Published on 17 October 2022

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 32838/21 Irena RYBSKA against Poland lodged on 8 June 2021 communicated on 30 September 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

At the relevant time the applicant was a judge of the Białystok Regional Court. She retired on 30 April 2020.

On an unspecified date the prosecutor instituted an investigation into hindering the execution of a court judgment by the applicant’s husband to the detriment of creditors. The prosecutor alleged that the applicant had aided and abetted in the commission of that offence.

In July 2020 the prosecutor of the State Prosecutor’s Office applied to the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, asking that the applicant’s immunity be lifted with a view to charging her with a criminal offence of aiding and abetting in hindering the execution of a court judgment (Article 300 § 2 in conjunction with Article 18 § 3 of the Criminal Code).

On 27 August 2020 the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, allowed the prosecutor’s application and lifted the applicant’s immunity. It also suspended the applicant in her judicial duties and reduced her salary by 30% for the duration of the suspension. The applicant and the prosecutor lodged appeals.

On 14 December 2020 the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, sitting as the second-instance court in a formation of three judges, upheld the impugned decision as regards the lifting of the applicant’s immunity. It set it aside in part concerning the applicant’s suspension and reduction of her salary since she had retired on 30 April 2020. The criminal proceedings against the applicant are pending.

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the decision on lifting her immunity was taken by a body that did not satisfy the requirements of an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law”.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil or criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present case in so far as the lifting of the applicant’s immunity is concerned?

2. Did the proceedings before the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court violate the applicant’s right to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Reczkowicz v. Poland , no. 43447/19, §§ 225-284, 22 July 2021)? Reference is made to Article 181 of the Polish Constitution which stipulates that judge shall not be held criminally responsible “without prior consent granted by a court”.