Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Sadomski v. Poland:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Poland violated Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial in civil matters. The case concerned a judge, Mr. Sadomski, who applied for a position in the Supreme Court. Despite a binding interim order from the Supreme Administrative Court staying the implementation of a resolution related to the appointment of judges, the President of Poland appointed judges based on that resolution. Subsequent legislative actions further limited the possibility of judicial review in such cases, effectively nullifying the positive rulings Mr. Sadomski had obtained. The ECtHR concluded that these actions deprived Mr. Sadomski of an effective judicial remedy and thus violated his right to a fair trial.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction and Facts:** The judgment begins by outlining the case’s background, including Mr. Sadomski’s application for a judicial post, the competition procedure, and the relevant resolutions and appeals.
* **Interim Orders:** It details the interim orders issued by the Supreme Administrative Court to stay the implementation of the resolution recommending candidates for appointment.
* **Presidential Appointments:** It notes that the President of Poland appointed the recommended candidates despite the pending appeals and interim orders.
* **CJEU Involvement:** The judgment mentions the Supreme Administrative Court’s request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the subsequent CJEU judgment.
* **Constitutional Court’s Judgment:** It refers to the Constitutional Court’s judgment that deemed certain provisions regarding judicial review of the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ) resolutions unconstitutional, as well as subsequent legislative amendments.
* **Supreme Administrative Court’s Judgment:** The judgment describes the Supreme Administrative Court’s ruling in Mr. Sadomski’s case, which set aside the NCJ’s resolution but had no practical effect due to prior appointments.
* **Legal Framework:** It references the relevant Polish legal framework and practice.
* **The Law:** This section contains the ECtHR’s legal analysis, including preliminary remarks, the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1, admissibility considerations (such as the applicability of Article 6 and the exhaustion of domestic remedies), and the merits of the case.
* **Article 41:** Deals with the application of Article 41 of the Convention regarding just satisfaction.
* **Operative Provisions:** The judgment concludes with the Court’s decision, including the dismissal of the government’s preliminary objections, the declaration of admissibility of the complaint, the finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1, and the determination that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Applicability of Article 6:** The Court reaffirmed that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applies to disputes concerning access to public service, specifically judicial posts, emphasizing the right of equal access.
* **Eskelinen Test:** The Court applied the Eskelinen test to determine whether the right in question was a “civil” one, finding that the first condition of the test was not met because national law did not exclude access to a court for a claim concerning equal access to public service.
* **Rule of Law:** The Court emphasized that the right to a court would be illusory if a state’s legal system allowed a final, binding judicial decision to remain inoperative.
* **Breach of Domestic Law:** The Court highlighted the manifest breaches of domestic law, including the interference with judicial review and the appointments made despite binding interim orders.
* **Ineffectiveness of Judicial Review:** The Court concluded that the judicial review conducted by the domestic court was insufficient, as the interim order and final judgment were rendered inoperative to the applicant’s detriment.
This decision underscores the importance of an effective judicial review and the obligation of states to ensure that judicial decisions are respected and implemented.
: This decision is related to Poland, but it has implications for Ukraine and Ukrainians, as it concerns the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, principles that are crucial for the protection of human rights and the proper functioning of a democratic society, especially in countries undergoing reforms or facing external pressures.
