many other examples, James and Others v. the United Kingdom , 21 February 1986, § 46, Series A no. 98; Broniowski , cited above, § 149; Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01 , § 52, ECHR 2006 ‑ VI Carson , cited above, § 61; and Andrejeva , cited above, § 83).

134. Relying on the fundamentally subsidiary role of the Convention, the Court has consistently recognised that the national authorities, having direct democratic legitimation, are in principle better placed than an international court to evaluate local needs and conditions. In matters of general policy, on which opinions within a democratic society may reasonably differ widely, the role of the domestic policy-maker should be given special weight (see, for example, James and Others , cited above, § 46; Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 97 ECHR 2003 ‑ VIII; and Valkov and Others , cited above, § 92 in fine ).

135. In its many judgments given in the context of the political changes that commenced in central and eastern Europe in 1989-1990, the Court has stressed that these principles apply equally, if not a fortiori , to the measures adopted in the course of the fundamental reform of the country ’ s political, legal and economic system in the transition from a totalitarian regime to a democratic State, phenomena which inevitably involve the enactment of large-scale economic and social legislation. Balancing the rights at stake, as well as the interests of the different persons affected by the process of transforming the State, is an exceptionally difficult exercise. In such circumstances, in the nature of things, a wide margin of appreciation should be accorded to the State (see, among other examples, Broniowski , cited above, § 182; Hutten-Czapska, cited above, § 166, with further references; Jahn and Others v. Germany [GC], nos. 46720/99, 72203/01 and 72552/01, § 113 ECHR 2005 ‑ VI; Valkov and Others , cited above § 96; and Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no. 71234/01, § 113, ECHR 2013-... ).

136. However, that margin is not unlimited. The Court must be satisfied that there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved by any measures applied by the State. That requirement is expressed by the notion of a “fair balance” that must be struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual ’ s fundamental rights. In particular, the Court must ascertain whether by reason of the State interference the person concerned had to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden (see, among many other authorities, Hutten-Czapska , cited above, § 167, with further references).

137. In the assessment of the proportionality of the measures taken by the State in respect of pension rights, an important consideration is whether the applicant ’ s right to derive benefits from the social insurance scheme in question has been infringed in a manner resulting in the impairment of the essence of his right. The nature of the benefit taken away – in particular, whether it has originated in the special advantageous pension scheme available only to certain groups of persons – may also be taken into account. The assessment would vary depending on the particular circumstances of the case and the applicant ’ s personal situation; while a total deprivation of entitlements resulting in the loss of means of subsistence would in principle amount to a violation of the right of property, the imposition of a reasonable and commensurate reduction would not (see, among many other authorities, Domalewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34610/97 , ECHR 1999 ‑ V; Janković v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X; Schwengel v. Germany (dec.), no. 52442/99, 2 March 2000; Apostolakis v. Greece , no. 39574/07 , §§ 41-42, 22 October 2009; Kjartan Ásmundsson , cited above, § 45; Valkov and Others , cited above, § 97; Maggio and Others v. Italy , nos. 46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08 and 56001/08 , § 63, 31 May 2011; and Frimu and 4 other applications v. Romania (dec.), no. 45312/11, 7 February 2012, §§ 42-48 ) .

138. The specific issue of the privileged position vis-à-vis pension rights enjoyed by members of the communist elite, political police or armed forces in the post-communist European countries has already been examined by the Court on several occasions (see, for instance, Goretzky v. Germany (dec.) no. 52447/99, 6 April 2000: Lessing and Reichelt v. Germany (dec.) nos. 49646/10 and 3365/11, 16 October 2012; and Schwengel (dec.), Domalewski (dec.) and Janković (dec.) cited above).

In those cases the Court found that the aim of eliminating or reducing unjustified or excessive social security benefits, as pursued by the domestic legislatures, was a legitimate one. In particular, a national legislature is entitled to suppress pecuniary privileges of a political nature awarded to former functionaries by totalitarian regimes. It may do so provided that, as already stated above (see paragraphs 136-137 above), the measures taken are not disproportionate. Under the Court ’ s case-law, there is no doubt that persons benefitting from such privileges do not have any legitimate expectation that they will preserve their advantageous position in this regard after the transition to a democratic system (ibid.).

2. Application of the above principles in the present cases

(a) Applicable rule of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

139. The measures applied under the 2009 Act resulted in divesting the applicants irrevocably of part of the pensions they had received before and until 1 January 2010 (see paragraph 71-72 above). They constituted an interference with the applicants ’ property rights protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Accordingly, the cases fall to be examined under the second sentence of the first paragraph of that provision, setting out exceptions permitting deprivation of “possessions ... in the public interest and subject to conditions provided for by law”.

(b) Principle of lawfulness

140. The impugned measures were applied under the legislation that was adopted by the Polish Parliament. It was subsequently examined by the Constitutional Court for its compatibility with the Constitution and found to be constitutional. Accordingly, the interference with the applicants ’ property rights was lawful for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

(c) Principle of legitimate aim in the public interest

141. The aims pursued by the State in relation to the enactment of the 2009 Act have been stated in its preamble, explained extensively in the Constitutional Court ’ s judgment and also referred to in the Supreme Court ’ s resolution (see paragraphs 68, 95, 98, 100, 103-104 and 114 above).

The Polish Parliament, having regard to the morally reprehensible role played by the former security service – political police – in preserving the communist system and repressing organisations and persons defending democracy and to the fact that those employed in that service had been accorded various, including economic, privileges, decided that the continuation of their advantageous pension rights could not be reconciled with the principle of social justice (see paragraph 68 above).

The Constitutional Court shared this view. It held that the legislature, guided by that principle, had pursued a legitimate aim of adjusting pensions of former functionaries of the State security service to the level of average pensions under the general social security scheme. It also stressed that the categorically negative evaluation by Parliament of service in the communist State security authorities had been warranted by Poland ’ s historical experience under the communist rule. Referring to the historical past, it described the essence of the activities of those authorities as, inter alia , “supporting the political regime hostile to human rights” and noted that “[i]n reward, the ruling communist party [had given] functionaries practical impunity for abuses of power, promotions that [had been] faster than in other uniformed services, a high remuneration for service, other numerous economic and social privileges and high old-age pensions”. After a thorough analysis of various relevant political, social and economic factors, the Constitutional Court concluded that the measures adopted complied with the requirements of the constitutional principle of social justice (see, in particular, paragraphs 95, 98, 100 and 103-104 above).

The Supreme Court ’ s assessment did not differ either; it placed much emphasis on the legitimacy of the reductions, stating that the legislature, in accordance with the principle of social justice had “adjusted the levels of their benefits ... only in respect of periods of service which [had] consisted in betraying the values of independen ce, freedom and democracy” (see paragraph 114 above).

142. The Court would recall again that in implementing social and economic policies, in particular in the course of the transition from a totalitarian regime to a democratic State, the State authorities enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in deciding what is “in the public interest (see paragraphs 132-135 above).

This necessarily encompasses the passing of de-communisation laws in order to settle accounts with the communist past and remove its relics also in such spheres as social or economic privileges previously accorded to persons belonging to the former elite, uniformed forces including, especially, the political police and its secret collaborators, or others who played crucial roles in safeguardin g the undemocratic regime (see Domalewski (dec.), cited above; Janković (dec.), cited above; Schwengel (dec.), cited above; Goretzky (dec.), cited above; Lessing and Reichelt (dec.), cited above; Rasmussen , cited above, §§ 75-76; and Zawisza v. Poland , no. 37293/09 , § 36, 31 May 2011, with further references; see also paragraph 115 above).

In this context, it should be stressed that the applicants were functionaries of the State security authorities whose raison d ’ être was to infringe the most fundamental values on which the Convention is based (see paragraph 95 above).

143. It is a matter of common knowledge that the political transition in the post-communist countries has involved numerous complex, far-reaching and controversial reforms which necessarily had to be spread over time. The dismantling of the communist heritage has been gradual, with each country having its own, sometimes slow, way to ensure that the past injustices are put right and accounts settled. Even though on the collapse of the totalitarian regimes those countries faced similar problems, there is, and there can be, no common pattern for the restructuring of their political, legal or social systems. Nor can any specific time-frame or speed for completing this process be fixed.

Indeed, in assessing whether in a given country, considering its unique historical and political experience, “the public interest” requires the adoption of specific de-communisation measures in order to ensure greater social justice or the stability of democracy, the national legislature empowered with direct democratic legitimation is better placed than the Court (see paragraphs 132-134 above with references to the Court ’ s case-law). By the same token, the national authorities, having direct knowledge of their country, are entitled to condemn, in the form and at the time chosen by them, past institutions or activities which, as shown by the country ’ s historical experience, had not respected the principle of democracy, the rule of law and human rights.

144. The Court sees no reason to differ from the evaluation of the Polish Parliament, the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court and accepts that it was legitimate for the State to take measures designed to put an end to pension advantages regarded as unwarranted or acquired unjustly, in order to ensure the greater fairness of the pension system (see also §§ 12 and 14 of the 1996 PACE Resolution cited in paragraph 115 above).

It also endorses the Constitutional Court ’ s arguments rejecting the assertion that the 2009 Act had served the purposes of revenge and collective punishment (see paragraphs 105-106 above).

A reduction of pension privileges of those who have contributed to the maintenance in power of, or have benefited from, an oppressive regime cannot be regarded as a form of punishment. The pensions in the instant cases were reduced by the national legislature, not because any of the applicants committed a crime or was personally responsible for human rights violations, but because those privileges had been accorded for political reasons as a reward for services considered to be particularly useful for the communist State (see paragraphs 95, 98 and 104-106 above and paragraph 138 above, with references to the Court ’ s case-law). Indeed, given the reason for which they were granted and the manner in which they were acquired, they cannot but be regarded as manifestly unjust from the point of view of the values underlying the Convention. This being so, the personal guilt or not of persons who benefited from such unjust privileges is not material for the consideration of the issue of compliance with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

145. It remains for the Court to ascertain, from the standpoint of proportionality, whether the Polish authorities struck a “fair balance” between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved.

(d) Principle of “fair balance”

146. The Court notes that the pension scheme for the uniformed services from which the applicants derived their benefits was of a non-contributive character, as it was fully financed by State funds and the beneficiaries did not have to pay contributions in order to receive their pensions (see paragraph 65 above). However, this element is not material for the determination of the applicant ’ s Convention claims in the present cases, as the protection under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 extends not only contributive but also to non-contributiv e social security benefits (see paragraph 130 above).

147. The applicants referred to several aspects of the 2009 Act which, in their view, demonstrated that the contested reductions were incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They also attached importance to the fact that the 2009 Act had been introduced belatedly, nearly 20 years after the change of the political system of the State (see paragraph 118 above).

The Court has already held above that one cannot set any specific time ‑ frame or speed for a State to close the de-communisation process since it depends on the circumstances particular to its historical and political background (see paragraph 143 above). It finds that the Constitutional Court relied on similar considerations in its judgment, holding that there had been no constitutional prohibition on enacting the 2009 Act even after a significant lapse of time (see paragraph 98 above).

Considering the weight attached to the opinion of the domestic policy ‑ maker in that respect, it is for the national authorities to decide when, regard being had to the demands of the public interest, such measures may be applied (see paragraphs 132-135 with references to the Court ’ s case ‑ law).

148. Moreover, the Court cannot but note that the alleged delay on the part of the Polish State in implementing the contested measures did not have any detrimental, retroactive effects on the applicants ’ pecuniary rights. In contrast, for those nearly 20 years, they enjoyed their advantageous pension rights and continued to draw their benefits untouched. To that extent, a prompter reduction of pension rates would not have eased the financial prejudice they claim to have suffered.

149. The applicants asserted that the lowering of the coefficient used for the calculation of their pensions from 2.6% applicable to the uniformed services to 0.7% applicable to non-contributory periods under the general pension scheme had been drastic, unfair and disproportionate (see parag raph 118 above).

150. However, the Court finds that, as confirmed by the Constitutional Court ’ s in-depth analysis comparing the former functionaries ’ situation before and after the reductions with the situation of an ordinary pensioner, on the cut-off date of 1 January 2010 the average pension of a functionary had still been higher by 58% than the average ordinary pension. The former amounted to some PLN 2,558 and the latter to some PLN 1,618. It was on average four times higher than the statutory minimum retirement pension (see paragraphs 97 and 99-102 above). This was mostly due to the fact that the salaries of persons insured under the general system were 50% lower than in the uniformed services and that, under the communist regime, remunerations in the State security service had been significantly higher than that of ordinary employees (see paragraphs 97 and 102 above). Moreover, the coefficient used for the calculation of ordinary pensions in respect of contributory periods was, and still is, 1.3%, namely half of the 2.6% applied to the uniformed services (see paragraphs 71-74 above).

The Supreme Court, in its resolution of 3 March 2011, made the same findings (see paragraph 114).

151. Despite the fairly large scale revision of the pensions under the 2009 Act – it concerned over 38,000 persons – in respect of only 589 pensioners was the revised benefit lowered below the statutory minimum which was, however, corrected by increasing the amount to the requisite level (see paragraph 100 above).

Other elements relevant for the determination of the applicants ’ pension rights remained unchanged. They retained the 2.6% coefficient for each year of service in democratic Poland, invalidity and survivor pension benefits, as well as special increases and allowances due for service in hazardous conditions. The same terms and rules for pension indexation apply to future increases in their pensions (see paragraph 99 above).

The contested coefficient has to be placed in the wider context of the whole pension system in Poland. As observed by the Supreme Court, the 0.7% coefficient applied to the basis of assessment of their pension still results in a more favourable benefit than under the general scheme. The point of reference for the former functionaries is the last, that is, normally the highest salary at their last post and not, as under the general system, the average salary, reduced by social contributions, received over the selected 10 out of the last 20 years of employment or 20 years chosen by the person concerned. In consequence, the 0.7% coefficient, applied with reference to the highest salary of a former functionary, did not produce effects materially different from the application of the 1.3% coefficient with reference to the average “pensionable” salary availabl e to an ordinary employee (see paragraphs 74-75 and 114 above).

152. The general pattern of reductions described in detail in the Constitutional Court ’ s judgment and the Supreme Court ’ s resolution shows that in most cases such reductions did not exceed, roughly, 25-30% (see paragraphs 99-102 and 114 above).

The facts of the selected 10 cases concerning 34 applicants, described above, confirm that conclusion (see paragraphs 8-54). Naturally, the longer the period of employment in the State security service, the greater proportionally was the reduction as manifested in the re-calculated pension. Most applicants had their pensions reduced by 20-30%, but the recalculated amounts were either higher, sometimes considerably so, than the average pension in Poland – PLN 1,618.70 – at the material time, or very close to that sum. Only a few persons received benefits slightly lower than the average pension (see paragraphs 10, 16-17, 22, 28-29, 32-33, 37, 41, 45, 49, 52-53 and 99 above). Only in a few cases did the reductions oscillate around 40-50%; however, these cases concerned persons who apparently had had a long period of service in the communist State security authorities and each of them after the decrease received the amount above, in some cases well above, the statutory minimum pension (see paragraph 10, 17, and 53 above).

153. In the circumstances, the measures complained of cannot be considered as impairing the very essence of the applicants ’ pension rights.

It should not be overlooked that, as emphasised by the Supreme Court, in contrast to former State security functionaries who nevertheless retain the 0.7% coefficient for their service in 1944-1990, victims of communist repression in Poland have their imprisonment on political grounds regarded as a pensionable period but are in that respect accorded a 0% coefficient by reason of the lack of income (see paragraph 114 above).

154. Furthermore, the Court does not share the applicants ’ view that their pension rights, once acquired, were untouchable and could never be altered. As stated above, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the legislative power of States extends to reducing or varying the amount of benefits provided under a social security scheme. A fortiori , they may remove, in pursuance of the principle of social justice, an existing inequality between privileged pensions accorded to a specific group and perceived as unjust or excessive in comparison with benefits under the general system and with ordinary pensions (see paragraphs 130-138 and 142-143 above).

Similarly, under the Polish Constitution vested rights are protected provided that they were justly acquired. Privileges acquired in violation of principles of justice do not engender a legitimate expectation of unconditional protection (see paragraph 103 above).

The applicants could not therefore legitimately expect that the privileges granted to them under the communist regime would be irrevocable in all circumstances.

155. The contested measures were applied to the former functionaries of the State security service as defined by the Polish legislation. All those persons had benefited not only from a special – uniformed services – pension scheme much more favourable than the general one but also from considerably higher pensionable salaries not available to ordinary citizens who had not been implicated in the work of the communist State security (see paragraphs 95, 97 and 114 above). The fact of service in the above ‑ mentioned institution, created to infringe human rights protected under the Convention, should be regarded as a relevant circumstance for defining and justifying the category of persons to be affected by the contested reductions of pension benefits. The Court is satisfied that the Polish authorities did not extend the personal scope of these measures beyond what was necessary to achieve the legitimate aim pursued.

156. The Court finds that the applicants in the present cases did not suffer a loss of means of subsistence or a total deprivation of benefits. It is to be noted that, although the contested measures reduced pension privileges especially created for those employed in communist State institutions that served the undemocratic regime, they nevertheless maintained for such persons a scheme more advantageous than the general one. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the Polish State made them bear a “disproportionate and excessive burden” (see paragraphs 136-137 above).

157. It follows that the applications are manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3(a) and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

158. The applicants also alleged violations of several other provisions of the Convention (see paragraph 119-125).

However, the Court considers that the issues raised by the applicants under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, as well as the alleged discrimination – contrary to Article 14 – in comparison with other pensioners in Poland have already been adequately addressed above (see paragraphs 140-155 above).

As regards complaints under Article 6 § 1 (criminal limb), Article 6 § 2 and Article 7, they are evidently incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, since the guarantees invoked by the applicants apply only to criminal proceedings.

As regards Article 13, according to the Court ’ s established case-law (see, for example, KudÅ‚a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI) this provision guarantees a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an “arguable complaint” under the Convention. The applicants ’ complaints are either manifestly ill-founded or incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. Article 13 is therefore inapplicable in the present cases.

159. It follows that the remainder of the applications must likewise be rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications,

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Françoise Elens-Passos Ineta Ziemele Registrar President

APPENDIX

App. No

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

1 .

15189/10

CICHOPEK v. Poland

10/03/2010

A. Cichopek

2 .

16970/10

ZDZIECH v. Poland

10/03/2010

L. Zdziech

3 .

17185/10

WASILEWSKA-TŁUŚCIK v. Poland

17/03/2010

A. Wasilewska-Tłuścik

4 .

18215/10

RAGINI v. Poland

27/03/2010

R. Ragini

5 .

18848/10

STRADOMSKI v. Poland

29/03/2010

J. Stradomski

6 .

19152/10

PAWLIK v. Poland

02/04/2010

K. Pawlik

7 .

19915/10

LUDWICKI v. Poland

06/04/2010

J. Ludwicki

8 .

20080/10

JÓZEFOWICZ v. Poland

06/04/2010

Z. Józefowicz

9 .

20705/10

KOWALSKI v. Poland

08/04/2010

J. Kowalski

10 .

20725/10

KALINOWSKI v. Poland

10/04/2010

M. Kalinowski

11 .

21259/10

PAPLACZYK v. Poland

30/03/2010

B. Paplaczyk

12 .

21270/10

PRZEPIÓRA v. Poland

22/03/2010

R. Przepióra

13 .

21279/10

POLAŃSKI v. Poland

29/03/2010

Z. Polański

14 .

21456/10

KORDOWIECKI v. Poland

01/04/2010

Z. Kordowiecki

15 .

22603/10

NOWAKOWSKI v. Poland

12/04/2010

K. Nowakowski

16 .

22748/10

VARISELLA v. Poland

06/04/2010

A. Varisella

17 .

23217/10

FEDEROWICZ v. Poland

20/04/2010

A. Federowicz

18 .

23585/10

KOKOCIŃSKI v. Poland

20/04/2010

T. Kokociński

19 .

23604/10

BRAŃSKA and BRAŃSKI v. Poland

23/04/2010

W. Brańska

J. Brański

M. GÄ…siorowska

20 .

23991/10

SZUMSKA and Others v. Poland

19/04/2010

A. Jarzyło

Z. Karnenska

B. Kaszkur-Lejewska

H. Lipińska

W. Lipiński

R. Matysiak-Siery

H. Oleksy

M. Ostrowska

L. Pańczyk

N. Pańczyk

D. Prugar

B. Pupar

I. Sowińska

B. Suska

B. Szumska

M. GÄ…siorowska

21 .

24190/10

OLSZYNA v. Poland

26/04/2010

B. Olszyna

22 .

24268/10

CELENIK v. Poland

19/04/2010

H. Celenik

M. GÄ…siorowska

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

23 .

24434/10

ROMAŃSKI and Others v. Poland

19/04/2010

E. Duda

S. Fortuna

W. Giera

B. Gomulińska

A. Gomuliński

D. Makuch

J. Męcik

L. Męcik

W. Przewrocka

J. Romański

W. Wacławik

M. GÄ…siorowska

24 .

24572/10

RYDZEWSKI v. Poland

12/04/2010

S. Rydzewski

25 .

25029/10

STUDNIAREK v. Poland

27/04/2010

W. Studniarek

26 .

25155/10

KAPUŚCIŃSKA v. Poland

15/04/2010

J. Kapuścińska

27 .

25616/10

PIETRZAK v. Poland

26/04/2010

Z. Pietrzak

28 .

26067/10

DANILUK v. Poland

20/04/2010

T. Daniluk

29 .

26798/10

KUPCZAK v. Poland

26/04/2010

A. Kupczak

30 .

27153/10

PIETURA v. Poland

10/05/2010

T. Pietura

31 .

27257/10

WRZESZCZ v. Poland

10/05/2010

R. Wrzeszcz

32 .

27494/10

KUTEK v. Poland

12/05/2010

M. Kutek

33 .

27536/10

TURZYNIECKA v. Poland

11/05/2010

K. Turzyniecka

34 .

27594/10

MARKIEWICZ v. Poland

14/05/2010

J. Markiewicz

35 .

27986/10

GLOC v. Poland

12/05/2010

Z. Gloc

36 .

28084/10

MACKIEWICZ v. Poland

12/05/2010

S. Mackiewicz

37 .

28296/10

BOCZKOWSKI v. Poland

19/04/2010

C. Boczkowski

38 .

28516/10

RESZCZYŃSKI v. Poland

17/05/2010

R. Reszczyński

39 .

28530/10

PAWLONKA v. Poland

07/05/2010

E. Pawlonka

40 .

28586/10

SASIN v. Poland

07/05/2010

T. Sasin

41 .

28587/10

SZUSTER v. Poland

04/05/2010

J. Szuster

42 .

28726/10

ANDRZEJEWSKI v. Poland

02/05/2010

W. Andrzejewski

M. GÄ…siorowska

43 .

28796/10

KUSY v. Poland

18/05/2010

K. Kusy

44 .

28872/10

GRZEGORCZYK v. Poland

16/05/2010

E. Grzegorczyk

45 .

28976/10

HARASIMIUK and Others v. Poland

02/05/2010

B. Gowin

W. Gowin

L. Harasimiuk

M. Harasimiuk

K. Lange

G. Nowak-Szalecka

D. Rzepoluch

R. Rzepoluch

K. Trzykowski

W. Wolski

A. Zareba

M. GÄ…siorowska

46 .

29112/10

MICKIEWICZ v. Poland

11/05/2010

W. Mickiewicz

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

47 .

29368/10

ŁACH and Others v. Poland

20/05/2010

Z. Garbaczewski

G. Góralewska-Łach

W. Jabłoński

T. Jakubczyk

B. KÄ…kol

W. Krawczyk

J. Łach

M. Marianowski

Z. Paluch

A. Piętek

G. Rejman

R. Skwirowski

M. GÄ…siorowska

48 .

29543/10

BERGER v. Poland

17/05/2010

R. Berger

49 .

29725/10

WYDRA v. Poland

19/05/2010

M. Wydra

50 .

29727/10

BEDNARZ v. Poland

21/05/2010

C. Bednarz

51 .

29746/10

WIDŁAK and Others v. Poland

25/05/2010

W. Czapski

W. Grzejszczak

M. Karpiński

K. Korczyński

W. Mioduchowski

J. Stawikowska-Widłak

J. Wasiak

W. Widlak

L. Zaniewicz

A. Zgudczyńska

M. GÄ…siorowska

52 .

29852/10

PIÄ„TEK v. Poland

24/05/2010

R. PiÄ…tek

53 .

29864/10

BLOCH v. Poland

17/05/2010

A. Bloch

54 .

30019/10

TWERD v. Poland

24/05/2010

Z. Twerd

55 .

30055/10

KSIĄŻKA v. Poland

25/05/2010

C. Książka

R. Książka

56 .

30062/10

KUŁAKOWSKA v. Poland

25/05/2010

I. Kułakowska

57 .

30070/10

KALISZ v. Poland

28/05/2010

S. Kalisz

58 .

30154/10

BLOCH v. Poland

17/05/2010

M Bloch

59 .

30156/10

STEFANIAK v. Poland

25/05/2010

A. Stefaniak

60 .

30166/10

BANCERZ v. Poland

27/05/2010

M. Bancerz

61 .

30180/10

SYSŁO v. Poland

14/05/2010

E. Sysło

62 .

30201/10

JÓŹWIK v. Poland

27/05/2010

T. Jóźwik

63 .

30250/10

JANOTA v. Poland

27/05/2010

M. Janota

64 .

30262/10

DYDUŁA v. Poland

28/05/2010

H. Dyduła

65 .

30269/10

MAĆKOWIAK v. Poland

27/05/2010

S. Maćkowiak

66 .

30284/10

DYSZCZYK v. Poland

26/05/2010

J. Dyszczyk

67 .

30299/10

UCHMAN v. Poland

24/05/2010

Z. Uchman

68 .

30311/10

JASTRZĘBSKI v. Poland

24/05/2010

A. Jastrzębski

M. GÄ…siorowska

69 .

30312/10

GOŁĄB v. Poland

19/05/2010

M. Gołąb

70 .

30384/10

KOMAN v. Poland

17/05/2010

J. Koman

71 .

30423/10

OGÓREK v. Poland

26/05/2010

A. Ogórek

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

72 .

30430/10

DUSZCZYK v. Poland

26/05/2010

P. Duszczyk

73 .

30433/10

DOMAGAŁA v. Poland

25/05/2010

I. Domagała

74 .

30437/10

BOHATYREWICZ v. Poland

28/05/2010

T. Bohatyrewicz

75 .

30438/10

GOŁĘBIOWSKI v. Poland

19/05/2010

M. Gołębiowski

76 .

30445/10

DUBINIEC v. Poland

25/05/2010

C. Dubiniec

77 .

30681/10

ALEKSANDROWICZ and Others v. Poland

18/05/2010

M. Aleksandrowicz

D. Błażejewska

P. Błażejewski

L. Górski

K. Iwanicka

G. Żmuda

L. Żmuda

M. GÄ…siorowska

78 .

30820/10

KWIECIEŃ and Others v. Poland

31/05/2010

W. Kwiecień

W. Raszka

T. Rudna-Krawczyk

M. GÄ…siorowska

79 .

30961/10

BOCZEK v. Poland

31/05/2010

S. Boczek

M. GÄ…siorowska

80 .

31205/10

OZIMEK v. Poland

31/05/2010

T. Ozimek

81 .

31249/10

BIAŁEK v. Poland

25/05/2010

M. Białek

82 .

31383/10

MALISZ v. Poland

01/06/2010

K. Malisz

83 .

31392/10

WAŁDOCH v. Poland

26/05/2010

B. Wałdoch

84 .

31412/10

PLESZEWSKI v. Poland

01/06/2010

F. Pleszewski

85 .

31445/10

PIOTROWSKI v. Poland

24/05/2010

K. Piotrowski

86 .

31453/10

POLAK v. Poland

26/05/2010

C. Polak

87 .

31472/10

ŻYGADŁO v. Poland

26/05/2010

M. Żygadło

88 .

31622/10

KUŁAKOWSKI v. Poland

01/06/2010

Z. Kułakowski

89 .

31636/10

KOSSARZECKI v. Poland

02/06/2010

F. Kossarzecki

90 .

31835/10

JASIŃSKI v. Poland

02/06/2010

A. Jasiński

91 .

31852/10

PRZEWOŹNIAK v. Poland

25/05/2010

A. Przewoźniak

92 .

31930/10

ŚCISŁY v. Poland

01/06/2010

K. Scisly

93 .

31941/10

SZYPIELEWICZ v. Poland

24/05/2010

J. Szypielewicz

94 .

31957/10

SKIBA v. Poland

25/05/2010

W. Skiba

95 .

32022/10

KRIGER v. Poland

26/05/2010

W. Kriger

P. Sowisło

96 .

32031/10

IGNACIUK v. Poland

25/05/2010

A. Ignaciuk

97 .

32035/10

NOWICKI v. Poland

25/05/2010

W. Nowicki

P. Sowisło

98 .

32165/10

KOLADO v. Poland

26/05/2010

T. Kolado

P. Sowisło

99 .

32204/10

MACIĄŻEK v. Poland

25/05/2010

W. Maciążek

100 .

32219/10

MRÓZ v. Poland

26/05/2010

M. Mróz

P. Sowisło

101 .

32236/10

GROCHOCKA v. Poland

28/05/2010

T. Grochocka

102 .

32240/10

JAKOBSON v. Poland

04/06/2010

E. Jakobson

103 .

32251/10

PRZYBYLSKI v. Poland

26/05/2010

L. Przybylski

P. Sowisło

104 .

32315/10

MANIECKI v. Poland

25/05/2010

A. Maniecki

P. Sowisło

105 .

32321/10

SOBKOWIAK v. Poland

26/05/2010

Z. Sobkowiak

P. Sowisło

106 .

32323/10

PIOTROWSKI v. Poland

04/06/2010

M. Piotrowski

107 .

32412/10

SOJDA v. Poland

07/06/2010

J. Sojda

108 .

32554/10

PTAK v. Poland

04/06/2010

K. Ptak

109 .

32618/10

OZIMEK-GAŁKIEWICZ v. Poland

02/06/2010

U. Ozimek-Gałkiewicz

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

110 .

32754/10

TKACZYK v. Poland

08/06/2010

K. Tkaczyk

111 .

32793/10

MACHERZYŃSKI v. Poland

08/06/2010

T. Macherzyński

112 .

33289/10

KUŹNIAREK v. Poland

08/06/2010

S. Kuźniarek

113 .

33297/10

KOZŁOWSKI v. Poland

28/05/2010

F. Kozłowski

114 .

33305/10

TULEYA v. Poland

10/06/2010

L. Tuleya

115 .

33312/10

ŻUKOWSKI v. Poland

26/05/2010

B. Żukowski

116 .

33322/10

WALUÅšKIEWICZ v. Poland

03/06/2010

J. Waluśkiewicz

117 .

33344/10

ZIĘBA v. Poland

07/06/2010

P. Zięba

118 .

33460/10

CZEÅšNIK v. Poland

03/06/2010

J. Cześnik

119 .

33635/10

MACUTKIEWICZ v. Poland

08/06/2010

E. Macutkiewicz

120 .

33916/10

GOLCEW v. Poland

07/06/2010

W. Golcew

121 .

33922/10

DYNAROWICZ v. Poland

10/06/2010

W. Dynarowicz

122 .

33941/10

DOMINIAK v. Poland

08/06/2010

W. Dominiak

123 .

34070/10

ROSZKOWSKA v. Poland

10/06/2010

M. Roszkowska

124 .

34153/10

WÓJCIK v. Poland

08/06/2010

R. Wójcik

125 .

34168/10

FILINGIER v. Poland

09/06/2010

B. Filingier

126 .

34185/10

PLUCIŃSKI v. Poland

10/06/2010

J. Pluciński

127 .

34204/10

HYHS v. Poland

09/06/2010

A. Hyhs

128 .

34229/10

MALISZEWSKI v. Poland

04/06/2010

A. Maliszewski

129 .

34237/10

MRÓZ v. Poland

15/06/2010

M. Mróz

130 .

34289/10

BORYSEWICZ v. Poland

16/06/2010

J. Borysewicz

131 .

34290/10

LANKIEWICZ v. Poland

07/06/2010

S. Lankiewicz

132 .

34293/10

LEWANDOWSKI v. Poland

07/06/2010

K. Lewandowski

133 .

34294/10

BORYCKI v. Poland

16/06/2010

J. Borycki

134 .

34297/10

WENTEL v. Poland

17/06/2010

M. Wentel

135 .

34298/10

ŁUKASZEK v. Poland

01/06/2010

W. Łukaszek

136 .

34347/10

JABŁOŃSKI v. Poland

14/06/2010

M. Jabłoński

137 .

34435/10

DEC v. Poland

17/06/2010

Z. Dec

138 .

34444/10

DZIĘCIOŁ v. Poland

17/06/2010

G. Dzięcioł

139 .

34467/10

SOCHACKI v. Poland

09/06/2010

L. Sochacki

140 .

34515/10

SITKIEWICZ v. Poland

08/06/2010

R. Sitkiewicz

141 .

34533/10

MAĆKOWIAK v. Poland

16/06/2010

J. Maćkowiak

142 .

34553/10

KRIEGEL v. Poland

09/06/2010

M. Kriegel

143 .

34565/10

TOMCZAK v. Poland

15/06/2010

D. Tomczak

144 .

34571/10

TOMCZAK v. Poland

15/06/2010

B. Tomczak

145 .

34684/10

SZYPIELEWICZ v. Poland

24/05/2010

R. Szypielewicz

146 .

34691/10

SZAMOTA v. Poland

14/06/2010

W. Szamota

147 .

34728/10

SOBIESKI v. Poland

15/06/2010

J. Sobieski

148 .

34735/10

STRĄCZYŃSKI v. Poland

16/06/2010

S. Strączyński

149 .

34758/10

SOJCZYŃSKI v. Poland

16/06/2010

W. Sojczyński

150 .

34761/10

SAKOWICZ v. Poland

17/06/2010

L. Sakowicz

151 .

34794/10

ŁUKA v. Poland

16/06/2010

B. Łuka

152 .

34861/10

SAWICKI v. Poland

18/06/2010

Z. Sawicki

153 .

34985/10

PIEKARCZYK v. Poland

17/06/2010

J. Piekarczyk

154 .

35015/10

JAWORSKI v. Poland

18/06/2010

K. Jaworski

155 .

35198/10

SEMLA v. Poland

18/06/2010

M. Semla

156 .

35207/10

ZAJÄ„C v. Poland

18/06/2010

L. ZajÄ…c

157 .

35217/10

BĘBEN v. Poland

16/06/2010

K. Bęben

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

158 .

35223/10

BROJEWSKI v. Poland

15/06/2010

W. Brojewski

159 .

35265/10

BUCZEK v. Poland

18/06/2010

H. Buczek

160 .

35694/10

SZULC v. Poland

11/06/2010

M. Szulc

161 .

36145/10

OSTÓJ v. Poland

22/06/2010

W. Ostój

162 .

36261/10

MAŁYSZCZYK v. Poland

21/06/2010

L. Małyszczyk

163 .

36277/10

MOSKALIK v. Poland

10/06/2010

R. Moskalik

164 .

36320/10

MATEŃKO v. Poland

23/06/2010

B. Mateńko

165 .

36321/10

BOCHENEK v. Poland

14/06/2010

J. Bochenek

166 .

36364/10

BANAÅš v. Poland

21/05/2010

J. BanaÅ›

167 .

36396/10

OSEK v. Poland

14/06/2010

J. Osek

168 .

36535/10

SNADY v. Poland

21/06/2010

J. Snady

169 .

36539/10

SZULIM v. Poland

17/06/2010

J. Szulim

170 .

36559/10

SMULSKI v. Poland

17/06/2010

H. Smulski

171 .

36563/10

SZULCZYŃSKI v. Poland

17/06/2010

E. Szulczyński

172 .

36567/10

STOLARSKA v. Poland

18/06/2010

A. Stolarska

173 .

36619/10

TOMASZEWSKI v. Poland

21/06/2010

P. Tomaszewski

174 .

36637/10

KUKAWKA v. Poland

21/06/2010

J. Kukawka

175 .

36642/10

POSPIECH v. Poland

21/06/2010

M. Pospiech

176 .

36644/10

KOSAKOWSKI v. Poland

24/06/2010

J. Kosakowski

177 .

36645/10

NIEDŹWIEDŹ v. Poland

21/06/2010

Z. Niedźwiedź

178 .

36647/10

LEWANDOWSKI v. Poland

23/06/2010

T. Lewandowski

179 .

36650/10

KABAŁA v. Poland

22/06/2010

M. Kabała

180 .

36653/10

ROSZKOWSKI v. Poland

24/06/2010

M. Roszkowski

181 .

36654/10

RYBICKI v. Poland

17/06/2010

J. Rybicki

182 .

36661/10

PIASECZYŃSKA v. Poland

14/06/2010

A. Piaseczyńska

183 .

36666/10

KAMIŃSKA v. Poland

15/06/2010

A. Kamińska

184 .

36805/10

DUDEK v. Poland

22/06/2010

A. Dudek

185 .

36809/10

DUSZCZYK v. Poland

16/06/2010

Z. Duszczyk

186 .

36945/10

GÓRNY v. Poland

18/06/2010

S. Górny

187 .

37161/10

CIESIELSKI v. Poland

21/06/2010

J. Ciesielski

188 .

37196/10

CHUDZIŃSKI v. Poland

21/06/2010

J. Chudziński

189 .

37214/10

ZIELIŃSKI v. Poland

16/06/2010

W. Zieliński

190 .

37239/10

WAŃKOWICZ v. Poland

25/06/2010

Z. Wańkowicz

191 .

37242/10

ZATOŃSKI v. Poland

28/06/2010

K. Zatoński

192 .

37340/10

MARCZYK v. Poland

28/06/2010

R. Marczyk

193 .

37410/10

J. v. Poland

30/06/2010

J.

194 .

37634/10

BARYS v. Poland

29/06/2010

C. Barys

195 .

37640/10

BARCZAK v. Poland

30/06/2010

S. Barczak

196 .

37644/10

STRAÅš v. Poland

29/06/2010

E. StraÅ›

197 .

37656/10

BYCZEK v. Poland

30/05/2010

A. Byczek

198 .

37669/10

PAŹDZIOR v. Poland

29/06/2010

S. Paździor

199 .

37676/10

WÓJCIK v. Poland

25/06/2010

B. Wójcik

200 .

37680/10

STOWARZYSZENIE EMERYTÓW I RENCISTÓW POLICYJNYCH v. Poland

29/06/2010

Stowarzyszenie Emerytów i Rencistów Policyjnych

T. Koncewicz

201 .

37684/10

ŁUCZAK v. Poland

29/06/2010

A. Łuczak

202 .

37686/10

ZAWISTOWSKA v. Poland

30/06/2010

A. Zawistowska

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

203 .

37690/10

ZALEWSKA v. Poland

30/06/2010

H. Zalewska

204 .

37695/10

ZATOŃSKA v. Poland

28/06/2010

W. Zatońska

205 .

37700/10

ZAWISTOWSKI v. Poland

30/06/2010

J. Zawistowski

206 .

37701/10

SOBAŃSKI v. Poland

01/07/2010

Z. Sobański

207 .

37706/10

SKRZYPEK v. Poland

29/06/2010

C. Skrzypek

208 .

37837/10

DUDEK v. Poland

28/06/2010

J. Dudek

209 .

37851/10

DOROS v. Poland

29/06/2010

J. Doros

210 .

37966/10

KOPCZYŃSKI v. Poland

28/06/2010

J. Kopczyński

211 .

37975/10

TARNAWSKA v. Poland

30/06/2010

A. Tarnawska

212 .

37979/10

KOZARSKI v. Poland

28/06/2010

J. Kozarski

213 .

37983/10

KACPRZYŃSKI v. Poland

01/07/2010

B. Kacprzyński

214 .

37987/10

DYLEWSKA v. Poland

25/06/2010

I. Dylewska

215 .

37992/10

KASPRZAK v. Poland

29/06/2010

J. Kasprzak

216 .

38003/10

KOZARSKA v. Poland

28/06/2010

K. Kozarska

217 .

38011/10

URBAN v. Poland

24/06/2010

A. Urban

218 .

38013/10

KARWOWSKI v. Poland

28/06/2010

R. Karwowski

219 .

38060/10

TANANO v. Poland

28/06/2010

B. Tanano

220 .

38140/10

KRASUSKA v. Poland

29/06/2010

I. Krasuska

221 .

38144/10

KAŹMIERCZAK v. Poland

01/07/2010

B. Kaźmierczak

222 .

38358/10

ÅšCIEGIENKA v. Poland

30/06/2010

M. Åšciegienka

223 .

38561/10

MAŁEK and Others v. Poland

05/07/2010

T. Brodzki

S. Małek

B. Musiał

J. OÅ‚owski

W. PiÄ…tkowski

H. Podgórski

S. Powichrowski

A. Siłuch

J. SÅ‚upek

M. GÄ…siorowska

224 .

38685/10

MATULEWICZ v. Poland

02/07/2010

F. Matulewicz

225 .

38807/10

STACHOWSKI v. Poland

24/06/2010

W. Stachowski

226 .

38892/10

MAGDZIAK v. Poland

05/07/2010

J. Magdziak

227 .

38939/10

SEKUŁA v. Poland

28/06/2010

J. Sekuła

228 .

38994/10

BÄ„CZEK v. Poland

21/06/2010

A. BÄ…czek

229 .

39585/10

KOPRUCKI v. Poland

05/07/2010

M. Koprucki

230 .

39621/10

KLIMOWICZ v. Poland

02/07/2010

K. Klimowicz

231 .

39632/10

KWIATKOWSKI v. Poland

24/06/2010

W. Kwiatkowski

232 .

39691/10

KAUS v. Poland

02/07/2010

J. Kaus

233 .

39951/10

KOKOT v. Poland

02/07/2010

S. Kokot

234 .

40137/10

ROSIŃSKA v. Poland

05/07/2010

G. Rosińska

235 .

40150/10

RACZKOWSKI v. Poland

05/07/2010

M. Raczkowski

236 .

40182/10

ANTKOWIAK v. Poland

21/06/2010

J. Antkowiak

237 .

40204/10

GRYCUK v. Poland

05/07/2010

Z. Grycuk

238 .

40206/10

GRYCUK v. Poland

05/07/2010

J. Grycuk

239 .

40211/10

GÓRSKI v. Poland

02/07/2010

H. Górski

240 .

40372/10

BŁASZKIEWICZ v. Poland

06/07/2010

W. BÅ‚aszkiewicz

241 .

40436/10

RATAJCZAK v. Poland

26/05/2010

M. Ratajczak

P. Sowisło

242 .

40466/10

RYMUSZKA v. Poland

02/07/2010

R. Rymuszka

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

243 .

40510/10

CZAPIEWSKI v. Poland

10/06/2010

S. Czapiewski

244 .

40514/10

ZWIERZYCKI v. Poland

22/06/2010

S. Zwierzycki

245 .

40517/10

NOWAKOWSKA-RAJCA v. Poland

30/06/2010

H. Nowakowska-Rajca

246 .

40564/10

STANIEK v. Poland

09/07/2010

A. Staniek

247 .

40677/10

POŻAROWSZCZYK v. Poland

13/07/2010

S. Pożarowszczyk

248 .

40714/10

KISZKA v. Poland

16/07/2010

J. Kiszka

249 .

40720/10

KORALEWICZ v. Poland

15/07/2010

J. Koralewicz

250 .

40754/10

ŁĄGIEWKA v. Poland

13/07/2010

B. Łągiewka

251 .

40770/10

KONIECZNY v. Poland

06/07/2010

S. Konieczny

252 .

40813/10

KUBISZTAL v. Poland

08/07/2010

T. Kubisztal

253 .

40818/10

KENIG v. Poland

12/07/2010

J. Kenig

254 .

40823/10

TRZNADEL v. Poland

09/07/2010

T. Trznadel

255 .

40870/10

SZMANIA v. Poland

15/07/2010

B. Szmania

256 .

40880/10

HORBACZEK v. Poland

11/06/2010

M. Horbaczek

257 .

40884/10

MAŁKIEWICZ v. Poland

13/07/2010

Z. Małkiewicz

258 .

40887/10

MACIEJEWSKI v. Poland

15/07/2010

G. Maciejewski

259 .

40907/10

RAJCA v. Poland

30/06/2010

J. Rajca

260 .

40939/10

NIEDBAŁA v. Poland

22/06/2010

Z. Niedbała

261 .

40976/10

WALOTEK v. Poland

23/06/2010

E. Walotek

262 .

41183/10

POLKIEWICZ v. Poland

29/06/2010

W. Polkiewicz

263 .

41196/10

WALASZEK v. Poland

10/07/2010

Z. Walaszek

264 .

41229/10

CZERWIEC v. Poland

08/07/2010

J. Czerwiec

265 .

41245/10

ZIEMIEWICZ v. Poland

21/06/2010

C. Ziemiewicz

266 .

41260/10

ZON v. Poland

07/07/2010

R. Zon

267 .

41622/10

OSTROWICKA v. Poland

08/07/2010

B. Ostrowicka

268 .

41650/10

ORATOR v. Poland

06/07/2010

W. Orator

269 .

41655/10

BARANOWSKA v. Poland

03/07/2010

I. Baranowska

270 .

41662/10

FRUNZE v. Poland

09/07/2010

J. Frunze

271 .

41678/10

ĆWIKLIŃSKA v. Poland

20/07/2010

A. Ćwiklińska

272 .

41682/10

ŻOŁĄDKIEWICZ v. Poland

22/06/2010

J. Żołądkiewicz

P. Sowisło

273 .

41803/10

ŁABĘCKI and Others v. Poland

13/07/2010

J. Banach

K. Cieślak

S. Cyrta

A. Kieler

J. Łabęcki

J. Madej

H. Makowska

W. Michalak

W. Panasiuk

G. Skurski

M. Śliwiński

P. Sosinowicz

S. Szeruda

L. Wolski

B. Zieliński

M. GÄ…siorowska

274 .

41854/10

KOTLAREK v. Poland

22/06/2010

Z. Kotlarek

P. Sowisło

275 .

42185/10

MAJEWSKI v. Poland

12/07/2010

S. Majewski

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

276 .

42416/10

RZEPCZYŃSKA v. Poland

16/07/2010

C. Rzepczyńska

277 .

42419/10

RATAJCZAK v. Poland

20/07/2010

M. Ratajczak

278 .

42426/10

RAKOWSKA-GROOS v. Poland

22/07/2010

R. Rakowska-Groos

279 .

42517/10

MATUSZCZYK v. Poland

29/06/2010

S. Matuszczyk

280 .

42519/10

DUDZIAK v. Poland

19/07/2010

A. Dudziak

281 .

42524/10

MALISZEWSKI v. Poland

12/07/2010

S. Maliszewski

282 .

42544/10

SITKOWSKI v. Poland

19/07/2010

J. Sitkowski

283 .

42571/10

SIWIEC v. Poland

19/07/2010

B. Siwiec

284 .

42616/10

SKÓRA v. Poland

15/07/2010

R. Skóra

285 .

42628/10

GNIECIECKA v. Poland

16/07/2010

E. Gnieciecka

286 .

42629/10

HOLI and Others v. Poland

30/06/2010

K. Debudaj

A. Gorgol

W. Gorgol

W. Holi

M. Jagielski

H. Jaksa

A. Kowalik

Z. Łasoń

J. Leks

T. Łukasik

J. Mokry

Z. Olkuski

W. Szczepański

T. Wolczuk

D. Sucholewski

287 .

42828/10

RAKOWSKI v. Poland

26/07/2010

S. Rakowski

288 .

42830/10

MAŁKUSZEWSKI v. Poland

20/07/2010

W. Małkuszewski

289 .

42876/10

GRÄ„Z v. Poland

23/07/2010

H. GrÄ…z

290 .

43251/10

CHLASZCZAK v. Poland

26/07/2010

R. Chlaszczak

291 .

43295/10

WALECZEK v. Poland

17/07/2010

K. Waleczek

292 .

43451/10

KENG v. Poland

26/07/2010

J. Keng

293 .

43561/10

WIÅšNIEWSKI v. Poland

27/07/2010

Z. Wiśniewski

E. Mazurek

294 .

43641/10

BUDZYŃSKI v. Poland

27/07/2010

S. Budzyński

295 .

43649/10

FAJFROWSKI v. Poland

23/07/2010

A. Fajfrowski

296 .

43651/10

BOROWSKI v. Poland

13/07/2010

K. Borowski

297 .

43653/10

BIELA v. Poland

20/07/2010

S. Biela

298 .

43657/10

BIAŁY v. Poland

22/07/2010

W. Biały

299 .

44138/10

KOZIK v. Poland

29/07/2010

E. Kozik

300 .

44382/10

NEWEL v. Poland

02/08/2010

S. Newel

301 .

44474/10

ADAMSKI v. Poland

26/07/2010

K. Adamski

302 .

44515/10

SUCHOLEWSKI v. Poland

28/07/2010

L. Sucholewski

303 .

44556/10

GADZIŃSKI v. Poland

02/08/2010

M. Gadziński

304 .

44560/10

WOJTYNIAK v. Poland

02/08/2010

W. Wojtyniak

305 .

44564/10

BERNE v. Poland

02/08/2010

J. Berne

306 .

44565/10

ORZYŁOWSKI v. Poland

30/07/2010

J. Orzyłowski

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

307 .

44598/10

BIEÅš and Others v. Poland

22/07/2010

A. BieÅ›

W. Fonfara

H. Jasik

A. Starchurski

M. GÄ…siorowska

308 .

44688/10

RUNOWSKI v. Poland

02/08/2010

T. Runowski

309 .

44805/10

SANOCKI v. Poland

02/08/2010

M. Sanocki

310 .

44972/10

PROTASEWICZ v. Poland

02/08/2010

I. Protasewicz

311 .

45235/10

MARCZEWSKI v. Poland

03/08/2010

B. Marczewski

312 .

45499/10

SKIKIEWICZ v. Poland

03/08/2010

M. Skikiewicz

313 .

45503/10

TARCZEWSKI v. Poland

28/07/2010

M. Tarczewski

314 .

45515/10

GRZYWACZ v. Poland

04/08/2010

S. Grzywacz

315 .

45535/10

STACHOWIAK v. Poland

05/08/2010

K. Stachowiak

316 .

45542/10

BUDZIŁO v. Poland

30/07/2010

W. Budziło

317 .

45575/10

JABŁOŃSKI v. Poland

30/07/2010

R. Jabłoński

318 .

45722/10

KAROLCZYK v. Poland

03/08/2010

T. Karolczyk

319 .

45729/10

KOWALSKI v. Poland

26/07/2010

M. Kowalski

320 .

45731/10

NOWICKI v. Poland

29/07/2010

C. Nowicki

321 .

45736/10

NIEMIRA v. Poland

02/08/2010

W. Niemira

322 .

45750/10

PIŃSKI v. Poland

06/08/2010

R. Piński

323 .

45761/10

NALEPA v. Poland

06/08/2010

S. Nalepa

324 .

45792/10

RAKSZEWSKA v. Poland

30/07/2010

W. Rakszewska

325 .

45888/10

PODEDWORNY v. Poland

02/08/2010

Z. Podedworny

326 .

45938/10

PANKIEWICZ v. Poland

28/07/2010

Z. Pankiewicz

327 .

45961/10

LASEK v. Poland

04/08/2010

S. Lasek

328 .

45982/10

CIURKO v. Poland

15/06/2010

J. Ciurko

329 .

45996/10

BALCEREK v. Poland

30/07/2010

M. Balcerek

330 .

46040/10

KUCHARSKA v. Poland

06/08/2010

E. Kucharska

331 .

46044/10

KACPRZYŃSKI v. Poland

06/08/2010

S. Kacprzyński

332 .

46153/10

STRYCZYŃSKA-JANICKA v. Poland

30/07/2010

J. Stryczyńska-Janicka

333 .

46164/10

GAJEWSKI v. Poland

07/08/2010

Z. Gajewski

334 .

46169/10

DZIEWIRZ v. Poland

06/08/2010

H. Dziewirz

335 .

46175/10

RANIEWICZ v. Poland

06/08/2010

W. Raniewicz

336 .

46187/10

GONTAREK v. Poland

09/08/2010

Z. Gontarek

337 .

46198/10

ALZAK v. Poland

03/08/2010

K. Alzak

338 .

46560/10

ŚWITAŁA v. Poland

11/08/2010

H. Świtała

339 .

46561/10

SUROWIEC-SMÓŁKO v. Poland

09/08/2010

G. Surowiec-Smółko

340 .

46828/10

ZUBIŃSKI v. Poland

06/08/2010

Z. Zubiński

341 .

46834/10

SKOWRON v. Poland

13/08/2010

E. Skowron

342 .

46876/10

BRĄŻKIEWICZ v. Poland

11/08/2010

A. Brążkiewicz

343 .

46933/10

NIESSNER v. Poland

10/08/2010

S. Niessner

344 .

47135/10

JANAS-SKÓRKIEWICZ v. Poland

11/08/2010

B. Janas-Skórkiewicz

345 .

47179/10

ŚWITAŁA v. Poland

11/08/2010

D. Świtała

346 .

47211/10

SKULSKI v. Poland

11/08/2010

Z. Skulski

347 .

47226/10

ŚWIĘCH v. Poland

12/08/2010

R. Święch

348 .

47371/10

PISARSKI v. Poland

10/08/2010

J. Pisarski

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

349 .

47633/10

NALBORCZYK v. Poland

12/08/2010

J. Nalborczyk

350 .

47963/10

MANTAY v. Poland

14/08/2010

J. Mantay

351 .

47987/10

GÓRSKI v. Poland

09/08/2010

S. Górski

352 .

48030/10

DRYŃKOWSKI v. Poland

11/08/2010

M. Dryńkowski

353 .

48034/10

GROBELNY v. Poland

12/08/2010

Z. Grobelny

354 .

48041/10

GNIECIECKI v. Poland

07/08/2010

M. Gnieciecki

355 .

48047/10

KORONOWSKI v. Poland

04/08/2010

J. Koronowski

356 .

48053/10

KOŹBIELSKI v. Poland

12/08/2010

Z. Koźbielski

357 .

48094/10

KRUPSKI v. Poland

13/08/2010

W. Krupski

358 .

48109/10

SZCZEPANEK v. Poland

12/08/2010

Z. Szczepanek

359 .

48117/10

STEC v. Poland

11/08/2010

L. Stec

360 .

48129/10

SOBOLEWSKA v. Poland

09/08/2010

U. Sobolewska

M. GÄ…siorowska

361 .

48285/10

MATERNICKI v. Poland

17/08/2010

M. Maternicki

362 .

48323/10

KISIEL v. Poland

14/08/2010

A. Kisiel

363 .

48328/10

SZTYLER v. Poland

17/08/2010

J. Sztyler

364 .

48341/10

SAMOTIUK v. Poland

15/08/2010

R. Samotiuk

365 .

48362/10

PIETRYKOWSKI v. Poland

17/08/2010

G. Pietrykowski

366 .

48364/10

PŁUŻAŃSKI v. Poland

16/08/2010

M. Płużański

367 .

48365/10

RÓG v. Poland

16/08/2010

J. Róg

368 .

48390/10

SAWICKI v. Poland

17/08/2010

B. Sawicki

369 .

48446/10

NADWORSKI v. Poland

15/08/2010

J. Nadworski

370 .

48768/10

MADEJ v. Poland

19/08/2010

T. Madej

371 .

48836/10

STRZELEC v. Poland

12/08/2010

W. Strzelec

372 .

48837/10

ÅšWIÄ„TEK v. Poland

12/08/2010

E. ÅšwiÄ…tek

373 .

48843/10

KAMIŃSKI v. Poland

10/08/2010

R. Kamiński

374 .

48862/10

KIESIEWICZ v. Poland

17/08/2010

B. Kiesiewicz

375 .

48878/10

KUNCER v. Poland

19/08/2010

T. Kuncer

376 .

48898/10

BŁASIK v. Poland

16/08/2010

W. BÅ‚asik

377 .

48982/10

RUTKOWSKI v. Poland

18/08/2010

K. Rutkowski

378 .

48990/10

PLISZCZUK v. Poland

19/08/2010

M. Pliszczuk

379 .

49002/10

BUKOWSKI v. Poland

17/08/2010

I. Bukowski

380 .

49005/10

WNUK v. Poland

17/08/2010

R. Wnuk

381 .

49008/10

WOŹNICA v. Poland

16/08/2010

A. Woźnica

382 .

49010/10

OLKIEWICZ v. Poland

17/08/2010

J. Olkiewicz

383 .

49015/10

BILIŃSKI v. Poland

12/08/2010

W. Biliński

384 .

49017/10

ZAWADZKI v. Poland

13/08/2010

T. Zawadzki

385 .

49022/10

ĆWIK v. Poland

29/06/1938

H. Ćwik

386 .

49034/10

PISKORSKI v. Poland

18/08/2010

M. Piskorski

387 .

49038/10

BRZOZOWSKI v. Poland

19/08/2010

L. Brzozowski

388 .

49043/10

PINDLOWSKI v. Poland

20/08/2010

C. Pindlowski

389 .

49045/10

BOLESŁAWSKI v. Poland

19/08/2010

M. Bolesławski

390 .

49047/10

PROSKURA v. Poland

18/08/2010

J. Proskura

391 .

49048/10

PARYLAK v. Poland

20/08/2010

J. Parylak

392 .

49049/10

NIZNER v. Poland

11/08/2010

U. Nizner

393 .

49053/10

TOMASIK v. Poland

17/08/2010

L. Tomasik

394 .

49144/10

WASAK v. Poland

10/08/2010

A. Wasak

395 .

49154/10

WRÓBEL v. Poland

19/08/2010

K. Wróbel

396 .

49160/10

ZDROJEWSKI v. Poland

16/08/2010

F. Zdrojewski

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

397 .

49179/10

SPIEGOLSKA v. Poland

20/08/2010

G. Spiegolska

398 .

49200/10

MICHALEWICZ v. Poland

20/08/2010

L. Michalewicz

399 .

49204/10

MATUSZEWSKI v. Poland

16/08/2010

T. Matuszewski

400 .

49220/10

CZARNECKI v. Poland

12/08/2010

J. Czarnecki

401 .

49224/10

BRZEZEK v. Poland

18/08/2010

M. Brzezek

402 .

49225/10

BŁAŻEJEWSKI v. Poland

19/08/2010

A. Błażejewski

403 .

49226/10

PĘCHERZEWSKI v. Poland

17/08/2010

S. Pęcherzewski

404 .

49236/10

LASKA v. Poland

16/08/2010

W. Laska

405 .

49237/10

BIERNACKA v. Poland

20/08/2010

T. Biernacka

406 .

49242/10

LISICKI v. Poland

10/08/2010

R. Lisicki

407 .

49301/10

MAGDZIARZ v. Poland

19/08/2010

D. Magdziarz

408 .

49312/10

CZEMPLIŃSKI and MALINOWSKI v. Poland

10/08/2010

G. Czempliński

W. Malinowski

M. GÄ…siorowska

409 .

49328/10

SAWKA v. Poland

18/08/2010

S. Sawka

410 .

49375/10

DĘBSKI v. Poland

20/08/2010

J. Dębski

411 .

49376/10

BIELAWIAK v. Poland

16/08/2010

E. Bielawiak

412 .

49378/10

BISZCZAK v. Poland

16/08/2010

S. Biszczak

413 .

49381/10

OPAŁKA v. Poland

20/08/2010

L. Opałka

414 .

49417/10

DANIEL v. Poland

20/08/2010

H. Daniel

415 .

49441/10

SZCZERBICKI v. Poland

17/08/2010

E. Szczerbicki

416 .

49450/10

ÅšLIWA v. Poland

09/08/2010

E. Åšliwa

417 .

49466/10

DOMSKI v. Poland

12/08/2010

J. Domski

418 .

49474/10

GROCHOWSKI v. Poland

09/08/2010

J. Grochowski

419 .

49563/10

ŚWIĘTALSKI v. Poland

24/08/2010

K. Świętalski

420 .

49568/10

STEFAŃSKI v. Poland

23/08/2010

R. Stefański

421 .

49571/10

MAÅšNICA v. Poland

23/08/2010

J. Maśnica

422 .

49582/10

MIODUSZEWSKA v. Poland

24/08/2010

M. Mioduszewska

423 .

49807/10

KRÓL v. Poland

24/08/2010

L. Król

424 .

49855/10

NATOŃSKI v. Poland

19/08/2010

W. Natoński

425 .

49971/10

KWIECIŃSKI v. Poland

18/08/2010

B. Kwieciński

426 .

49981/10

NOWACKI v. Poland

23/08/2010

L. Nowacki

427 .

50026/10

KWIECIEŃ v. Poland

16/08/2010

R. Kwiecień

428 .

50118/10

TURA v. Poland

25/08/2010

A. Tura

429 .

50183/10

KIJANKA v. Poland

23/08/2010

I. Kijanka

430 .

50448/10

HARAJ v. Poland

17/08/2010

R. Haraj

431 .

50473/10

PRZYBYSZEWSKI v. Poland

26/08/2010

Z. Przybyszewski

432 .

50493/10

PRZYBYSZEWSKA v. Poland

26/08/2010

B. Przybyszewska

433 .

50510/10

PROKOP v. Poland

07/08/2010

J. Prokop

434 .

50519/10

LESIÓW v. Poland

19/08/2010

W. Lesiów

435 .

50552/10

JOPERT v. Poland

21/08/2010

W. Jopert

436 .

50570/10

KUKUŁA v. Poland

18/08/2010

E. Kukuła

437 .

50584/10

KSIĄŻEK v. Poland

23/08/2010

W. Książek

438 .

50627/10

UMIĘCKI v. Poland

23/08/2010

A. Umięcki

439 .

50636/10

GRANICZNY v. Poland

23/08/2010

J. Graniczny

440 .

50666/10

KISIEL v. Poland

20/08/2010

M. Kisiel

441 .

50685/10

CIUPEK v. Poland

26/08/2010

H. Ciupek

442 .

50692/10

KLUZ v. Poland

20/08/2010

A. Kluz

443 .

50698/10

KORNECKI v. Poland

20/08/2010

J. Kornecki

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

444 .

50710/10

BUJAS v. Poland

21/08/2010

J. Bujas

445 .

50725/10

WIERZYŃSKI v. Poland

25/08/2010

E. Wierzyński

446 .

50730/10

CHRZANOWSKI v. Poland

18/08/2010

K. Chrzanowski

447 .

50731/10

BUKOWIECKI v. Poland

23/08/2010

S. Bukowiecki

448 .

50770/10

KARBOWIAK v. Poland

27/08/2010

H. Karbowiak

449 .

50783/10

STOLARCZYK v. Poland

26/08/2010

M. Stolarczyk

450 .

50787/10

STALEWSKI v. Poland

23/08/2010

R. Stalewski

451 .

50793/10

SZCZYGIEŁ v. Poland

22/08/2010

B. Szczygieł

452 .

50798/10

SZYMONIAK v. Poland

23/08/2010

H. Szymoniak

453 .

50808/10

SOŁDEK v. Poland

22/08/2010

M. Sołdek

454 .

50809/10

OBROK v. Poland

18/08/2010

R. Obrok

455 .

50832/10

BARAŃSKI v. Poland

19/08/2010

K. Barański

456 .

50854/10

BALAZY v. Poland

18/08/2010

E. Balazy

457 .

50875/10

BEKSA v. Poland

23/08/2010

A. Beksa

458 .

50920/10

FORMA v. Poland

19/08/2010

S. Forma

459 .

50922/10

BA Ł BATUN v. Poland

23/08/2010

A. Bał batun

460 .

50923/10

ŻAK v. Poland

23/08/2010

S. Żak

461 .

50928/10

WARCZYGŁOWSKI v. Poland

19/08/2010

R. Warczygłowski

462 .

50930/10

FILIPIAK v. Poland

30/08/2010

M. Filipiak

463 .

51403/10

KRYNICKA-TAROCIŃSKA v. Poland

20/08/2010

K. Krynicka-Tarocińska

464 .

51454/10

LANG v. Poland

19/08/2010

W. Lang

465 .

51497/10

BUCHAJCZYK v. Poland

23/08/2010

S. Buchajczyk

466 .

51501/10

RADKO v. Poland

30/08/2010

C. Radko

467 .

51575/10

BAROW v. Poland

02/09/2010

T. Barow

468 .

51762/10

STEC v. Poland

24/08/2010

T. Stec

469 .

51896/10

SEREK v. Poland

23/08/2010

L. Serek

470 .

51925/10

SZYKNY v. Poland

20/08/2010

K. Szykny

471 .

52083/10

STRÄ„CZKOWSKA v. Poland

28/08/2010

B. StrÄ…czkowska

472 .

52087/10

MIRA v. Poland

27/08/2010

H. Mira

473 .

52089/10

STEC and Others v. Poland

02/09/2010

K. Leja

J. Nowicki

R. Stec

M. GÄ…siorowska

474 .

52347/10

SKOREK v. Poland

02/09/2010

A. Skorek

475 .

52447/10

SZEWC v. Poland

12/08/2010

J. Szewc

476 .

52461/10

ANDRZEJEWSKI v. Poland

16/08/2010

G. Andrzejewski

477 .

52467/10

GOŁASZEWSKI v. Poland

19/08/2010

Z. Gołaszewski

478 .

52471/10

SAWICKI v. Poland

19/08/2010

R. Sawicki

479 .

52495/10

KALICIAK v. Poland

27/08/2010

E. Kaliciak

480 .

52780/10

RÓŻAŃSKI v. Poland

30/08/2010

E. Różański

481 .

52867/10

SZCZEPANEK v. Poland

03/09/2010

W. Szczepanek

482 .

53348/10

KINA-WROŃSKI v. Poland

08/09/2010

W. Kina-Wroński

483 .

53358/10

WOJCIECHOWSKI v. Poland

31/08/2010

B. Wojciechowski

484 .

53473/10

ÅšWIERCZEWSKI v. Poland

13/09/2010

J. Åšwierczewski

485 .

53549/10

BARYŁA v. Poland

27/08/2010

K. Baryła

486 .

53629/10

OTMIANOWSKI v. Poland

05/09/2010

Z. Otmianowski

487 .

53775/10

KAMIŃSKI v. Poland

01/09/2010

J. Kamiński

488 .

53776/10

TOTA v. Poland

13/09/2010

M. Tota

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

489 .

54267/10

GARSZTKA v. Poland

10/09/2010

S. Garsztka

490 .

54348/10

GÓRCZYŃSKI v. Poland

01/09/2010

J. Górczyński

491 .

54977/10

STĘPIEŃ v. Poland

13/09/2010

M. Stępień

492 .

55602/10

BERENDT v. Poland

24/08/2010

M. Berendt

493 .

55616/10

OLSZLEGER v. Poland

10/09/2010

K. Olszleger

P. Gerhardy

494 .

55633/10

ORNOCH v. Poland

21/09/2010

M. Ornoch

495 .

55871/10

OGRZYŃSKI v. Poland

20/09/2010

A. Ogrzyński

496 .

55894/10

KUBINA v. Poland

21/09/2010

J. Kubina

497 .

55901/10

BRENDZEL v. Poland

16/09/2010

D. Brendzel

498 .

56076/10

URBAŃSKI v. Poland

07/09/2010

Z. Urbański

499 .

56202/10

KOSTYRA v. Poland

20/09/2010

I. Kostyra

500 .

56261/10

SKONIECZNY and Others v. Poland

23/09/2010

S. Janusiewicz

Z. Kozłowski

J. Skonieczny

A. Zawicki

J. Ziółkowski

M. GÄ…siorowska

501 .

56400/10

BYLINOWSKI v. Poland

17/09/2010

J. Bylinowski

502 .

56517/10

PADUSZYŃSKI v. Poland

24/09/2010

M. Paduszyński

503 .

56993/10

JANKOWSKI v. Poland

30/09/2010

W. Jankowski

504 .

57584/10

SZLAMA v. Poland

28/09/2010

E. Szlama

505 .

57599/10

BIGOSIŃSKA v. Poland

01/10/2010

J. Bigosińska

506 .

57680/10

KUÅšNIERZ v. Poland

30/09/2010

E. Kuśnierz

507 .

57839/10

GARGOL-KOWALCZYK v. Poland

29/09/2010

B. Gargol-Kowalczyk

508 .

57972/10

WIÅšNIOWSKA v. Poland

30/09/2010

R. Wiśniowska

509 .

58013/10

KĘPIŃSKI v. Poland

01/10/2010

A. Kępiński

510 .

58782/10

PASZKIEWICZ v. Poland

30/09/2010

L. Paszkiewicz

511 .

58826/10

PAWLICKI v. Poland

28/09/2010

Z. Pawlicki

512 .

58908/10

FAL v. Poland

29/09/2010

M. Fal

513 .

58983/10

DOBROGOSZCZ v. Poland

01/10/2010

J. Dobrogoszcz

514 .

59137/10

KOWIESKI v. Poland

04/10/2010

J. Kowieski

515 .

59151/10

MILCZAREK v. Poland

07/10/2010

J. Milczarek

516 .

59227/10

GŁOWACKI v. Poland

25/05/2010

Z. GÅ‚owacki

P. Sowisło

517 .

59924/10

TERCZEWSKI v. Poland

07/10/2010

K. Terczewski

518 .

60192/10

NIEWĘGŁOWSKI v. Poland

05/10/2010

K. Niewęgłowski

519 .

60198/10

LEONOWICZ v. Poland

09/10/2010

Z. Leonowicz

520 .

60269/10

PLEBAN v. Poland

09/10/2010

E. Pleban

521 .

60277/10

ROŻYBOWSKI v. Poland

09/10/2010

K. Rożybowski

522 .

60289/10

ROŻYBOWSKA v. Poland

08/10/2010

G. Rożybowska

523 .

61189/10

BÄ„K v. Poland

13/10/2010

W. BÄ…k

524 .

61392/10

SZYMAŃSKI v. Poland

09/10/2010

A. Szymański

525 .

61397/10

POHL v. Poland

11/10/2010

J. Pohl

526 .

61517/10

HAGNO v. Poland

15/10/2010

T. Hagno

527 .

61684/10

DURCZYŃSKI v. Poland

14/10/2010

R. Durczyński

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

528 .

62074/10

SUSZCZEWSKI and Ohers v. Poland

04/10/2010

S. Czeszak

J. Dolecki

B. Łukasik

L. Nowicki

S. Pytlarz

Z. Ryszawa

W. Siewert

W. Suszczewski

S. Szczepaniak

K. Zawalska

M. GÄ…siorowska

529 .

62100/10

CHYLAK v. Poland

18/10/2010

S. Chylak

530 .

62131/10

WYSZOMIRSKA and Others v. Poland

04/10/2010

H. Czapska

U. Kaczorowska

E. Kamińska

M. Klauzo

A. Kończak

J. Kowalski

S. Laskowski

E. Linowska

G. Piasny

T. Pieńkowska

K. Pilarska

E. Stępniewska

S. Tokarski

R. Wyszomirska

Z. Wyszomirski

M. GÄ…siorowska

531 .

62911/10

BARTCZAK-MALESZKA v. Poland

20/10/2010

U. Bartczak- Maleszka

532 .

63202/10

STAROŃ v. Poland

11/10/2010

W. Staroń

533 .

63241/10

JÓŹWIAK v. Poland

13/10/2010

Z. Jóźwiak

P. Sowisło

534 .

63336/10

WUDARSKA v. Poland

23/10/2010

W. Wudarska

535 .

63538/10

BOGDANOWICZ v. Poland

22/09/2010

E. Bogdanowicz

536 .

63542/10

BOGDANOWICZ v. Poland

22/09/2010

P. Bogdanowicz

537 .

63561/10

SZÄ„BARA v. Poland

21/10/2010

W. SzÄ…bara

538 .

64671/10

WIÅšNIEWSKA v. Poland

02/11/2010

B. Wiśniewska

M. Wiśniewski

539 .

64895/10

BRODZISZ v. Poland

02/11/2010

E. Brodzisz

540 .

64930/10

ZABIELSKI v. Poland

08/10/2010

S. Zabielski

M. GÄ…siorowska

541 .

64983/10

ŁADA v. Poland

26/10/2010

H. Łada

542 .

66597/10

GUTRAL v. Poland

08/11/2010

K. Gutral

543 .

66828/10

KALBARCZYK v. Poland

09/11/2010

Z. Kalbarczyk

544 .

66992/10

HAJDUK v. Poland

29/10/2010

J. Hajduk

545 .

67010/10

IWANIEWICZ v. Poland

09/11/2010

H. Iwaniewicz

546 .

67694/10

BOSEK v. Poland

13/11/2010

T. Bosek

547 .

68151/10

RATAJCZAK v. Poland

29/10/2010

S. Ratajczak

548 .

68266/10

KRASICKI v. Poland

03/11/2010

R. Krasicki

549 .

69277/10

STĘPIEŃ-ALZAK v. Poland

19/11/2010

M. Stępień-Alzak

550 .

70315/10

MIZERA v. Poland

24/11/2010

S. Mizera

551 .

70418/10

MIKOŁAJCZYK v. Poland

13/11/2010

W. Mikołajczyk

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

552 .

70435/10

BOGUSZEWSKA v. Poland

23/11/2010

H. Boguszewska

553 .

70507/10

ŁOBATIUK v. Poland

07/11/2010

B. Łobatiuk

554 .

70701/10

NIEDŹWIECKI v. Poland

08/11/2010

J. Niedźwiecki

555 .

71638/10

WIÅšNIEWSKI v. Poland

25/11/2010

J. Wiśniewski

556 .

72090/10

WÓJCIK v. Poland

20/11/2010

J. Wójcik

557 .

72137/10

NOWAK v. Poland

08/11/2010

J. Nowak

558 .

72206/10

NOWAKOWSKI v. Poland

15/11/2010

M. Nowakowski

559 .

72288/10

ŁAPUSZEK v. Poland

01/12/2010

H. Łapuszek

560 .

72290/10

IWICKA-KAMIŃSKA v. Poland

22/11/2010

M. Iwicka-Kamińska

561 .

72297/10

PRUSZYŃSKI v. Poland

24/11/2010

P. Pruszyński

M. GÄ…siorowska

562 .

72361/10

LAMBER v. Poland

22/11/2010

B. Lamber

563 .

72668/10

DUDEK v. Poland

01/12/2010

Z. Dudek

564 .

72683/10

GÓRALCZYK v. Poland

01/12/2010

H. Góralczyk

565 .

73014/10

CHUDZIŃSKI v. Poland

02/12/2010

L. Chudziński

566 .

73037/10

KRUPOWICZ v. Poland

06/12/2010

J. Krupowicz

567 .

73286/10

JANIUK v. Poland

07/12/2010

A. Janiuk

568 .

73421/10

GWIAZDA v. Poland

07/12/2010

W. Gwiazda

569 .

73599/10

TOLAK v. Poland

07/12/2010

R. Tolak

570 .

73617/10

SILUK v. Poland

06/12/2010

M. Siluk

571 .

73626/10

RACZYŃSKA v. Poland

07/12/2010

J. Raczyńska

572 .

74045/10

KWIATKOWSKI v. Poland

03/12/2010

W. Kwiatkowski

D. Sucholewski

573 .

74437/10

BINKOWSKI v. Poland

08/12/2010

J. Binkowski

574 .

74830/10

WEREMCZUK v. Poland

15/12/2010

T. Weremczuk

575 .

74930/10

DOLECKI v. Poland

06/12/2010

J. Dolecki

576 .

74942/10

GRZYBOWSKI v. Poland

14/12/2010

A. Grzybowski

577 .

75007/10

LIPIEC v. Poland

29/11/2010

S. Lipiec

578 .

75125/10

NOWACKI v. Poland

14/12/2010

A. Nowacki

579 .

416/11

GŁOMSKI v. Poland

03/12/2010

B. GÅ‚omski

580 .

442/11

MOSEK v. Poland

29/12/2010

S. Mosek

581 .

803/11

OGORZELEC v. Poland

21/12/2010

K. Ogorzelec

582 .

890/11

BORTKIEWICZ v. Poland

08/12/2010

A. Bortkiewicz

583 .

972/11

KOLBOWICZ v. Poland

21/12/2010

M. Kolbowicz

584 .

982/11

KRASUSKI v. Poland

06/12/2010

I. Krasuski

585 .

1097/11

OPALA v. Poland

28/12/2010

E. Opala

586 .

1199/11

LASKOWSKI v. Poland

23/12/2010

L. Laskowski

587 .

1228/11

LUBASIŃSKI v. Poland

16/12/2010

C. Lubasiński

588 .

1761/11

CHOCIESZYŃSKI v. Poland

13/12/2010

T. Chocieszyński

589 .

2708/11

BŁAZIAK v. Poland

05/01/2010

M. BÅ‚aziak

590 .

3116/11

WEBER v. Poland

15/12/2010

R. Weber

D. Sucholewski

591 .

3131/11

WEJNER v. Poland

05/01/2011

W. Wejner

592 .

3615/11

STACHOWIAK v. Poland

30/12/2010

R. Stachowiak

593 .

3623/11

SZCZYGIEŁ and ZAJĄC v. Poland

02/01/2011

W. Szczygieł

A. ZajÄ…c

M. GÄ…siorowska

594 .

3772/11

PUK v. Poland

10/01/2011

K. Puk

595 .

4921/11

WÓJCIK v. Poland

11/01/2011

A. Wójcik

596 .

5034/11

PIETRZAK v. Poland

21/12/2010

J. Pietrzak

M. GÄ…siorowska

597 .

5071/11

ROGOWSKI v. Poland

24/12/2010

M. Rogowski

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

598 .

5610/11

MUSZAŁKIEWICZ v. Poland

10/01/2011

W. Muszałkiewicz

599 .

5750/11

POLAK v. Poland

19/01/2011

H. Polak

600 .

5821/11

KOSTRZEWSKI v. Poland

18/01/2011

G. Kostrzewski

601 .

6110/11

KAMIENIAK v. Poland

18/01/2011

K. Kamieniak

602 .

6418/11

CYLWIK v. Poland

18/01/2011

J. Cylwik

603 .

6633/11

SNARSKI v. Poland

13/01/2011

W. Snarski

604 .

6677/11

SOCHA v. Poland

20/01/2011

W. Socha

605 .

6785/11

STĘPIEŃ v. Poland

25/01/2011

S. Stępień

606 .

6901/11

ZDYBICKI v. Poland

24/01/2011

M. Zdybicki

607 .

7142/11

KWASEK v. Poland

21/01/2011

J. Kwasek

608 .

7193/11

MACHNIK v. Poland

28/01/2011

A. Machnik

609 .

7226/11

ŁADNO v. Poland

18/01/2011

W. Ładno

610 .

7301/11

SEN v. Poland

18/01/2011

P. Sen

611 .

7348/11

BAKA-ORGANIÅšCIAK v. Poland

19/01/2011

K. Baka-Organiściak

612 .

7380/11

KAŃCZUGOWSKI v. Poland

26/01/2011

H. Kańczugowski

613 .

7435/11

NYCH v. Poland

28/01/2011

M. Nych

614 .

7558/11

GĘDZIOROWSKI v. Poland

25/01/2011

C. Gędziorowski

615 .

7564/11

GÓRNA v. Poland

27/01/2011

L. Górna

616 .

7569/11

GÓRNY v. Poland

27/01/2011

K. Górny

617 .

7578/11

GODLEWSKI v. Poland

28/01/2011

K. Godlewski

618 .

7649/11

GAJDAMOWICZ v. Poland

24/01/2011

T. Gajdamowicz

619 .

7737/11

ROCZNIAK v. Poland

29/01/2011

A. Roczniak

620 .

7742/11

RYCAJ v. Poland

28/01/2011

R. Rycaj

621 .

7842/11

CIEBIEŃ v. Poland

25/01/2011

J. Ciebień

622 .

7915/11

WOJTYSIAK v. Poland

24/01/2011

S. Wojtysiak

623 .

8079/11

SZUMSKI v. Poland

07/01/2011

F. Szumski

624 .

8802/11

KLEPUSZEWSKI v. Poland

25/01/2011

A. Klepuszewski

625 .

9064/11

BUCZAK v. Poland

29/01/2011

Z. Buczak

626 .

9726/11

CZEMPORA v. Poland

01/02/2011

M. Czempora

627 .

9925/11

KOSOWSKI v. Poland

07/02/2011

W. Kosowski

628 .

10011/11

ÅšPIEWAK v. Poland

04/02/2011

L. Åšpiewak

629 .

10072/11

GDANIEC v. Poland

25/01/2011

K. Gdaniec

630 .

10094/11

KISIEL v. Poland

04/02/2011

T. Kisiel

631 .

10112/11

ÅšMIGIEL v. Poland

07/02/2011

M. Åšmigiel

632 .

10117/11

ŚLIWIŃSKI v. Poland

26/01/2011

W. Śliwiński

M. GÄ…siorowska

633 .

10273/11

ŁYP v. Poland

04/02/2011

J. Łyp

634 .

10360/11

KORDEK v. Poland

31/01/2011

W. Kordek

635 .

10445/11

PIÄ„TKOWSKA v. Poland

11/02/2011

M. PiÄ…tkowska

636 .

10635/11

PRUSZYŃSKI v. Poland

09/02/2011

S. Pruszyński

637 .

11187/11

WICHER v. Poland

01/02/2011

B. Wicher

638 .

11705/11

OLEJNIK v. Poland

04/02/2011

A. Olejnik

639 .

11848/11

BIAŁEK v. Poland

05/02/2011

H. Białek

640 .

11880/11

BARAŃSKI v. Poland

03/02/2011

M. Barański

641 .

12004/11

BUFAN-GOCYK v. Poland

16/02/2011

J. Bufan-Gocyk

642 .

12008/11

MIASKOWSKI v. Poland

17/02/2011

S. Miaskowski

643 .

12248/11

WEBER v. Poland

14/02/2011

M. Weber

D. Sucholewski

644 .

12383/11

KADAJ v. Poland

17/02/2011

R. Kadaj

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

645 .

12845/11

PIECHOTA v. Poland

17/02/2011

M. Piechota

646 .

12852/11

ROMAN v. Poland

17/02/2011

W. Roman

647 .

13012/11

DOGIEL v. Poland

22/02/2011

M. Dogiel

648 .

13016/11

KURPIEWSKI v. Poland

21/02/2011

S. Kurpiewski

649 .

13018/11

KRZYŻANOWSKI v. Poland

21/02/2011

J. Krzyżanowski

650 .

13034/11

ADAMCZEWSKA-WAGNER v. Poland

17/02/2011

Z. Adamczewska-Wagner

651 .

13589/11

ŁESAK v. Poland

22/02/2011

B. Łesak

652 .

13622/11

JAREMEK v. Poland

09/02/2011

J. Jaremek

M. GÄ…siorowska

653 .

13745/11

KOSNO v. Poland

18/02/2011

L. Kosno

654 .

13758/11

LESKI v. Poland

24/02/2011

S. Leski

655 .

13906/11

NOWICKI v. Poland

23/02/2011

E. Nowicki

656 .

13940/11

RYCOMBEL v. Poland

08/02/2011

J. Rycombel

657 .

13988/11

SIADAK v. Poland

23/02/2011

M. Siadak

658 .

13991/11

SAJEWSKI v. Poland

23/02/2011

R. Sajewski

659 .

14029/11

STACHOWIAK v. Poland

23/02/2011

W. Stachowiak

660 .

14042/11

OLĘDZKI v. Poland

25/02/2011

J. Olędzki

661 .

14483/11

DOGIEL v. Poland

23/02/2011

E. Dogiel

662 .

14708/11

GOCYK v. Poland

21/02/2011

A. Gocyk

663 .

14718/11

GOROŃSKI v. Poland

21/02/2011

M. Goroński

664 .

15855/11

SOSNOWSKI v. Poland

10/02/2011

S. Sosnowski

665 .

16672/11

JANISZEWSKI v. Poland

03/03/2011

J. Janiszewski

666 .

16696/11

SZADY v. Poland

02/03/2011

R. Szady

667 .

16768/11

KULEJ v. Poland

22/02/2011

K. Kulej

668 .

17611/11

HAWRYŁO v. Poland

07/03/2011

E. Hawryło

669 .

17615/11

HAWRYŁO v. Poland

07/03/2011

E. Hawryło

670 .

17722/11

PASZKOWSKA-GABRYSZAK v. Poland

14/03/2011

Z. Paszkowska-Gabryszak

671 .

18059/11

MŁYŃCZAK v. Poland

14/03/2011

W. Młyńczak

672 .

18266/11

LORENC v. Poland

16/03/2011

A. Lorenc

673 .

18451/11

PŁOTKOWIAK v. Poland

10/03/2011

R. PÅ‚otkowiak

674 .

18727/11

GONERA v. Poland

03/03/2011

M. Gonera

675 .

18743/11

ŻYCZYCA v. Poland

15/03/2011

Z. Życzyca

676 .

18750/11

GORZELANY v. Poland

07/03/2011

J. Gorzelany

677 .

18801/11

MAŁECKI v. Poland

18/03/2011

Z. Małecki

678 .

18827/11

LANGE v. Poland

14/03/2011

R. Lange

679 .

18871/11

KANIECKI v. Poland

07/03/2011

J. Kaniecki

680 .

18885/11

KASPRZAK v. Poland

14/03/2011

M. Kasprzak

681 .

18921/11

JANUS v. Poland

18/03/2011

D. Janus

682 .

18955/11

PISKOREK v. Poland

16/03/2011

R. Piskorek

683 .

19187/11

SAK v. Poland

14/03/2011

S. Sak

684 .

19440/11

SOSZYŃSKI v. Poland

22/03/2011

M. Soszyński

685 .

19515/11

ŁYSAKOWSKI v. Poland

23/03/2011

J. Łysakowski

686 .

19527/11

BEREZECKI v. Poland

14/03/2011

S. Berezecki

687 .

19633/11

WITKOWSKI v. Poland

03/03/2011

P. Witkowski

688 .

20406/11

JANUSZEWSKI v. Poland

21/03/2011

A. Januszewski

689 .

20410/11

MAIK v. Poland

21/03/2011

A. Maik

690 .

20492/11

OZYP v. Poland

20/03/2011

T. Ozyp

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

691 .

20776/11

MATUSZEWSKI v. Poland

16/03/2011

P. Matuszewski

692 .

20927/11

GAŁĄZKA v. Poland

24/03/2011

Z. Gałązka

693 .

21018/11

SZEWCZYK v. Poland

16/03/2011

J. Szewczyk

694 .

21400/11

KOCOT v. Poland

14/03/2011

E. Kocot

M. GÄ…siorowska

695 .

21401/11

KOWAŃSKA v. Poland

20/03/2011

A. Kowańska

696 .

22361/11

ZIAJKO v. Poland

30/03/2011

J. Ziajko

697 .

22418/11

KUBISZ v. Poland

31/03/2011

P. Kubisz

698 .

22425/11

KABALA v. Poland

29/03/2011

L. Kabala

699 .

22434/11

KWIECIŃSKI v. Poland

30/03/2011

W. Kwieciński

700 .

22994/11

TRACZYK v. Poland

04/04/2011

W. Traczyk

701 .

23168/11

OLSZEWSKI v. Poland

03/12/2010

W. Olszewski

702 .

23251/11

SAK v. Poland

08/04/2011

T. Sak

703 .

23294/11

WOÅš v. Poland

07/04/2011

M. WoÅ›

704 .

23397/11

PRÄ„TNICKI v. Poland

06/04/2011

M. PrÄ…tnicki

705 .

24193/11

SULIKOWSKI v. Poland

11/04/2011

J. Sulikowski

706 .

24336/11

ZARĘBSKI v. Poland

06/04/2011

M. Zarębski

707 .

24560/11

KLAJA v. Poland

13/04/2011

H. Klaja

708 .

24966/11

ROGALSKI v. Poland

14/04/2011

J. Rogalski

709 .

25218/11

MARZEC v. Poland

15/04/2011

J. Marzec

710 .

25376/11

DEPTUSZEWSKI v. Poland

09/04/2011

E. Deptuszewski

711 .

25378/11

KACZOROWSKI v. Poland

08/04/2011

R. Kaczorowski

712 .

25792/11

MUSIDLAK v. Poland

19/04/2011

J. Musidlak

713 .

25800/11

MOTAŁA v. Poland

20/04/2011

A. Motała

714 .

26081/11

MICHNO v. Poland

22/04/2011

J. Michno

715 .

26101/11

ŻERLAK v. Poland

15/04/2011

A. Żerlak

716 .

26483/11

CIASTOWICZ v. Poland

15/04/2011

K. Ciastowicz

717 .

26847/11

KRUSZYŃSKI v. Poland

14/04/2011

W. Kruszyński

718 .

27662/11

SOCHA v. Poland

15/04/2011

S. Socha

719 .

27694/11

BARANKIEWICZ v. Poland

28/04/2011

Z. Barankiewicz

720 .

27695/11

MILKA v. Poland

27/04/2011

T. Milka

721 .

27763/11

STACHOWICZ v. Poland

13/04/2011

H. Stachowicz

722 .

27850/11

ŁONIEWSKA v. Poland

26/04/2011

I. Łoniewska

723 .

28185/11

SKOREK v. Poland

26/04/2011

E. Skorek

724 .

28232/11

PUTKOWSKI v. Poland

22/04/2011

A. Putkowski

725 .

28927/11

SKAWIŃSKI v. Poland

28/04/2011

F. Skawiński

726 .

29000/11

KAMIENIAK v. Poland

26/04/2011

J. Kamieniak

727 .

29029/11

KOTARSKI v. Poland

02/05/2011

A. Kotarski

728 .

29265/11

MAZIK v. Poland

27/04/2011

A. Mazik

729 .

29500/11

HOSZKIEWICZ v. Poland

28/04/2011

W. Hoszkiewicz

730 .

29502/11

SAWICKI v. Poland

06/05/2011

J. Sawicki

731 .

29816/11

DOLINIAK v. Poland

05/05/2011

Z. Doliniak

732 .

29917/11

KUCZYK v. Poland

28/04/2011

S. Kuczyk

733 .

29983/11

KWIECIŃSKI v. Poland

05/05/2011

L. Kwieciński

734 .

30021/11

KURZACZ v. Poland

28/04/2011

A. Kurzacz

P. Sowisło

735 .

30323/11

SKUPIŃSKI v. Poland

09/05/2011

Z. Skupiński

736 .

30743/11

OCHMAŃSKI v. Poland

06/05/2011

Z. Ochmański

737 .

30900/11

BĘDKOWSKI v. Poland

05/05/2011

J. Będkowski

738 .

30921/11

KAPUŚCIŃSKI v. Poland

09/05/2011

S. Kapuściński

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

739 .

30923/11

KOZIEŁ v. Poland

12/05/2011

J. Kozieł

740 .

30966/11

MUSZALSKA v. Poland

11/05/2011

T. Muszalska

741 .

30977/11

JAROS v. Poland

09/05/2011

M. Jaros

742 .

31156/11

SADOWSKI v. Poland

11/05/2011

J. Sadowski

743 .

31185/11

PUKIS v. Poland

06/05/2011

S. Pukis

D. Sucholewski

744 .

31352/11

GUTKIEWICZ v. Poland

13/05/2011

I. Gutkiewicz

745 .

31358/11

GODZIŃSKA v. Poland

03/05/2011

W. Godzińska

746 .

31382/11

GŁOWIŃSKI v. Poland

06/05/2011

K. Głowiński

747 .

31407/11

GRABOWSKI v. Poland

11/05/2011

B. Grabowski

748 .

31414/11

DOMINOWSKI v. Poland

11/05/2011

W. Dominowski

749 .

31427/11

DESKA v. Poland

10/05/2011

S. Deska

750 .

31582/11

WILK v. Poland

04/05/2011

A. Wilk

751 .

32080/11

SMAGA v. Poland

16/05/2011

W. Smaga

752 .

32331/11

TRYBUS v. Poland

13/05/2011

J. Trybus

753 .

32431/11

ŚLĘCZEK v. Poland

17/05/2011

B. Ślęczek

754 .

32483/11

ZUBALA v. Poland

17/05/2011

S. Zubala

755 .

32484/11

NAWROCKI v. Poland

17/05/2011

S. Nawrocki

756 .

32538/11

LESZCZYŃSKI v. Poland

29/04/2011

M. Leszczyński

757 .

32559/11

LISOWSKI v. Poland

05/05/2011

W. Lisowski

758 .

32601/11

BIGAJ v. Poland

16/05/2011

A. Bigaj

759 .

32714/11

JURECZKO v. Poland

23/05/2011

R. Jureczko

760 .

33089/11

WASILEWSKA v. Poland

16/05/2011

H. Wasilewska

761 .

33190/11

KACZMAREK v. Poland

18/05/2011

D. Kaczmarek

762 .

33872/11

CHUDY v. Poland

23/05/2011

J. Chudy

763 .

33957/11

DOBRZYŃSKA v. Poland

26/05/2011

E. Dobrzyńska

764 .

34223/11

KACZOR v. Poland

26/05/2011

L. Kaczor

765 .

34280/11

PLEÅšNIARSKI v. Poland

27/05/2011

C. Pleśniarski

766 .

34284/11

PIASECZYŃSKI v. Poland

24/05/2011

J. Piaseczyński

767 .

34830/11

PRESSLER v. Poland

30/05/2011

J. Pressler

768 .

34944/11

ZMARZŁA v. Poland

28/05/2011

D. Zmarzła

769 .

34953/11

SOŁTYSIAK v. Poland

31/05/2011

L. Sołtysiak

770 .

34991/11

STUDZIŃSKI v. Poland

31/05/2011

F. Studziński

771 .

35014/11

KUJAWA v. Poland

24/05/2011

W. Kujawa

772 .

35018/11

KLECZYK v. Poland

31/05/2011

S. Kleczyk

773 .

35046/11

NAPIERAŁA v. Poland

30/05/2011

Z. Napierała

774 .

35499/11

CYCHOWSKA v. Poland

03/06/2011

D. Cychowska

775 .

35508/11

WÓJCIK v. Poland

23/05/2011

M. Wójcik

776 .

35527/11

WOJNARSKI v. Poland

25/05/2011

Z. Wojnarski

777 .

36632/11

PATRZAŁEK v. Poland

10/06/2011

J. Patrzałek

778 .

37162/11

WALKOWICZ v. Poland

09/06/2011

T. Walkowicz

779 .

37174/11

WALKOWICZ v. Poland

30/05/2011

A. Walkowicz

780 .

37185/11

WALKOWICZ v. Poland

30/05/2011

J. Walkowicz

781 .

37207/11

WILKIEWICZ v. Poland

14/06/2011

M. Wilkiewicz

782 .

37293/11

BŁAŻ v. Poland

08/06/2011

W. Błaż

783 .

37414/11

NOWAK v. Poland

16/06/2011

Z. Nowak

784 .

37415/11

ZIOMEK v. Poland

07/06/2011

K. Ziomek

785 .

37447/11

LUBA v. Poland

13/06/2011

E. Luba

786 .

37634/11

SŁOMKA v. Poland

01/06/2011

A. SÅ‚omka

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

787 .

37889/11

MAREK v. Poland

06/06/2011

A. Marek

788 .

37902/11

MASZKOWSKI v. Poland

10/06/2011

S. Maszkowski

789 .

37943/11

SAPETA v. Poland

11/06/2011

E. Sapeta

790 .

38614/11

BROMBOSZCZ v. Poland

17/06/2011

M. Bromboszcz

791 .

38632/11

CIEPAK v. Poland

09/06/2011

A. Ciepak

792 .

38674/11

WRÓBLEWSKA v. Poland

14/06/2011

D. Wróblewska

793 .

38676/11

JĘDRASZKO v. Poland

20/06/2011

J. Jędraszko

794 .

38680/11

REDUCH v. Poland

16/06/2011

S. Reduch

795 .

38684/11

KOROLEWICZ v. Poland

20/06/2011

D. Korolewicz

796 .

38700/11

KASPRZYK v. Poland

18/06/2011

S. Kasprzyk

797 .

38705/11

CHUDA v. Poland

16/06/2011

J. Chuda

798 .

38761/11

GRUSZKA v. Poland

31/05/2011

T. Gruszka

799 .

38772/11

KUREK v. Poland

31/05/2011

J. Kurek

800 .

38829/11

BIAŁOSIEWICZ v. Poland

17/06/2011

H. Białosiewicz

801 .

38847/11

DOBROWOLSKI v. Poland

06/06/2011

M. Dobrowolski

802 .

38853/11

SZWAJKA v. Poland

09/06/2011

J. Szwajka

803 .

38892/11

GIEROWSKA v. Poland

01/06/2011

B. Gierowska

804 .

38953/11

PABISIAK v. Poland

21/06/2011

T. Pabisiak

805 .

39014/11

FELIGA v. Poland

07/06/2011

J. Feliga

806 .

39021/11

TOCZEWSKI v. Poland

13/06/2011

H. Toczewski

807 .

39026/11

PALUSZKIEWICZ v. Poland

20/06/2011

B. Paluszkiewicz

808 .

39030/11

BŁACHUT v. Poland

04/06/2011

C. BÅ‚achut

809 .

39041/11

TERLECKA-SEMKOWICZ v. Poland

08/06/2011

L. Terlecka-Semkowicz

810 .

39313/11

JAKOWSKA-RÄ„CZKOWSKA v. Poland

21/06/2011

A. Jakowska-RÄ…czkowska

811 .

39506/11

ZIELIŃSKI v. Poland

14/06/2011

J. Zieliński

812 .

40010/11

DURSKI v. Poland

21/06/2011

M. Durski

813 .

40074/11

MICHNO-ZAŁOGA v. Poland

24/06/2011

H. Michno-Załoga

814 .

40118/11

WRONA v. Poland

15/06/2011

J. Wrona

815 .

40123/11

WÓJCIK v. Poland

09/06/2011

T. Wójcik

816 .

40297/11

CHYLEŃSKI v. Poland

20/06/2011

J. Chyleński

817 .

40309/11

JERZYKOWSKA v. Poland

27/06/2011

I. Jerzykowska

818 .

40793/11

ŚCISŁEK v. Poland

21/06/2011

B. Ścisłek

819 .

40797/11

SKOBIEJ v. Poland

27/06/2011

K. Skobiej

820 .

40798/11

SALAMON-PIÓRKO v. Poland

20/06/2011

B. Salamon-Piórko

821 .

40820/11

KRWAWNIKOWSKI v. Poland

20/06/2011

Z. Krwawnikowski

822 .

40901/11

BACZEWSKA-JARMOLIŃSKA v. Poland

21/06/2011

G. Baczewska-Jarmolińska

823 .

40904/11

DYMARSKI v. Poland

20/06/2011

K. Dymarski

824 .

41001/11

LESZCZEWSKA v. Poland

27/06/2011

R. Leszczewska

825 .

41005/11

SOLECKA v. Poland

24/06/2011

E. Solecka

826 .

41071/11

ARTEMSKI v. Poland

28/06/2011

J. Artemski

827 .

41078/11

BORAL v. Poland

21/06/2011

M. Boral

828 .

41084/11

SULIMA v. Poland

27/06/2011

M. Sulima

829 .

41184/11

PIÄ„TKOWSKI v. Poland

18/06/2011

K. PiÄ…tkowski

830 .

41264/11

WINIARSKI v. Poland

27/06/2011

R. Winiarski

831 .

41278/11

CZARNECKA v. Poland

27/06/2011

Ł . Czarnecka

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

832 .

41375/11

MROCZEK v. Poland

30/06/2011

W. Mroczek

833 .

41380/11

CZARNECKI v. Poland

27/06/2011

A. Czarnecki

834 .

41433/11

POPIEL v. Poland

28/06/2011

C. Popiel

835 .

41446/11

ROZŁONKOWSKI v. Poland

01/07/2011

J. Rozłonkowski

836 .

41797/11

MATUKIN v. Poland

24/06/2011

J. Matukin

837 .

41886/11

KRZYSZTAŁ v. Poland

30/06/2011

M. Krzyształ

838 .

41898/11

SERAFIŃCZYK v. Poland

30/06/2011

J. Serafińczyk

839 .

41902/11

SAWICKI v. Poland

28/06/2011

A. Sawicki

840 .

41904/11

WEJGT v. Poland

30/06/2011

J. Wejgt

841 .

42066/11

ROSIŃSKI v. Poland

04/07/2011

T. Rosiński

842 .

42111/11

RYCHLEWSKI v. Poland

24/06/2011

J. Rychlewski

843 .

42124/11

PAJOR v. Poland

24/06/2011

M. Pajor

844 .

42140/11

KOSIŃSKI v. Poland

30/06/2011

A. Kosiński

845 .

42163/11

LESIEWICZ v. Poland

28/06/2011

D. Lesiewicz

846 .

42190/11

KALINOWSKI v. Poland

28/06/2011

R. Kalinowski

847 .

42193/11

KOGUTKIEWICZ v. Poland

21/06/2011

J. Kogutkiewicz

848 .

42197/11

KAPITUŁA-WRONA v. Poland

15/06/2011

Z. Kapituła-Wrona

849 .

42201/11

KALISZ v. Poland

24/06/2011

A. Kalisz

850 .

42205/11

KOWALCZYK v. Poland

24/06/2011

J. Kowalczyk

851 .

42223/11

KOBUS v. Poland

27/06/2011

B. Kobus

852 .

42307/11

SALA v. Poland

24/06/2011

J. Sala

853 .

42346/11

JANICKI v. Poland

29/06/2011

H. Janicki

854 .

42377/11

SKRABA v. Poland

04/07/2011

M. Skraba

855 .

42437/11

SZYMCZYK-MACIEJEWSKA v. Poland

05/07/2011

B. Szymczyk-Maciejewska

856 .

42439/11

STEFAŃSKI v. Poland

07/07/2011

K. Stefański

857 .

42504/11

SZNERCH v. Poland

29/06/2011

L. Sznerch

858 .

42584/11

DUBINIECKI v. Poland

06/07/2011

L. Dubiniecki

859 .

42593/11

DUDA v. Poland

29/06/2011

S. Duda

860 .

42603/11

GÓRSKA v. Poland

28/06/2011

H. Górska

861 .

42616/11

DULSKI v. Poland

30/06/2011

M. Dulski

862 .

42627/11

URBANIAK v. Poland

04/07/2011

I. Urbaniak

863 .

42635/11

GIERUSZKA v. Poland

30/06/2011

Z. Gieruszka

864 .

42640/11

DORMAN and Others v. Poland

05/07/2011

E. Dorman

D. Duda

H. Dudkiewicz

E. Ogidel

E. Rudnicka Sipajlo

K. Szewczyk

H. Taciak

R. Tomasik

S. Wierzchowska

I. Wróblewska

D. Sucholewski

865 .

42641/11

GORYSZEWSKI v. Poland

21/06/2011

R. Goryszewski

866 .

42647/11

GREJNER v. Poland

30/06/2011

M. Grejner

867 .

42661/11

ZAREK v. Poland

30/06/2011

J. Zarek

868 .

42690/11

ZAGUBIEŃ v. Poland

23/06/2011

K. Zagubień

869 .

42776/11

WIÅšNIEWSKA v. Poland

24/06/2011

M. Wiśniewska

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

870 .

42797/11

MUSIAŁOWICZ v. Poland

07/07/2011

I. Musiałowicz

871 .

42807/11

CHWIEJCZAK v. Poland

21/06/2011

P. Chwiejczak

872 .

42845/11

LASEK v. Poland

28/06/2011

Z. Lasek

873 .

42846/11

WESOŁOWSKI v. Poland

27/06/2011

Z. Wesołowski

874 .

42950/11

DOMAŃSKI v. Poland

08/07/2011

W. Domański

875 .

43051/11

SOBIERSKA v. Poland

04/07/2011

E. Sobierska

876 .

43105/11

ZIMOLÄ„G v. Poland

11/07/2011

J. ZimolÄ…g

877 .

43194/11

KRIEGER v. Poland

05/07/2011

J. Krieger

878 .

43283/11

RYDLEWSKI v. Poland

11/07/2011

R. Rydlewski

879 .

43391/11

SROKA v. Poland

12/07/2011

E. Sroka

880 .

43577/11

OSTROWSKI v. Poland

30/06/2011

W. Ostrowski

881 .

43617/11

CIEMPKA v. Poland

11/07/2011

K. Ciempka

882 .

43770/11

BÄ„CZKIEWICZ v. Poland

29/06/2011

R. BÄ…czkiewicz

883 .

43791/11

BARANOWSKI v. Poland

05/07/2011

Z. Baranowski

884 .

44045/11

KOŁACZYK v. Poland

04/07/2011

K. Kołaczyk

885 .

44048/11

KAJRYS v. Poland

04/07/2011

J. Kajrys

886 .

44053/11

KAPITUŁA v. Poland

11/07/2011

A. Kapituła

887 .

44251/11

GASEK v. Poland

15/07/2011

Z. Gasek

888 .

44434/11

CHOJNOWSKI v. Poland

12/07/2011

B. Chojnowski

889 .

44650/11

CZAJKOWSKI v. Poland

15/07/2011

H. Czajkowski

890 .

44809/11

JAWORSKI v. Poland

24/06/2011

J. Jaworski

891 .

45098/11

GIERUS v. Poland

18/07/2011

K. Gierus

892 .

45463/11

TROJNAR v. Poland

18/07/2011

W. Trojnar

893 .

45853/11

GÓRECKA v. Poland

19/07/2011

B. Górecka

894 .

45860/11

GOLICZ v. Poland

18/07/2011

T. Golicz

895 .

45877/11

NEUMAN v. Poland

21/07/2011

M. Neuman

896 .

45977/11

CHMIELOWIEC v. Poland

21/07/2011

M. Chmielowiec

897 .

46255/11

RODAK VEL WODECKI v. Poland

21/07/2011

W. Rodak Vel Wodecki

898 .

46321/11

PIECEWICZ v. Poland

18/07/2011

P. Piecewicz

899 .

46546/11

PRUS v. Poland

21/07/2011

R. Prus

900 .

46818/11

PASZKIEWICZ v. Poland

20/07/2011

B. Paszkiewicz

901 .

46825/11

MICHALCZUK v. Poland

13/07/2011

M. Michalczuk

902 .

47077/11

CHWESIUK v. Poland

20/07/2011

B. Chwesiuk

903 .

47439/11

URBAŃCZYK v. Poland

25/07/2011

S. Urbańczyk

904 .

47770/11

JANUSZ v. Poland

19/07/2011

M. Janusz

905 .

47805/11

SOBCZYK v. Poland

25/07/2011

A. Sobczyk

906 .

47878/11

BARCHAN v. Poland

27/07/2011

A. Barchan

907 .

47886/11

BŁASZCZYK v. Poland

23/07/2011

J. BÅ‚aszczyk

908 .

47898/11

LEWIŃSKI v. Poland

26/07/2011

S. Lewiński

909 .

47947/11

PIOTROWSKI v. Poland

22/07/2011

W. Piotrowski

D. Sucholewski

910 .

47967/11

DUDEK v. Poland

20/07/2011

R. Dudek

911 .

48024/11

SZUSTER v. Poland

25/07/2011

K. Szuster

912 .

48061/11

TRAWCZYŃSKI v. Poland

20/07/2011

W. Trawczyński

913 .

48769/11

ŁAWNICZAK v. Poland

25/07/2011

S. Ławniczak

914 .

49339/11

CHUDZIK v. Poland

01/08/2011

M. Chudzik

915 .

49347/11

MATYNIA v. Poland

22/07/2011

L. Matynia

916 .

49359/11

GLABUS v. Poland

28/07/2011

A. Glabus

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

917 .

49528/11

KOSECKI v. Poland

02/08/2011

S. Kosecki

918 .

49897/11

JAŃCZYK v. Poland

01/08/2011

M. Jańczyk

919 .

49904/11

JANECZEK v. Poland

26/07/2011

W. Janeczek

920 .

50001/11

DEBUDAJ v. Poland

27/07/2011

G. Debudaj

921 .

50157/11

CHMIELOWSKI v. Poland

28/07/2011

P. Chmielowski

922 .

50165/11

BRALSKI v. Poland

05/08/2011

Z. Bralski

923 .

50698/11

ŁASOCHA v. Poland

02/08/2011

S. Łasocha

924 .

50746/11

SITEK v. Poland

08/08/2011

I. Sitek

925 .

50999/11

NIŻNIK v. Poland

08/08/2011

J. Niżnik

926 .

51009/11

MIKOŁAJEW v. Poland

08/08/2011

A. Mikołajew

927 .

51018/11

MUSIAŁOWICZ v. Poland

09/08/2011

R. Musiałowicz

928 .

51491/11

MARCINIAK v. Poland

05/08/2011

L. Marciniak

929 .

51620/11

GRABOWSKA v. Poland

11/08/2011

E. Grabowska

930 .

51657/11

PRONIEWICZ v. Poland

09/08/2011

J. Proniewicz

931 .

51658/11

DOBROTOWSKI v. Poland

08/08/2011

J. Dobrotowski

932 .

51674/11

OLESZCZUK v. Poland

09/08/2011

S. Oleszczuk

933 .

51684/11

OLESZCZUK v. Poland

09/08/2011

M. Oleszczuk

934 .

51685/11

KALINIEWSKA v. Poland

27/07/2011

W. Kaliniewska

935 .

51693/11

OKULSKA v. Poland

11/08/2011

H. Okulska

936 .

51697/11

GRELA v. Poland

11/08/2011

H. Grela

937 .

51700/11

WRÓBEL v. Poland

10/08/2011

S. Wróbel

938 .

51720/11

WĘGIEREK v. Poland

10/08/2011

Z. Węgierek

939 .

51729/11

WOSZCZYNA v. Poland

05/08/2011

C. Woszczyna

940 .

51804/11

SIERPIŃSKI v. Poland

11/08/2011

Z. Sierpiński

D. Sucholewski

941 .

52152/11

STEMPLEWSKI v. Poland

28/07/2011

J. Stemplewski

942 .

52174/11

BOROWSKA v. Poland

04/08/2011

G. Borowska

943 .

52584/11

KUTA v. Poland

09/08/2011

T. Kuta

944 .

53017/11

MAŁECKI v. Poland

11/08/2011

K. Małecki

945 .

53020/11

MACH v. Poland

18/08/2011

H. Mach

946 .

53367/11

GOLA v. Poland

16/08/2011

S. Gola

947 .

53488/11

ZWIECH v. Poland

08/08/2011

T. Zwiech

948 .

53499/11

ZWIECH v. Poland

04/08/2011

J. Zwiech

949 .

54091/11

DRABOWICZ v. Poland

22/08/2011

A. Drabowicz

950 .

54146/11

WODZICKA-KAROLAK v. Poland

16/08/2011

K. Wodzicka-Karolak

951 .

54152/11

IMIOŁEK v. Poland

11/08/2011

H. Imiołek

952 .

54324/11

ŻMIJEWSKI v. Poland

16/08/2011

M. Żmijewski

953 .

54332/11

BUDKA v. Poland

16/08/2011

L. Budka

954 .

54756/11

UNGERT v. Poland

26/08/2011

M. Ungert

955 .

54759/11

GUT v. Poland

19/08/2011

B. Gut

956 .

54815/11

LESIAK v. Poland

16/08/2011

J. Lesiak

957 .

55053/11

RYCHLIK v. Poland

17/08/2011

G. Rychlik

958 .

55067/11

PUZDER v. Poland

23/08/2011

H. Puzder

959 .

55072/11

RYCHLIK v. Poland

17/08/2011

M. Rychlik

960 .

55138/11

DOBROTOWSKI v. Poland

22/08/2011

J. Dobrotowski

961 .

55517/11

WOJTYÅš v. Poland

23/08/2011

E. WojtyÅ›

962 .

55544/11

HÄ„CIA v. Poland

23/08/2011

Z. HÄ…cia

963 .

55595/11

MILCZARSKI v. Poland

29/08/2011

M. Milczarski

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

964 .

56015/11

SOBIESIAK v. Poland

27/08/2011

J. Sobiesiak

965 .

56054/11

FRYZIAK v. Poland

22/08/2011

E. Fryziak

966 .

56280/11

MUSIAŁ and Others v. Poland

31/08/2011

J. Baniak

Z. Bieniek

R. Denkowski

M. Markiewicz

W. Mr ó wka

S. Musiał

P. Nawrot

S. Orliński

H. Rabikowska

A. Zalewski

D. Sucholewski

967 .

56344/11

KARKOCHA v. Poland

19/08/2011

L. Karkocha

968 .

56903/11

CHLEBOWSKI v. Poland

25/08/2011

A. Chlebowski

969 .

56980/11

MROZIŃSKI v. Poland

30/08/2011

J. Mroziński

970 .

57288/11

MALUCH v. Poland

06/09/2011

J. Maluch

971 .

57578/11

KOŁACZ v. Poland

07/09/2011

D. Kołacz

972 .

57692/11

MALSKI v. Poland

08/09/2011

M. Malski

973 .

57790/11

JANICKI v. Poland

09/09/2011

M. Janicki

974 .

58165/11

GAWLIK v. Poland

24/08/2011

Z. Gawlik

975 .

58207/11

CZAJKA v. Poland

02/09/2011

A. Czajka

B. ÅšwiÄ…tkiewicz

976 .

58349/11

CIEÅšLAK v. Poland

08/09/2011

H. Cieślak

977 .

58362/11

CHROBOT v. Poland

06/09/2011

J. Chrobot

978 .

58412/11

DUNAJEWSKI v. Poland

08/09/2011

Z. Dunajewski

979 .

58550/11

BIENIASZ v. Poland

08/09/2011

W. Bieniasz

980 .

58563/11

BOLON v. Poland

09/09/2011

J. Bolon

981 .

58696/11

POLNIAK and Others v. Poland

03/09/2011

A. Polniak

A. Bartkiewicz

J. Borowiecki

L. D Ä… browska

A. Kluczyński

T. Mierzejewski

W. Rylski

R. So Å‚ yga

A. Staku ć

M. Styczyński

W. Zborowski

D. Sucholewski

982 .

58799/11

NASTALEK v. Poland

12/09/2011

W. Nastałek

983 .

58910/11

ZGÓDKA v. Poland

12/09/2011

J. Zgódka

984 .

58933/11

POŁOSAK v. Poland

30/08/2011

E. Połosak

985 .

58993/11

ŻACZEK v. Poland

05/09/2011

E. Żaczek

986 .

59522/11

MIERZEJSKI v. Poland

02/09/2011

J. Mierzejski

B. ÅšwiÄ…tkiewicz

987 .

59720/11

BŁONAROWICZ v. Poland

20/09/2011

S. BÅ‚onarowicz

988 .

59778/11

WOJCIECHOWSKI v. Poland

09/09/2011

W. Wojciechowski

989 .

60267/11

ŻAKOWSKI v. Poland

19/09/2011

L. Żakowski

990 .

60403/11

KOZAK v. Poland

22/09/2011

R. Kozak

991 .

60531/11

ŁAPIŃSKA v. Poland

21/09/2011

W. Łapińska

992 .

60552/11

PRYT v. Poland

23/09/2011

J. Pryt

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

993 .

60607/11

BARANOWSKI v. Poland

22/09/2011

R. Baranowski

994 .

60614/11

BYSZEK v. Poland

12/09/2011

A. Byszek

995 .

61811/11

NALEWAJ v. Poland

26/09/2011

S. Nalewaj

996 .

61993/11

MACEWICZ v. Poland

27/09/2011

J. Macewicz

997 .

62003/11

MACEWICZ v. Poland

27/09/2011

B. Macewicz

998 .

62006/11

WASIAK v. Poland

22/09/2011

W. Wasiak

999 .

62022/11

KOBYLARZ v. Poland

27/09/2011

R. Kobylarz

1000 .

62052/11

TUCHOLSKI v. Poland

20/09/2011

Z. Tucholski

1001 .

62086/11

MAKOWSKI v. Poland

26/09/2011

G. Makowski

1002 .

62146/11

TABOREK v. Poland

27/09/2011

T. Taborek

1003 .

62237/11

TRZMIELEWSKI v. Poland

28/09/2011

H. Trzmielewski

1004 .

62241/11

TUROTSZY v. Poland

28/09/2011

A. Turotszy

1005 .

62832/11

TURCZYNOWSCY v. Poland

12/09/2011

M. Turczynowska

J. Turczynowski

M. GÄ…siorowska

1006 .

62900/11

SOLAN v. Poland

06/10/2011

J. Solan

1007 .

62990/11

GÓRSKI v. Poland

29/09/2011

J. Górski

D. Sucholewski

1008 .

63071/11

MAZEWSKI v. Poland

05/10/2011

L. Mazewski

1009 .

63077/11

MARCHWICKI v. Poland

05/10/2011

H. Marchwicki

1010 .

63081/11

MARKOWSKI v. Poland

04/10/2011

H. Markowski

1011 .

63259/11

LEWANDOWSKA v. Poland

12/09/2011

H. Lewandowska

M. GÄ…siorowska

1012 .

63371/11

KACZOROWSKA v. Poland

06/10/2011

K. Kaczorowska

1013 .

63407/11

BOROWIK v. Poland

02/10/2011

P. Borowik

1014 .

63758/11

WĘGIELSKI v. Poland

06/10/2011

Z. Węgielski

1015 .

63814/11

WOLNIEWICZ v. Poland

29/09/2011

M. Wolniewicz

1016 .

63815/11

WOLNIEWICZ v. Poland

29/09/2011

M. Wolniewicz

1017 .

64022/11

GÄ„SIOROWSKI v. Poland

07/10/2011

J. GÄ…siorowski

1018 .

64026/11

MIZGAŁA v. Poland

08/10/2011

M. Mizgała

1019 .

64042/11

MIRCZYŃSKI v. Poland

10/10/2011

K. Mirczyński

1020 .

64563/11

PYKACZ v. Poland

03/10/2011

Z. Pykacz

1021 .

64572/11

PANEK v. Poland

11/10/2011

B. Panek

1022 .

64934/11

BODNAR v. Poland

05/10/2011

Z. Bodnar

1023 .

65049/11

MADANY v. Poland

07/10/2011

M. Madany

1024 .

65121/11

CICHY v. Poland

12/10/2011

Z. Cichy

1025 .

65376/11

SACEWICZ v. Poland

14/10/2011

B. Sacewicz

1026 .

65479/11

KUŁAGA v. Poland

13/10/2011

Z. Kułaga

1027 .

65901/11

KATOLIK v. Poland

12/10/2011

T. Katolik

1028 .

66615/11

OLSZÓWKA v. Poland

17/10/2011

R. Olszówka

1029 .

66817/11

KOWALSKI v. Poland

20/10/2011

H. Kowalski

1030 .

66887/11

BAZANT v. Poland

20/10/2011

R. Bazant

1031 .

67258/11

BIELICKI v. Poland

22/10/2011

J. Bielicki

B. ÅšwiÄ…tkiewicz

1032 .

67859/11

HANDEL v. Poland

19/10/2011

A. Handel

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

1033 .

67979/11

SAMOREK and Others v. Poland

24/10/2011

T. Baranowski

J. Cyranka

T. Gałęzowski

S. Giza

S. Iwaniak

M. Matwiejczuk

R. Pakuła

L. Samorek

L. Terlecki

W. Wójtowicz

E. Wrótniak

M. Żerebiec

D. Sucholewski

1034 .

68163/11

PAWLUS v. Poland

18/10/2011

J. Pawlus

1035 .

68172/11

PIETRZAK v. Poland

19/10/2011

J. Pietrzak

1036 .

68839/11

JĘDRZEJAK v. Poland

28/10/2011

K. Jędrzejak

1037 .

68841/11

DĘBSKA v. Poland

17/10/2011

M. Dębska

1038 .

69006/11

OLEJNICZAK v. Poland

27/10/2011

K. Olejniczak

1039 .

69032/11

OZIĘBŁO v. Poland

27/10/2011

K. Oziębło

1040 .

69197/11

ÅšLIWA v. Poland

24/10/2011

W. Åšliwa

1041 .

69238/11

BIELICKI v. Poland

02/11/2011

J. Bielicki

1042 .

69361/11

KUBIK v. Poland

23/10/2011

D. Kubik

1043 .

69384/11

GIEDREWICZ v. Poland

25/10/2011

J. Giedrewicz

1044 .

69389/11

DMITRUK v. Poland

02/11/2011

F. Dmitruk

1045 .

69505/11

MICHALIK v. Poland

21/10/2011

Z. Michalik

1046 .

69747/11

MIERZWA v. Poland

04/11/2011

J. Mierzwa

1047 .

70061/11

LEŻAŃSKA-FRYŁOW v. Poland

02/11/2011

L. Leżańska-Fryłow

1048 .

70109/11

BUCHALSKI v. Poland

08/11/2011

J. Buchalski

1049 .

70399/11

MURAWSKI v. Poland

07/11/2011

J. Murawski

1050 .

70785/11

HARASIMIUK v. Poland

28/10/2011

J. Harasimiuk

1051 .

71498/11

MIELNICZUK v. Poland

14/11/2011

E. Mielniczuk

1052 .

71753/11

POLKOWSKI v. Poland

11/11/2011

A. Polkowski

M. GÄ…siorowska

1053 .

72413/11

WOLIŃSKI v. Poland

16/11/2011

Z. Woliński

1054 .

72465/11

BUGAŁA v. Poland

10/11/2011

R. Bugała

1055 .

72530/11

BOGUSZ v. Poland

12/11/2011

A. Bogusz

1056 .

72590/11

BANASIK v. Poland

17/11/2011

S. Banasik

1057 .

72608/11

DOMAGAŁA v. Poland

16/11/2011

M. Domagała

D. Sucholewski

1058 .

72618/11

ADAMCZYK v. Poland

16/11/2011

S. Adamczyk

1059 .

72678/11

SAWICKI v. Poland

16/11/2011

A. Sawicki

1060 .

72715/11

SIERANT v. Poland

15/11/2011

L. Sierant

1061 .

72755/11

SIERANT v. Poland

15/11/2011

G. Sierant

1062 .

72790/11

SĘKOWSKI v. Poland

15/11/2011

K. Sękowski

1063 .

72796/11

ŚMIAŁKOWSKI v. Poland

15/11/2011

Z. Śmiałkowski

1064 .

72817/11

PIETROW v. Poland

16/11/2011

J. Pietrow

1065 .

72819/11

PIÓRKOWSKI v. Poland

16/11/2011

W. Piórkowski

1066 .

72913/11

OSÓBKA v. Poland

17/11/2011

L. Osóbka

1067 .

73115/11

WŁODARSKI v. Poland

28/10/2011

J. WÅ‚odarski

1068 .

73582/11

KOBUSIŃSKA v. Poland

14/11/2011

A. Kobusińska

1069 .

73638/11

BOGUSŁAWSKI v. Poland

21/11/2011

H. Bogusławski

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

1070 .

74216/11

GŁADKI and Others v. Poland

25/11/2011

L. BÄ…bel

W. Fijałkowski

S. GÅ‚adki

A. Murzynowski

A. Olszowy

G. Skorek-Urywkow

W. Szczepanik

Z. Waldon

G. Wilińska-Kopańska

G. Zalewska

D. Sucholewski

1071 .

74379/11

TAŃSKA v. Poland

24/11/2011

B. Tańska

1072 .

74423/11

KOZŁOWSKA v. Poland

24/11/2011

G. Kozłowska

1073 .

74679/11

OSIŃSKA v. Poland

28/11/2011

H. Osińska

1074 .

74705/11

MIKOŁAJCZYK v. Poland

25/11/2011

L. Mikołajczyk

1075 .

74735/11

STOCHNIAŁ v. Poland

24/11/2011

B. Stochniał

1076 .

74749/11

KASPRZAK v. Poland

28/11/2011

D. Kasprzak

1077 .

74985/11

MIERZOWIEC v. Poland

28/11/2011

A. Mierzowiec

1078 .

75122/11

KUBÅš v. Poland

29/11/2011

A. KubÅ›

1079 .

75263/11

BIAŁY v. Poland

26/11/2011

Z. Biały

1080 .

75330/11

WEKSEJ v. Poland

02/12/2011

M. Weksej

1081 .

75545/11

KUREK v. Poland

01/12/2011

J. Kurek

1082 .

75653/11

WIERTELAK v. Poland

28/11/2011

S. Wiertelak

1083 .

75772/11

PILITOWSKI v. Poland

01/12/2011

A. Pilitowski

1084 .

75821/11

GARLICKI v. Poland

28/11/2011

K. Garlicki

1085 .

75840/11

ADAMOWSKI v. Poland

01/12/2011

J. Adamowski

1086 .

75850/11

SZYMKIEWICZ v. Poland

05/12/2011

E. Szymkiewicz

1087 .

75853/11

GRONOWICZ v. Poland

30/11/2011

L. Gronowicz

1088 .

76121/11

NIEKRASZ v. Poland

26/11/2011

M. Niekrasz

1089 .

76125/11

TATARCZUK v. Poland

28/11/2011

P. Tatarczuk

1090 .

76246/11

BURDA v. Poland

12/12/2011

S. Burda

1091 .

76263/11

BICKI v. Poland

25/11/2011

E. Bicki

1092 .

76270/11

KAMIŃSKA v. Poland

05/12/2011

K. Kamińska

D. Sucholewski

1093 .

76316/11

BIAŁA v. Poland

25/11/2011

B. Biała

1094 .

76429/11

WOLIŃSKI v. Poland

29/11/2011

R. Woliński

1095 .

76796/11

LEÅšNIEWSKA v. Poland

05/12/2011

K. Leśniewska

D. Sucholewski

1096 .

76817/11

ŁUKOWSKI v. Poland

07/12/2011

J. Łukowski

1097 .

76818/11

RUTKOWSKI v. Poland

08/12/2011

J. Rutkowski

1098 .

76823/11

PRZYGODA v. Poland

07/12/2011

W. Przygoda

1099 .

76878/11

MAJEWSKI v. Poland

09/12/2011

C. Majewski

1100 .

76964/11

MAÅšLISZ v. Poland

08/12/2011

J. Maślisz

1101 .

77021/11

WOŁYNEK v. Poland

09/12/2011

W. Wołynek

1102 .

77169/11

ZIÓŁKOWSKI v. Poland

06/12/2011

J. Ziółkowski

1103 .

77933/11

ZABIELSKI v. Poland

12/12/2011

J. Zabielski

D. Sucholewski

1104 .

77971/11

SIMIONKOWSKI v. Poland

08/12/2011

K. Simionkowski

1105 .

78240/11

DAROSZEWSKI v. Poland

14/12/2011

Z. Daroszewski

1106 .

78250/11

DAROSZEWSKA v. Poland

14/12/2011

W. Daroszewska

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

1107 .

78413/11

ROSOŁEK v. Poland

06/12/2011

E. Rosołek

1108 .

78454/11

KAMIŃSKI v. Poland

12/12/2011

Z. Kamiński

1109 .

78545/11

CZEKAJ v. Poland

14/12/2011

J. Czekaj

1110 .

78562/11

CIELESZYŃSKA v. Poland

14/12/2011

U. Cieleszyńska

1111 .

78567/11

CIELESZYŃSKI v. Poland

14/12/2011

R. Cieleszyński

1112 .

271/12

PIETRYK v. Poland

12/12/2011

T. Pietryk

1113 .

474/12

JĘDRAL v. Poland

15/12/2011

B. Jędral

1114 .

605/12

PIECHOWIAK v. Poland

12/12/2011

C. Piechowiak

1115 .

831/12

GOMOŁA v. Poland

29/12/2011

A. Gomoła

1116 .

834/12

DMITROCA v. Poland

08/12/2011

E. Dmitroca

1117 .

844/12

KANTEK v. Poland

03/11/2011

E. Kantek

1118 .

858/12

SZERNER v. Poland

15/12/2011

Z. Szerner

1119 .

947/12

DÄ„BKOWSKI v. Poland

19/12/2011

A. DÄ…bkowski

1120 .

953/12

GREGORCZYK v. Poland

13/12/2011

L. Gregorczyk

1121 .

981/12

MAKOWSKI v. Poland

22/12/2011

M. Makowski

1122 .

982/12

NOGALA v. Poland

03/12/2011

B. Nogala

1123 .

985/12

KWIATKOWSKI v. Poland

27/12/2011

B. Kwiatkowski

1124 .

989/12

ZAWADA v. Poland

21/12/2011

F. Zawada

1125 .

1230/12

TRZECIAK v. Poland

22/12/2011

T. Trzeciak

1126 .

1588/12

KOSKO v. Poland

29/12/2011

G. Kosko

D. Sucholewski

1127 .

1631/12

SOBOLEWSKI v. Poland

22/12/2011

J. Sobolewski

1128 .

1768/12

RYGLICKI v. Poland

02/01/2012

Z. Ryglicki

1129 .

1824/12

MITEK v. Poland

31/12/2011

S. Mitek

1130 .

2197/12

OLSZEWSKI v. Poland

03/01/2012

B. Olszewski

1131 .

2298/12

MILKO v. Poland

04/01/2012

P. Milko

1132 .

2647/12

WASZCZENIUK v. Poland

29/12/2011

M. Waszczeniuk

1133 .

2729/12

ZAWADA v. Poland

22/12/2011

J. Zawada

1134 .

2821/12

GRODZKI v. Poland

27/12/2011

E. Grodzki

1135 .

2826/12

GAWEŁ v. Poland

22/12/2011

M. Gaweł

1136 .

2847/12

GRZELAK v. Poland

03/01/2012

E. Grzelak

1137 .

3679/12

KRZYWICKA v. Poland

10/01/2012

J. Krzywicka

1138 .

4086/12

SOBOLEWSKI v. Poland

02/01/2012

E. Sobolewski

M. GÄ…siorowska

1139 .

4254/12

TOPOLSKI v. Poland

13/01/2012

Z. Topolski

1140 .

4717/12

WARZECHA v. Poland

09/01/2012

R. Warzecha

1141 .

4788/12

NOWAKOWSKI v. Poland

03/01/2012

A. Nowakowski

1142 .

5121/12

TUCHOWSKI v. Poland

16/01/2012

E. Tuchowski

1143 .

5295/12

HUNDZ v. Poland

18/01/2012

W. Hundz

1144 .

5321/12

ZABAWSKI v. Poland

12/01/2012

W. Zabawski

1145 .

5348/12

NAWOLSKI v. Poland

15/01/2012

A. Nawolski

1146 .

5567/12

KAŹMIERCZAK v. Poland

13/01/2012

M. Kaźmierczak

D. Sucholewski

1147 .

5572/12

KOWALSKI v. Poland

20/01/2012

M. Kowalski

1148 .

5695/12

POSIEJ v. Poland

19/01/2012

G. Posiej

1149 .

5838/12

BIAŁEK v. Poland

17/01/2012

D. Białek

1150 .

6043/12

NOWAK v. Poland

19/01/2012

K. Nowak

D. Sucholewski

1151 .

6436/12

MORGUNOV v. Poland

23/01/2012

J. Morgunov

1152 .

6442/12

MASEWICZ v. Poland

24/01/2012

D. Masewicz

1153 .

6756/12

CUPRYÅš v. Poland

20/01/2012

W. CupryÅ›

1154 .

6903/12

ÅšLIFIERZ v. Poland

19/01/2012

M. Åšlifierz

D. Sucholewski

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

1155 .

7497/12

BÄ„CZKOWSKI v. Poland

26/01/2012

S. BÄ…czkowski

D. Sucholewski

1156 .

7652/12

TOCZEK v. Poland

24/01/2012

M. Toczek

1157 .

7713/12

POSZEPCZYŃSKA-PAWLAK v. Poland

31/01/2012

K. Poszepczyńska-Pawlak

1158 .

7765/12

MATUSZEWSKI v. Poland

31/01/2012

F. Matuszewski

1159 .

7870/12

SZYJA v. Poland

27/01/2012

K. Szyja

1160 .

8203/12

MAŁEK v. Poland

02/02/2012

M. Małek

1161 .

8474/12

GADZAŁA v. Poland

25/01/2012

J. Gadzała

1162 .

8646/12

CZAPKO v. Poland

06/02/2012

J. Czapko

1163 .

8677/12

BAMBUROWICZ v. Poland

02/02/2012

M. Bamburowicz

1164 .

8724/12

TREPKA v. Poland

06/02/2012

A. Trepka

1165 .

8801/12

BARCZYK v. Poland

26/01/2012

F. Barczyk

1166 .

8875/12

REMBOWSKI v. Poland

25/01/2012

M. Rembowski

1167 .

8877/12

REMBOWSKA v. Poland

25/01/2012

E. Rembowska

1168 .

9208/12

GAIK v. Poland

07/02/2012

R. Gaik

1169 .

9400/12

GÓRECKI v. Poland

01/02/2012

B. Górecki

1170 .

9663/12

WALCZAK v. Poland

30/01/2012

A. Walczak

1171 .

9948/12

SZUBELAK v. Poland

08/02/2012

K. Szubelak

1172 .

9958/12

SZYKOWNY v. Poland

03/02/2012

H. Szykowny

1173 .

10608/12

ZABŁOCKI v. Poland

08/02/2012

J. Zabłocki

1174 .

10623/12

URBAŃSKI v. Poland

08/02/2012

A. Urbański

1175 .

10747/12

EGER v. Poland

14/02/2012

A. Eger

1176 .

10937/12

ÅšWIERKOT v. Poland

13/02/2012

Z. Åšwierkot

1177 .

10942/12

SZUCKI v. Poland

14/02/2012

T. Szucki

1178 .

11004/12

KAMIENIAK v. Poland

08/02/2012

S. Kamieniak

1179 .

11301/12

KOZŁOWSKI v. Poland

13/02/2012

J. Kozłowski

1180 .

11307/12

KRUSZEWSKI v. Poland

17/02/2012

E. Kruszewski

1181 .

11371/12

MATCZAK v. Poland

07/02/2012

E. Matczak

1182 .

11383/12

SAJDAK v. Poland

13/02/2012

G. Sajdak

1183 .

11956/12

JANKOWSKA v. Poland

15/02/2012

U. Jankowska

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1184 .

12106/12

MAZUREK v. Poland

22/02/2012

J. Mazurek

1185 .

12137/12

ZDUNEK v. Poland

23/02/2012

D. Zdunek

1186 .

12188/12

KOTNIS v. Poland

20/02/2012

S. Kotnis

1187 .

12236/12

RADOSZ v. Poland

15/02/2012

R. Radosz

1188 .

12238/12

RAK v. Poland

17/02/2012

M. Rak

1189 .

12243/12

RECŁAW v. Poland

02/02/2012

J. Recław

1190 .

12326/12

GASIK v. Poland

21/02/2012

A. Gasik

1191 .

13006/12

LANGE v. Poland

15/02/2012

P. Lange

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1192 .

13184/12

RYFA v. Poland

24/02/2012

K. Ryfa

1193 .

13438/12

WOŹNICKI v. Poland

25/02/2012

S. Woźnicki

1194 .

13866/12

HERMAN v. Poland

27/02/2012

S. Herman

D. Sucholewski

1195 .

14004/12

SOKOŁOWSKA v. Poland

01/03/2012

G. Sokołowska

1196 .

14026/12

AMBROŻY v. Poland

02/03/2012

U. Ambroży

1197 .

14305/12

KOSIAK v. Poland

05/03/2012

M. Kosiak

1198 .

14694/12

JUSZCZAK v. Poland

08/03/2012

M. Juszczak

1199 .

14944/12

BALCEROWIAK v. Poland

07/03/2012

D. Balcerowiak

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

1200 .

15119/12

GALANT v. Poland

08/03/2012

K. Galant

1201 .

15145/12

TARASZKIEWICZ v. Poland

09/03/2012

J. Taraszkiewicz

1202 .

15204/12

NAKONIECZNY v. Poland

06/03/2012

R. Nakonieczny

1203 .

15258/12

WÓJTOWICZ v. Poland

28/02/2012

H. Wójtowicz

1204 .

15390/12

MICHALIK v. Poland

29/02/2012

S. Michalik

D. Sucholewski

1205 .

15817/12

KOSACKI v. Poland

08/03/2012

J. Kosacki

1206 .

16133/12

KUDRA v. Poland

27/02/2012

W. Kudra

1207 .

16563/12

HAJWOS v. Poland

14/03/2012

P. Hajwos

1208 .

16937/12

CHOJNACKI v. Poland

04/03/2012

M. Chojnacki

1209 .

17053/12

STARZYŃSKA v. Poland

12/03/2012

W. Starzyńska

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1210 .

17086/12

FILA v. Poland

12/03/2012

T. Fila

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1211 .

17222/12

ZŁOTNICKI v. Poland

12/03/2012

T. ZÅ‚otnicki

1212 .

18335/12

GÓRECKI v. Poland

12/03/2012

J. Górecki

1213 .

18462/12

NOWAK v. Poland

19/03/2012

T. Nowak

1214 .

19152/12

PĘCZKOWSKI v. Poland

26/03/2012

M. Pęczkowski

1215 .

19381/12

KUZIOŁA v. Poland

22/03/2012

A. Kuzioła

1216 .

19387/12

KUZIOŁA v. Poland

22/03/2012

A. Kuzioła

1217 .

19988/12

JACKOWSKA v. Poland

27/03/2012

M. Jackowska

1218 .

20002/12

JACKOWSKI v. Poland

27/03/2012

M. Jackowski

1219 .

20018/12

GRZYB v. Poland

19/03/2012

L. Grzyb

1220 .

20293/12

JÓZEFECKI v. Poland

26/03/2012

J. Józefecki

1221 .

20816/12

WIÅšNIEWSKI v. Poland

27/03/2012

R. Wiśniewski

1222 .

21047/12

KRAM v. Poland

29/03/2012

J. Kram

1223 .

21093/12

KARP v. Poland

26/03/2011

A. Karp

1224 .

21211/12

KNIAZIUK v. Poland

30/03/2012

M. Kniaziuk

1225 .

21689/12

GIERLICKI v. Poland

02/04/2012

M. Gierlicki

1226 .

21787/12

POŁOWNIAK v. Poland

03/04/2012

J. Połowniak

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1227 .

21818/12

SAWCZUK v. Poland

03/04/2012

B. Sawczuk

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1228 .

21826/12

SURMACZ v. Poland

02/04/2012

J. Surmacz

1229 .

22543/12

ALEKSIUK v. Poland

05/04/2012

M. Aleksiuk

Z. Daniszewska-Dek

1230 .

22700/12

ASFAL v. Poland

29/03/2012

I. Asfal

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1231 .

23288/12

FRANEK v. Poland

23/03/2012

S. Franek

1232 .

23498/12

ADAMCZYK v. Poland

12/04/2012

Z. Adamczyk

1233 .

23672/12

BRUJEWICZ v. Poland

03/04/2012

W. Brujewicz

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1234 .

23775/12

SOKOŁOWSKI v. Poland

03/04/2012

S. Sokołowski

1235 .

23879/12

SKOLMOWSKI v. Poland

10/04/2012

Z. Skolmowski

1236 .

24356/12

ZIENKIEWICZ v. Poland

12/04/2012

M. Zienkiewicz

1237 .

24361/12

BUDZISZEWSKI v. Poland

05/04/2012

Z. Budziszewski

1238 .

24443/12

KALISTA v. Poland

16/04/2012

J. Kalista

1239 .

24926/12

GIERLICKA v. Poland

02/04/2012

A. Gierlicka

1240 .

24946/12

SAGAN v. Poland

15/04/2012

J. Sagan

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

1241 .

25060/12

JACKOWSKI v. Poland

19/04/2012

H. Jackowski

1242 .

25118/12

HRUSZKA v. Poland

17/04/2012

W. Hruszka

1243 .

25272/12

SZYMAŃSKI v. Poland

06/04/2012

H. Szymański

1244 .

26140/12

MALUTA v. Poland

19/04/2012

R. Maluta

D. Sucholewski

1245 .

26192/12

MICHALIK v. Poland

19/04/2012

E. Michalik

D. Sucholewski

1246 .

26322/12

BORCZ v. Poland

27/04/2012

J. Borcz

1247 .

26404/12

ŚLEDŹ v. Poland

23/04/2012

W. Śledź

1248 .

26643/12

KRÓL v. Poland

26/04/2012

S. Król

1249 .

27124/12

HYZOPSKI v. Poland

24/04/2012

W. Hyzopski

1250 .

27334/12

ŚLIWIŃSKI v. Poland

19/04/2012

S. Śliwiński

1251 .

27345/12

KULESZA v. Poland

20/04/2012

M. Kulesza

1252 .

27743/12

PAJÄ„K v. Poland

20/04/2012

Z. PajÄ…k

1253 .

27948/12

POLAŃSKI v. Poland

02/05/2012

T. Polański

1254 .

29249/12

BRANDT v. Poland

09/05/2012

M. Brandt

1255 .

29342/12

CERN v. Poland

25/04/2012

W. Cern

1256 .

29587/12

OSUCH v. Poland

07/05/2012

L. Osuch

1257 .

30351/12

TUSZYŃSKA v. Poland

14/05/2012

L. Tuszyńska

1258 .

31304/12

NOSEK v. Poland

16/05/2012

R. Nosek

1259 .

31414/12

KRUPA v. Poland

15/05/2012

T. Krupa

1260 .

31490/12

PAPIER v. Poland

17/05/2012

G. Papier

1261 .

32376/12

PERCZAK v. Poland

14/05/2012

M. Perczak

1262 .

32664/12

GUDEL v. Poland

15/05/2012

J. Gudel

1263 .

33151/12

PYTEL v. Poland

28/05/2012

W. Pytel

1264 .

33473/12

GOSTYŃSKI v. Poland

09/05/2012

T. Gostyński

1265 .

33532/12

BURZYŃSKI v. Poland

21/05/2012

P. Burzyński

1266 .

34213/12

GIĘTKOWSKA v. Poland

17/04/2012

E. Giętkowska

S. Pikulski

1267 .

34317/12

WASIAK v. Poland

18/05/2012

W. Wasiak

1268 .

34511/12

WALCZAK v. Poland

24/05/2012

E. Walczak

1269 .

34545/12

CHRZANOWSKI v. Poland

10/05/2012

Z. Chrzanowski

1270 .

34637/12

KOŁODYŃSKI v. Poland

01/06/2012

A. Kołodyński

1271 .

35457/12

GAŁAN v. Poland

24/05/2012

R. Gałan

1272 .

35752/12

OLSZACKI v. Poland

26/05/2012

J. Olszacki

1273 .

36099/12

KAŁUŻNA v. Poland

04/06/2012

A. Kałużna

1274 .

36100/12

KACZMAREK v. Poland

04/06/2012

J. Kaczmarek

1275 .

36534/12

ROMANOWICZ v. Poland

08/06/2012

H. Romanowicz

1276 .

37596/12

PRZESMYCKI v. Poland

06/06/2012

N. Przesmycki

1277 .

37889/12

MACIOŁ v. Poland

21/05/2012

A. Macioł

1278 .

38036/12

GÄ„GOLA v. Poland

17/05/2012

E. GÄ…gola

1279 .

38596/12

WASZKIEWICZ v. Poland

06/06/2012

A. Waszkiewicz

1280 .

38605/12

OŻÓG v. Poland

13/06/2012

J. Ożóg

1281 .

38893/12

RAMOTA v. Poland

11/06/2012

T. Ramota

1282 .

38897/12

SZCZEPAŃSKI v. Poland

30/05/2012

A. Szczepański

1283 .

38900/12

KŁOS-REICH v. Poland

14/06/2012

W. KÅ‚os-Reich

1284 .

38903/12

RAMOTA v. Poland

11/06/2012

K. Ramota

1285 .

39139/12

RACZYŃSKI v. Poland

15/06/2012

J. Raczyński

1286 .

39595/12

PAGACZ-KLIMIŃSKA v. Poland

18/06/2012

K. Pagacz-Klimińska

1287 .

39657/12

JAROS v. Poland

20/06/2012

A. Jaros

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

1288 .

40006/12

FIRSOWICZ v. Poland

19/06/2012

B. Firsowicz

1289 .

40137/12

GUŁAJ v. Poland

15/06/2012

K. Gułaj

1290 .

40184/12

PECZENIUK v. Poland

15/06/2012

J. Peczeniuk

1291 .

41450/12

STAÅšKIEWICZ v. Poland

26/06/2012

J. Staśkiewicz

1292 .

41466/12

JAÅšKOWSKI v. Poland

25/06/2012

H. Jaśkowski

1293 .

41733/12

CISOWSKA-MAKSIM v. Poland

28/06/2012

S. Cisowska-Maksim

1294 .

41735/12

CZARNOWSKI v. Poland

23/06/2012

C. Czarnowski

1295 .

42745/12

PROKOPOWICZ v. Poland

03/07/2012

W. Prokopowicz

D. Sucholewski

1296 .

42747/12

FULKO v. Poland

27/06/2012

E. Fulko

1297 .

42886/12

MICHALSKI v. Poland

16/05/2012

S. Michalski

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1298 .

43455/12

POLITEWICZ v. Poland

02/07/2012

K. Politewicz

1299 .

43578/12

FAŁKOWSKI v. Poland

29/06/2012

E. Fałkowski

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1300 .

43682/12

BOROWSKI v. Poland

09/07/2012

J. Borowski

1301 .

43801/12

GAJECKI v. Poland

25/06/2012

B. Gajecki

1302 .

43944/12

LEWANDOWSKI v. Poland

29/06/2012

E. Lewandowski

1303 .

43969/12

DÄ„BROWSKI v. Poland

29/06/2012

L. DÄ…browski

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1304 .

44608/12

KOWALSKA-BOSSART v. Poland

06/07/2012

G. Kowalska-Bossart

1305 .

44884/12

TURBIŃSKI v. Poland

12/07/2012

K. Turbiński

1306 .

44980/12

KOSIOREK v. Poland

12/07/2012

E. Kosiorek

K. Wojcieszuk-Kwiatkowska

1307 .

45732/12

ZWIĄZEK BYŁYCH FUNKCJONARIUSZY SŁUŻB OCHRONY PAŃSTWA v. Poland

09/07/2012

Związek Byłych Funkcjonariuszy Służb Ochrony Państwa

M. GÄ…siorowska

1308 .

46054/12

GRELA-JURA v. Poland

16/07/2012

M. Grela-Jura

1309 .

46145/12

BOROWCZAK v. Poland

17/07/2012

H. Borowczak

1310 .

46312/12

MUSIAŁ v. Poland

04/07/2012

J. Musiał

1311 .

46398/12

CHMIELEWSKI v. Poland

11/07/2012

W. Chmielewski

1312 .

46441/12

TROJANOWSKI v. Poland

10/07/2012

J. Trojanowski

1313 .

47238/12

HAJPEL v. Poland

05/07/2012

I. Hajpel

1314 .

47337/12

BIELIŃSKI v. Poland

16/07/2012

J. Bieliński

1315 .

47548/12

ULANICKA v. Poland

20/07/2012

J. Ulanicka

1316 .

47646/12

SUDRA v. Poland

04/07/2012

K. Sudra

1317 .

48230/12

PALCZAK v. Poland

25/07/2012

R. Palczak

1318 .

48255/12

TROĆ v. Poland

10/07/2012

T. Troć

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1319 .

48715/12

NADOLSKA v. Poland

19/07/2012

H. Nadolska

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1320 .

48720/12

NYK v. Poland

18/07/2012

W. Nyk

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1321 .

48742/12

CHMIELEWSKI v. Poland

23/07/2012

Z. Chmielewski

1322 .

49388/12

STACHOWIAK v. Poland

18/07/2012

E. Stachowiak

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

1323 .

50310/12

CZARNOWSKI v. Poland

02/08/2012

K. Czarnowski

1324 .

50377/12

GAUZA v. Poland

26/07/2012

J. Gauza

P. Sowisło

1325 .

50742/12

WNUK v. Poland

04/08/2012

Z. Wnuk

1326 .

50854/12

KELER v. Poland

02/08/2012

W. Keler

1327 .

51156/12

JAKUBOWSKI v. Poland

02/08/2012

Z. Jakubowski

D. Sucholewski

1328 .

51338/12

LELUK v. Poland

06/08/2012

J. Leluk

1329 .

51383/12

KUPNIEWSKI v. Poland

07/08/2012

W. Kupniewski

1330 .

51464/12

RUCZAJ v. Poland

02/08/2012

K. Ruczaj

1331 .

51469/12

RUBCZEWSKI v. Poland

02/08/2012

J. Rubczewski

1332 .

51585/12

HAPONIUK v. Poland

26/07/2012

M. Haponiuk

1333 .

52003/12

MATUSZAK- MAJCHRZAK v. Poland

10/08/2012

G. Matuszak- Majchrzak

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1334 .

52060/12

CZECH v. Poland

01/08/2012

M. Czech

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1335 .

52061/12

KUDŁA v. Poland

03/08/2012

D. Kudła

1336 .

52283/12

CHLEBUS v. Poland

07/08/2012

J. Chlebus

1337 .

52514/12

PUDZIANOWSKI v. Poland

09/08/2012

Z. Pudzianowski

1338 .

52827/12

SZESTAKOWSKI v. Poland

03/08/2012

L. Szestakowski

1339 .

52838/12

SZNEIDROWSKI v. Poland

06/08/2012

A. Szneidrowski

D. Sucholewski

1340 .

52871/12

ROSOŁOWSKI v. Poland

01/08/2012

W. Rosołowski

1341 .

52879/12

GONSIEROWSKI v. Poland

13/07/2012

A. Gonsierowski

1342 .

53195/12

GOLISZ v. Poland

10/08/2012

M. Golisz

A. Adamska-Makowska

1343 .

53260/12

ZALEWSKI v. Poland

13/08/2012

Z. Zalewski

1344 .

53390/12

WILCZYŃSKI v. Poland

10/08/2012

M. Wilczyński

A. Adamska-Makowska

1345 .

53404/12

CZAJKOWSKI v. Poland

10/08/2012

A. Czajkowski

A. Adamska-Makowska

1346 .

53629/12

CYGANEK v. Poland

16/08/2012

C. Cyganek

1347 .

53635/12

RYSZKOWSKA v. Poland

16/08/2012

J. Ryszkowska

1348 .

53640/12

WOŁOCH v. Poland

14/08/2012

W. Wołoch

1349 .

53658/12

KOMISAREK v. Poland

16/08/2012

A. Komisarek

1350 .

53734/12

JĘCHOREK v. Poland

14/08/2012

E. Jęchorek

1351 .

53796/12

MOJESZCZYK v. Poland

14/08/2012

D. Mojeszczyk

1352 .

53948/12

FRÄ„CKOWIAK v. Poland

16/08/2012

K. FrÄ…ckowiak

1353 .

53994/12

BIRUT v. Poland

13/08/2012

H. Birut

1354 .

54159/12

RUTKOWSKI v. Poland

13/08/2012

Z. Rutkowski

D. Sucholewski

1355 .

54178/12

BOGUSZ v. Poland

06/08/2012

H. Bogusz

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1356 .

54375/12

WITEK v. Poland

06/08/2012

Z. Witek

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1357 .

54392/12

WOJTIUK v. Poland

16/08/2012

A. Wojtiuk

1358 .

54990/12

WALCZYK v. Poland

20/08/2012

T. Walczyk

1359 .

55245/12

MIESZKOWSKA-DUTKA v. Poland

16/08/2012

K. Mieszkowska-Dutka

1360 .

55422/12

PIĘTEK v. Poland

20/08/2012

B. Piętek

1361 .

56415/12

DZIAŁA v. Poland

16/08/2012

W. Działa

1362 .

57230/12

ŁUKASIŃSKI v. Poland

22/08/2012

M. Łukasiński

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

1363 .

57285/12

PONIECKI v. Poland

28/08/2012

W. Poniecki

T. Srogosz

1364 .

57324/12

BURZYCKI v. Poland

28/08/2012

G. Burzycki

D. Sucholewski

1365 .

57481/12

ŁUKOSZYK v. Poland

24/08/2012

H. Łukoszyk

1366 .

58267/12

JANKOWSKI v. Poland

28/08/2012

J. Jankowski

1367 .

58276/12

MAZUR v. Poland

23/08/2012

H. Mazur

1368 .

58348/12

CHUDOWICZ v. Poland

29/08/2012

K. Chudowicz

1369 .

58927/12

BARA v. Poland

05/09/2012

M. Bara

1370 .

59047/12

JASZCZOWSKI v. Poland

17/08/2012

Z. Jaszczowski

1371 .

59235/12

MACKIEWICZ v. Poland

06/09/2012

M. Mackiewicz

1372 .

59441/12

GRZYBOWSKA v. Poland

30/08/2012

J. Grzybowska

1373 .

59597/12

OLKOWSKI v. Poland

28/08/2012

M. Olkowski

1374 .

59874/12

ŁYSONIEK v. Poland

27/08/2012

J. Łysoniek

1375 .

59888/12

LATEK v. Poland

28/08/2012

E. Latek

D. Sucholewski

1376 .

60018/12

BORCZ v. Poland

12/09/2012

S. Borcz

1377 .

60065/12

KUPCZAK v. Poland

04/09/2012

R. Kupczak

1378 .

60294/12

KRAÅšNICKI v. Poland

11/09/2012

J. Kraśnicki

1379 .

60430/12

SZUMIELEWICZ v. Poland

17/09/2012

Z. Szumielewicz

1380 .

61323/12

BOSIACKI v. Poland

10/09/2012

L. Bosiacki

1381 .

61407/12

BUŁATOWICZ v. Poland

19/09/2012

C. Bułatowicz

1382 .

61691/12

HAJGENBART v. Poland

18/09/2012

E. Hajgenbart

1383 .

61944/12

OLEKSIUK v. Poland

20/09/2012

Z. Oleksiuk

1384 .

61980/12

PŁACHTA v. Poland

20/09/2012

G. PÅ‚achta

1385 .

62305/12

CHEŁMECKA v. Poland

15/09/2012

I. Chełmecka

1386 .

62389/12

JANUS v. Poland

20/09/2012

W. Janus

1387 .

62422/12

DOBEK v. Poland

14/09/2012

W. Dobek

D. Sucholewski

1388 .

62450/12

NOWICKI v. Poland

10/09/2012

J. Nowicki

1389 .

62454/12

CZYŻEWSKI v. Poland

20/09/2012

M. Czyżewski

1390 .

62543/12

MIERNICKI v. Poland

05/09/2012

J. Miernicki

1391 .

62843/12

ZAMARO v. Poland

24/09/2012

B. Zamaro

1392 .

62856/12

STEFAŃSKI v. Poland

20/09/2012

M. Stefański

1393 .

62907/12

MAZURKIEWICZ v. Poland

24/09/2012

W. Mazurkiewicz

1394 .

63094/12

JURCZAK v. Poland

27/09/2012

Z. Jurczak

1395 .

63127/12

MAŁECKA v. Poland

18/09/2012

T. Małecka

1396 .

63230/12

ZIELIŃSKI v. Poland

12/09/2012

H. Zieliński

M. GÄ…siorowska

1397 .

63252/12

KORCZAK v. Poland

12/09/2012

K. Korczak

1398 .

63334/12

OKRĄGŁY v. Poland

13/09/2012

J. Okrągły

1399 .

63766/12

KUBIS v. Poland

27/09/2012

M. Kubis

1400 .

63990/12

RZEMEK v. Poland

11/09/2012

R. Rzemek

1401 .

64018/12

KRÓLIKOWSKI v. Poland

20/09/2012

L. Królikowski

1402 .

64033/12

BONIECKI v. Poland

19/09/2012

M. Boniecki

P. Sowisło

1403 .

64047/12

BIERNACKI v. Poland

19/09/2012

W. Biernacki

P. Sowisło

1404 .

64167/12

DEC v. Poland

25/09/2012

Z. Dec

1405 .

65184/12

SPYCHALSKI v. Poland

04/10/2012

B. Spychalski

1406 .

65426/12

PASZKOWSKA v. Poland

04/10/2012

M. Paszkowska

1407 .

65519/12

MAŃKOWSKA v. Poland

03/10/2012

E. Mańkowska

1408 .

65533/12

JURKIEWICZ v. Poland

23/09/2012

R. Jurkiewicz

1409 .

65534/12

JAROSZ v. Poland

01/10/2012

Z. Jarosz

1410 .

65543/12

SUCHODOŁA v. Poland

08/10/2012

P. Suchodoła

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

1411 .

65895/12

WIÅšNIEWSKI v. Poland

05/10/2012

J. Wiśniewski

1412 .

66028/12

OCHMAŃSKI v. Poland

05/10/2012

L. Ochmański

1413 .

66357/12

MAJ v. Poland

10/10/2012

G. Maj

1414 .

66380/12

PYPCZYŃSKI v. Poland

04/10/2012

Z. Pypczyński

D. Sucholewski

1415 .

66403/12

JURGA v. Poland

08/10/2012

Z. Jurga

1416 .

66842/12

SZCZYGIEŁ v. Poland

12/10/2012

R. Szczygieł

1417 .

66985/12

LUBIEJEWSKI v. Poland

03/10/2012

F. Lubiejewski

1418 .

67047/12

KIERZKOWSKA v. Poland

08/10/2012

G. Kierzkowska

D. Sucholewski

1419 .

67354/12

CIELECKI v. Poland

12/10/2012

L. Cielecki

1420 .

67560/12

STANISŁAWSKI v. Poland

11/10/2012

I. Stanisławski

1421 .

68176/12

BOGDAŃSKI v. Poland

16/10/2012

J. Bogdański

1422 .

68321/12

PAWELEC v. Poland

11/10/2012

H. Pawelec

D. Sucholewski

1423 .

68448/12

STĘPNICKI v. Poland

10/10/2012

K. Stępnicki

1424 .

68786/12

MAŁKIEWICZ v. Poland

16/10/2012

W. Małkiewicz

D. Sucholewski

1425 .

69028/12

GÓRNIAK v. Poland

23/10/2012

K. Górniak

1426 .

69433/12

PIETKIEWICZ v. Poland

22/10/2012

T. Pietkiewicz

1427 .

69435/12

UKLEJA v. Poland

22/10/2012

K. Ukleja

1428 .

69656/12

STĘPNIAK v. Poland

11/10/2012

M. Stępniak

1429 .

69661/12

SYLWESTRZAK v. Poland

22/10/2012

P. Sylwestrzak

D. Sucholewski

1430 .

69699/12

KLIMEK v. Poland

23/10/2012

T. Klimek

1431 .

70017/12

WILK v. Poland

15/10/2012

S. Wilk

1432 .

70087/12

PIETREWICZ v. Poland

17/10/2012

L. Pietrewicz

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1433 .

70282/12

BORODA v. Poland

25/10/2012

B. Boroda

1434 .

70593/12

WIÅšNIOWSKI v. Poland

24/10/2012

K. Wiśniowski

1435 .

71009/12

MARCHWIŃSKI v. Poland

19/10/2012

W. Marchwiński

1436 .

71286/12

JODŁOWSKI v. Poland

31/10/2012

R. Jodłowski

1437 .

71313/12

LUTEK v. Poland

29/10/2012

J. Lutek

1438 .

71319/12

JANISZEWSKI v. Poland

25/10/2012

R. Janiszewski

1439 .

72104/12

JURKOWSKI v. Poland

02/11/2012

D. Jurkowski

1440 .

72224/12

BRAUN-LICHTBLAU v. Poland

05/11/2012

B. Braun-Lichtblau

D. Sucholewski

1441 .

72416/12

WĘGLARZ v. Poland

06/11/2012

M. Węglarz

1442 .

72437/12

WROTNY v. Poland

29/10/2012

T. Wrotny

1443 .

72881/12

REĆKO v. Poland

08/11/2012

L. Rećko

1444 .

72937/12

ROSICKI v. Poland

25/10/2012

L. Rosicki

1445 .

73526/12

PRUSZYŃSKI v. Poland

14/09/2012

M. Pruszyński

1446 .

73767/12

JAGUSIAK v. Poland

19/11/2012

R. Jagusiak

1447 .

74090/12

STANKIEWICZ v. Poland

26/10/2012

J. Stankiewicz

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1448 .

74167/12

ŚNIEŻAWSKI v. Poland

12/11/2012

M. Śnieżawski

1449 .

74184/12

GÓRSKI v. Poland

16/11/2012

R. Górski

1450 .

74621/12

ÅšLEPKO v. Poland

20/11/2012

K. Åšlepko

1451 .

74666/12

BOROWSKI v. Poland

20/11/2012

Z. Borowski

1452 .

74703/12

SUPRUN v. Poland

06/11/2012

R. Suprun

D. Sucholewski

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

1453 .

74726/12

STĘPIEŃ and Others v. Poland

20/11/2012

M. Cichoń

W. Florczyk

Z. Gibaszewski

W. Górka

G. Kopeć

A. Płaszczyński

W. Stępień

F. Szostek

W. Tacij

R. Wałek

D. Sucholewski

1454 .

74843/12

KUCHARSKA v. Poland

09/11/2012

J. Kucharska

D. Sucholewski

1455 .

75111/12

GRODECKI v. Poland

13/11/2012

J. Grodecki

1456 .

75457/12

KAJKO v. Poland

09/11/2012

M. Kajko

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1457 .

75472/12

SZCZĘŚNIAK v. Poland

15/11/2012

Z. Szczęśniak

K. Wojcieszuk-Kwiatkowska

1458 .

75508/12

STANISŁAWSKI v. Poland

13/11/2012

H. Stanisławski

1459 .

75710/12

DÄ„BKOWSKA v. Poland

26/11/2012

K. DÄ…bkowska

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1460 .

75713/12

CZERNIEJEWSKI v. Poland

20/11/2012

A. Czerniejewski

1461 .

75788/12

PŁONKA v. Poland

26/11/2012

A. PÅ‚onka

1462 .

75850/12

WIÅšNIEWSKA-MILEWICZ v. Poland

22/11/2012

K. Wiśniewska-Milewicz

1463 .

76008/12

SZPAKOWSKI v. Poland

27/11/2012

R. Szpakowski

1464 .

76015/12

ŚNIEŻAWSKI v. Poland

27/11/2012

S. Śnieżawski

1465 .

76075/12

KOZEK v. Poland

22/11/2012

B. Kozek

1466 .

76116/12

NOWICKI v. Poland

20/11/2012

J. Nowicki

1467 .

76415/12

JASIŃSKI v. Poland

22/11/2012

E. Jasiński

1468 .

76887/12

KOWALSKA v. Poland

23/11/2012

G. Kowalska

1469 .

77620/12

CIENKOWSKI v. Poland

26/11/2012

I. Cienkowski

1470 .

77704/12

PEEK v. Poland

29/11/2012

B. Peek

1471 .

77944/12

LISZEWSKI v. Poland

23/11/2012

W. Liszewski

1472 .

78118/12

MAGRYÅš v. Poland

01/12/2012

F. MagryÅ›

1473 .

78264/12

GRZYBOWSKI v. Poland

30/11/2012

K. Grzybowski

1474 .

78280/12

PLICHTA v. Poland

30/11/2012

C. Plichta

1475 .

78424/12

MIELNICKI v. Poland

03/12/2012

R. Mielnicki

1476 .

78477/12

WIÅšNIEWSKI v. Poland

29/11/2012

J. Wiśniewski

D. Sucholewski

1477 .

78507/12

WELCZ v. Poland

30/11/2012

T. Welcz

D. Sucholewski

1478 .

78640/12

KURCZYCH v. Poland

03/12/2012

E. Kurczych

1479 .

79208/12

SACZKO v. Poland

03/12/2012

A. Saczko

1480 .

79563/12

CZABATOR v. Poland

03/12/2012

E. Czabator

1481 .

80555/12

IWANICKI v. Poland

06/12/2012

J. Iwanicki

1482 .

80609/12

SZOK v. Poland

30/11/2012

J. Szok

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1483 .

80640/12

ŁOWCZYNOWSKI v. Poland

10/12/2012

C. Łowczynowski

1484 .

80680/12

RONKOWSKI v. Poland

24/11/2012

W. Ronkowski

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1485 .

80686/12

WOJTAS v. Poland

19/11/2012

B. Wojtas

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

1486 .

80944/12

OKS v. Poland

03/12/2012

W. Oks

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1487 .

80975/12

GÓRALCZYK v. Poland

19/11/2012

W. Góralczyk

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1488 .

81055/12

KAMIŃSKI v. Poland

10/12/2012

J. Kamiński

1489 .

85/13

OLSZEWSKI v. Poland

17/12/2012

K. Olszewski

1490 .

91/13

FLOREK v. Poland

08/12/2012

R. Florek

1491 .

749/13

PAWLAK v. Poland

14/12/2012

W. Pawlak

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1492 .

919/13

JAKIELASZEK v. Poland

07/12/2012

E. Jakielaszek

D. Sucholewski

1493 .

1059/13

BACIA v. Poland

12/12/2012

K. Bacia

1494 .

1141/13

GOŁASZEWSKA v. Poland

21/12/2012

A. Gołaszewska

1495 .

1209/13

BOCZEK v. Poland

13/12/2012

L. Boczek

1496 .

1359/13

BORYSIUK v. Poland

07/12/2012

W. Borysiuk

D. Sucholewski

1497 .

1418/13

MODZELEWSKA v. Poland

28/12/2012

A. Modzelewska

1498 .

1546/13

ROSOWIECKA v. Poland

17/12/2012

L. Rosowiecka

1499 .

1777/13

KOŁODZIEJCZYK v. Poland

12/12/2012

I. Kołodziejczyk

1500 .

1781/13

RACHWAL v. Poland

29/12/2012

T. Rachwal

1501 .

1787/13

GRABARCZYK v. Poland

17/12/2012

Z. Grabarczyk

1502 .

1924/13

ÅšWITACZ v. Poland

10/12/2012

J. Åšwitacz

1503 .

1997/13

ZIELIŃSKI v. Poland

18/12/2012

W. Gwardiak

D. Hackiewicz

K. Sadowski

M. Szewczuk

R. Zieliński

D. Sucholewski

1504 .

2183/13

CHMIELOWSKI v. Poland

12/12/2012

R. Chmielowski

1505 .

2524/13

WASIAK v. Poland

17/12/2012

A. Wasiak

1506 .

2800/13

CHYTROŃ v. Poland

28/12/2012

Z. Chytroń

1507 .

2924/13

BUGAJ-STAWNY v. Poland

02/01/2013

J. Bugaj-Stawny

1508 .

3154/13

OLEKSIAK v. Poland

14/12/2012

E. Oleksiak

1509 .

4266/13

PAWLUCZUK v. Poland

10/12/2012

J. Pawluczuk

1510 .

4933/13

PAÅšNIKOWSKI v. Poland

08/01/2013

A. Paśnikowski

D. Sucholewski

1511 .

5333/13

OSTROWSKI v. Poland

08/01/2013

M. Ostrowski

1512 .

5414/13

SZAFRAŃSKI v. Poland

07/01/2013

W. Szafrański

1513 .

5983/13

JEFIMIUK v. Poland

15/01/2013

R. Jefimiuk

1514 .

6038/13

PACEWICZ v. Poland

15/01/2013

M. Pacewicz

1515 .

6046/13

PONICHTERA v. Poland

09/01/2013

B. Ponichtera

1516 .

6065/13

OSKROBA v. Poland

11/01/2013

J. Oskroba

1517 .

6730/13

MICHALCZAK v. Poland

02/01/2013

P. Michalczak

P. Sowisło

1518 .

7236/13

MACHNICKA v. Poland

04/01/2013

G. Machnicka

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1519 .

7353/13

MYSIUKIEWICZ v. Poland

16/01/2013

T. Mysiukiewicz

1520 .

7858/13

RYCERZ v. Poland

23/01/2013

A. Rycerz

D. Sucholewski

1521 .

7963/13

GRACZKOWSKI v. Poland

09/01/2013

M. Graczkowski

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1522 .

8047/13

LEGIĘDŹ v. Poland

22/01/2013

J. Legiędź

D. Sucholewski

1523 .

8081/13

JACKOWSKI v. Poland

21/01/2013

J. Jackowski

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

1524 .

8098/13

PUTKOWSKI v. Poland

11/01/2013

Z. Putkowski

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1525 .

8180/13

KOTARSKA v. Poland

07/01/2013

M. Kotarska

1526 .

8186/13

KAŹMIERCZAK v. Poland

04/01/2013

Z. Kaźmierczak

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1527 .

8198/13

KORAB v. Poland

14/01/2013

K. Korab

1528 .

8752/13

SZKUDLAREK v. Poland

23/01/2013

M. Szkudlarek

1529 .

8773/13

ŻEBROWSKI v. Poland

22/01/2013

J. Żebrowski

1530 .

8777/13

LEWANDOWSKI v. Poland

10/01/2013

M. Lewandowski

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1531 .

8781/13

ZIEMNICKI v. Poland

18/01/2013

S. Ziemnicki

1532 .

9212/13

CHOMKA v. Poland

24/01/2013

T. Chomka

D. Sucholewski

1533 .

9220/13

CZURAK v. Poland

29/01/2013

E. Czurak

S. Pikulski

1534 .

9435/13

NAHARNOWICZ v. Poland

25/01/2013

C. Naharnowicz

1535 .

9516/13

CZAJKOWSKA v. Poland

30/01/2013

A. Czajkowska

1536 .

9791/13

KOŁTUN v. Poland

29/01/2013

T. Kołtun

1537 .

9897/13

URBANIAK v. Poland

30/01/2013

M. Urbaniak

1538 .

10203/13

WARCHOŁ v. Poland

01/02/2013

J. Warchoł

1539 .

10283/13

JANUS v. Poland

01/02/2013

L. Janus

D. Sucholewski

1540 .

10442/13

PRZEWUSKA v. Poland

25/01/2013

M. Przewuska

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1541 .

11543/13

KĘDZIA v. Poland

07/02/2013

J. Kędzia

1542 .

11584/13

CELI v. Poland

04/02/2013

A. Celi

1543 .

11588/13

NOWAKOWSKI v. Poland

06/02/2013

K. Nowakowski

1544 .

11769/13

RUCIŃSKA v. Poland

01/02/2013

G. Rucińska

1545 .

12208/13

GRZELKA v. Poland

09/01/2013

H. Grzelka

1546 .

12333/13

BISKUP v. Poland

11/02/2013

S. Biskup

1547 .

12593/13

MICHALIK v. Poland

01/02/2013

J. Michalik

1548 .

12606/13

JAGIEŁOWICZ v. Poland

13/02/2013

T. Jagiełowicz

J. Ginko

1549 .

12781/13

KOWAL v. Poland

11/02/2013

B. Kowal

J. Ginko

1550 .

12799/13

KWIT v. Poland

31/01/2012

L. Kwit

1551 .

12895/13

FABI Åš v. Poland

04/02/2013

B. Fabi Å›

1552 .

13143/13

KUBIŃSKI v. Poland

22/01/2013

B. Kubiński

1553 .

13149/13

KLATT v. Poland

13/02/2013

A. Klatt

D. Sucholewski

1554 .

13489/13

KRAWCZYK v. Poland

06/02/2013

T. Krawczyk

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1555 .

13565/13

GAJ v. Poland

14/02/2013

J. Gaj

D. Sucholewski

1556 .

13604/13

LASKOWSKI v. Poland

30/01/2013

R. Laskowski

P. Sowisło

1557 .

13620/13

MAKIEŁA v. Poland

04/02/2013

E. Makieła

S. Pikulski

1558 .

13631/13

DROSZCZ v. Poland

06/02/2013

D. Droszcz

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1559 .

13884/13

OBERDAK v. Poland

04/02/2013

A. Oberdak

S. Pikulski

1560 .

14691/13

PAZDYGA v. Poland

20/02/2013

J. Pazdyga

1561 .

14746/13

PIŃKOWSKI v. Poland

20/02/2013

L. Pińkowski

1562 .

15214/13

SURMIONEK v. Poland

07/02/2013

R. Surmionek

1563 .

15218/13

SYROCKA v. Poland

12/02/2013

I. Syrocka

1564 .

15885/13

OLCHOWY v. Poland

23/02/2013

J. Olchowy

1565 .

15920/13

POPA v. Poland

22/02/2013

P. Popa

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

1566 .

16120/13

GRELA v. Poland

15/02/2013

J. Grela

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1567 .

16435/13

PADUSZYŃSKI v. Poland

26/02/2013

R. Paduszyński

1568 .

16461/13

WRÓBLEWSKA v. Poland

25/02/2013

E. Wróblewska

1569 .

16517/13

CZARNAS v. Poland

22/02/2013

T. Czarnas

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1570 .

16520/13

WOJCIECHOWSKA v. Poland

22/02/2013

K. Wojciechowska

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1571 .

17042/13

KLIMKOWSKI v. Poland

25/02/2013

W. Klimkowski

D. Sucholewski

1572 .

17044/13

KROPIDŁOWSKI v. Poland

18/02/2013

A. Kropidłowski

1573 .

17383/13

HAJGENBART v. Poland

22/02/2013

L. Hajgenbart

1574 .

17562/13

IWASZKIEWICZ v. Poland

04/03/2013

J. Iwaszkiewicz

1575 .

17655/13

OLESZCZAK v. Poland

06/03/2013

W. Oleszczak

1576 .

17780/13

ŻODZIK v. Poland

25/02/2013

J. Żodzik

1577 .

17819/13

SOBIESZCZAŃSKI v. Poland

26/02/2013

F. Sobieszczański

1578 .

17869/13

MICHALSKI v. Poland

05/03/2013

J. Michalski

D. Sucholewski

1579 .

17879/13

MINISZEWSKI v. Poland

05/03/2013

A. Miniszewski

D. Sucholewski

1580 .

17943/13

LEÅšNIEWSKA v. Poland

25/02/2013

M. Leśniewska

1581 .

17956/13

ZAGAJEWSKI v. Poland

24/02/2013

J. Zagajewski

S. Pikulski

1582 .

17958/13

PAPIER v. Poland

26/02/2013

Z. Papier

1583 .

17975/13

SZUR v. Poland

25/02/2013

L. Szur

1584 .

18240/13

LACH v. Poland

01/03/2013

S. Lach

M. GÄ…siorowska

1585 .

18249/13

ÅšCIBISZ v. Poland

04/03/2013

A. Åšcibisz

1586 .

18441/13

PŁACZEK v. Poland

22/02/2013

S. PÅ‚aczek

D. Sucholewski

1587 .

19255/13

DOMARADZKA v. Poland

05/03/2013

M. Domaradzka

1588 .

19550/13

KUPTEL v. Poland

26/02/2013

S. Kuptel

Z. Daniszewska-Dek

1589 .

19629/13

GRABEK v. Poland

04/03/2013

M. Grabek

1590 .

19885/13

MIELCZAREK v. Poland

06/03/2013

L. Mielczarek

1591 .

20171/13

NIECZYPOR v. Poland

08/03/2013

J. Nieczypor

1592 .

20411/13

PERŻYŁO v. Poland

11/03/2013

W. Perżyło

1593 .

20470/13

ORNOWSKA v. Poland

04/03/2013

H. Ornowska

1594 .

20475/13

FLOR v. Poland

07/03/2013

G. Flor

1595 .

20609/13

SZEWCZYK v. Poland

08/03/2013

J. Szewczyk

D. Sucholewski

1596 .

20622/13

SZEWCZYK v. Poland

07/03/2013

J. Szewczyk

D. Sucholewski

1597 .

21590/13

SZALUNAS v. Poland

12/03/2013

A. Szalunas

1598 .

21843/13

JASKO v. Poland

20/03/2013

H. Jasko

1599 .

21853/13

REMBIEWSKI v. Poland

20/03/2013

A. Rembiewski

1600 .

21879/13

STOKOWSKA v. Poland

20/03/2013

E. Stokowska

1601 .

21893/13

LEÅšNIEWSKI v. Poland

22/03/2013

W. Leśniewski

1602 .

23080/13

PIESTO v. Poland

19/03/2013

J. Piesto

1603 .

23104/13

KOZŁOWSKI v. Poland

22/03/2013

A. Kozłowski

D. Sucholewski

1604 .

23110/13

DACZKOWSKI v. Poland

21/03/2013

J. Daczkowski

1605 .

23216/13

KOWALCZYK v. Poland

22/03/2013

K. Kowalczyk

D. Sucholewski

1606 .

23280/13

GRABOWSKI v. Poland

26/03/2013

M. Grabowski

1607 .

23281/13

KOÅšCIELNIAK v. Poland

20/03/2013

P. Kościelniak

1608 .

23371/13

ZEMA v. Poland

26/03/2013

M. Zema

1609 .

23507/13

GRZYBOWSKA v. Poland

15/03/2013

G. Grzybowska

App. No.

Case Name

Date of lodging

Introduced by

Name of Representative

1610 .

23946/13

SIEK v. Poland

21/03/2013

J. Siek

1611 .

24492/13

BARTNICKI v. Poland

03/04/2013

R. Bartnicki

1612 .

25118/13

UCHMAN v. Poland

03/04/2013

J. Uchman

1613 .

25477/13

KNITTER v. Poland

04/04/2013

F. Knitter

1614 .

25713/13

NOWAK v. Poland

05/04/2013

R. Nowak

1615 .

25726/13

JOBSKI v. Poland

29/03/2013

W. Jobski

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1616 .

25939/13

GAWART v. Poland

29/03/2013

E. Gawart

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1617 .

26386/13

KOWALCZYK v. Poland

03/04/2013

A. Kowalczyk

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1618 .

26488/13

KRYSIAK v. Poland

12/04/2013

J. Krysiak

1619 .

26649/13

SZYCHULSKI v. Poland

29/03/2013

K. Szychulski

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1620 .

26660/13

SARBICKI v. Poland

08/04/2013

M. Sarbicki

1621 .

26761/13

WISŁAWSKA v. Poland

15/04/2013

E. Wisławska

1622 .

26770/13

NIZIO and Others v. Poland

12/04/2013

T. Janecki

W. Kozlowska

R. Kozlowski

R. Krawiec

L. Kukulski

A. Malarz

Z. Nizio

W. Piasecki

S. Ratajczak

W. Sołtysiak

D. Sucholewski

1623 .

27746/13

ZIELONKA v. Poland

15/04/2013

Z. Zielonka

1624 .

28667/13

TABISZ v. Poland

13/04/2013

M. Tabisz

1625 .

28858/13

BRZDEK v. Poland

15/04/2013

W. Brzdek

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

1626 .

29017/13

TURBIARZ v. Poland

15/04/2013

W. Turbiarz

1627 .

29275/13

PAWLIK v. Poland

23/04/2013

S. Pawlik

1628 .

29828/13

RYBAKOWSKA-SOBIESZEK v. Poland

03/04/2013

J. Rybakowska-Sobieszek

A. Świątkiewicz-Pałosz

[1] . www.ipn.gov.pl ; The IPN’s mission is described on its website as follows: “ The Institute of National Remembrance was created to address issues which are considered essential to the legislative power in Poland, primarily to preserve the memory of: the losses which were suffered by the Polish Nation as a result of World War II and the post-war period; patriotic traditions of fighting against occupants, Nazism and Communism; citizens' efforts to fight for an independent Polish State, in defence of freedom and human dignity; and to fulfil: the duty to prosecute crimes against peace, humanity and war crimes; the need to compensate damage suffered by the repressed and harmed people at the times when human rights were violated by the S tate ”.

[2] . The “basis of assessment of a pension” ( podstawa wymiaru emerytury ) is an income which constitutes a reference base for calculating pension contributions.

[3] . Pensions rights under the old scheme could also be acquired by persons born after this date but before 1 January 1969 if they opted for the old scheme and would fulfil conditions for being granted a pension by 31 December 2008.

[4] . For instance, in March 2012 the base amount was PLN 2,974.69 .

[5] . See also note 9.

[6] . The English translation of the Constitution is based on the text available on the Constitutional Court’s website www.trybunal.gov.pl

[7] . Lower house of the Polish Parliament.

[8] . At the material time this amount was close to the minimum pension under the general social security scheme.

[9] . B. Zdziennicki, President; Judges S. Biernat; Z. Cieślak; M. Gintowt-Jankowicz; M. Granat; W. Hermeliński; A. Jamróz; M. Kotlinowski; T. Liszcz; E. Łętowska; M. Mazurkiewicz; J. Niemcewicz; A. Rzepliński, Rapporteur, and M. Wyrzykowski.

[10] . Judge T. Liszcz.

[11] . The translation of this part and further passages from the judgment is based on the text available on the Constitutional Court’s website www.trybual.gov.pl , which was adapted by the Registry.

Menu

CICHOPEK AND OTHERS v. POLAND

CICHOPEK AND OTHERS v. POLAND