Communicated on 5 October 2020 Published on 26 October 2020

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 27806/17 Barbara WAIS against Poland lodged on 1 March 2017

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . The applicant, Ms Barbara Wais , is a Polish national, who was born in 1959 and lives in Cracow.

The circumstances of the case

2 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

3 . The applicant is a legal adviser ( radca prawny ). She is also a member of a local association of social initiatives.

4 . In the years 2013-2014 she represented several employees of a local kindergarten in their civil action against their employer.

5 . When these proceedings were completed, the applicant published an article, on the website of her association, in which she accused the kindergarten of malpractice and its director, of incompetence.

6 . The applicant submitted that her publication had taken place in the midst of a local electoral campaign, as a reaction to emerging accusations of continuous malpractice against the kindergarten ’ s director, as well as defamation against the applicant ’ s former client.

7 . On 10 August 2015 the Rzeszow Disciplinary Court of the Association of Legal Advisers ( OkrÄ™gowy SÄ…d Dyscyplinarny OkrÄ™gowej Izby Radców Prawnych ) found the applicant guilty of a disciplinary offence, namely of disclosing information obtained during court proceedings and making defamatory comments regarding the director of the kindergarten. The disciplinary court sanctioned the applicant with admonishment ( upomnienie ). The court charged the applicant 900 Polish zlotys (PLN ‑ approximately 225 euros (EUR)) for the costs of the proceedings.

8 . The applicant submitted that some members of the bench had been absent during the deliberations over the ruling - two judges (including the presiding judge) left the court room to discuss the case with the disciplinary prosecutor ( rzecznik dyscyplinarny ); and that rectifications in respect of a person who had been wrongly described as the applicant ’ s client.

9 . The applicant appealed on the grounds of non-compliance of the first ‑ instance decision with the requirements of fair trial and freedom of expression. She relied, inter alia, on the arguments that were described above.

10 . 14 March 2016 the High Disciplinary Court of the Legal Advisers Association upheld that decision. The court ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings in the amount of PLN 1,000 (approximately EUR 250). The appellate court essentially held that the short absence of the two judges during a technical phase of the trial did not constitute a breach of the principle that all judges had to be present during the entire trial. Moreover, the court observed that the applicant ’ s arguments in respect of her wider freedom of expression were beyond the point because the disciplinary tribunal was only concerned with the applicant ’ s disciplinary responsibility. Publishing an internet article describing the case against the kindergarten had gone beyond the freedom of expression of a legal adviser.

11 . On 1 September 2016 the applicant ’ s cassation appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court as manifestly ill-founded. That decision was without the court ’ s reasoning.

COMPLAINTS

12 . The applicant complains about a violation of her rights under Article 10 of the Convention. In particular she argues that she could not enjoy her freedom of expression in the context of her professional activities.

13 . She also complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the unfairness of the impugned disciplinary proceedings and the fact that the Supreme Court dismissed her cassation appeal without reasoning.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the interference with the applicant ’ s right to freedom of expression because of her internet publication justified under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?