Poland: ICJ intervenes before European Court in case of surveillance of lawyers and human rights defenders

Poland: ICJ intervenes before European Court in case of surveillance of lawyers and human rights defenders

The ICJ intervened today in the case of the potential surveillance by Polish secret services of Mikołaj Pietrzak, lawyer and chair of the Warsaw Bar Association, Dominika Bychawska-Siniarska et Barbara Grabowska-Moroz of the Helsinki Foundation of Human Rights, and Wojciech Klicki and Katarzyna Szymielewicz of the foundation Panoptykon.

The five applicants applied to the European Court of Human Rights claiming a violation of their rights to privacy and to an effective remedy because the system of secret surveillance and collection of metadata created by the Law amending the Law of the Police of 15 January 2016 and the Anti-Terrorism Law of 16 June 2016 does not provide sufficient guarantees for this rights’ protection.

In its third party intervention, the ICJ addressed (1) the application of the principles of prescription by law, necessity and proportionality, in circumstances when mass and targeted surveillance interferes with the right to respect for private life under Article 8 ECHR, in particular when it affects lawyers and human rights defenders; (2) the obligations of States under Article 8 and 6 ECHR to ensure respect for the confidentiality of lawyer-client relations and the principle of legal professional privilege.

The ICJ argued that secret surveillance, in particular where it interferes with the confidentiality of communications of lawyers and human rights defenders, and endangers lawyer-client privilege protected under Articles 8 and 6 ECHR, should be subject to specific safeguards and to particularly strict scrutiny of its necessity and proportionality.

The third party intervention can be found here: PIetrzak&HF_v_Poland-AmicusCuriae-ECtHR-Cases-2020-ENG

Poland: ICJ and Amnesty International intervene before European Court in case of two removed court’s vice-presidents

Poland: ICJ and Amnesty International intervene before European Court in case of two removed court’s vice-presidents

The ICJ and Amnesty International have submitted a joint third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Judges Mariusz Broda and Alina Bojara.

The case concerns the premature termination of their mandates as vice-presidents of the regional tribunal of Kielce in Poland. The two judges, that had been appointed to six-year terms in 2014, had their position revoked by the Minister of Justice in 2018.

The revocation was based on article 17.1 of the Law of 12 July 2017 modifying the Law on the Judicial System. This provision, presented and approved by the ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS), gave the Minister of Justice the power to revoke courts’ presidents and vice-presidents without justified grounds and with no possibility of appeal.

The two judges applied to the European Court of Human Rights alleging that they had been denied access to a tribunal to challenge the termination of their mandate .

In their third party intervention, the ICJ and Amnesty International analyze international standards on judicial independence, including as regards the role court presidents and vice-presidents, and the consequences of these standards for the right of access to court under Article 6.1 ECHR. The intervention also analyses the recent legislative and policy developments that have seriously undermined the independence of the Polish judiciary.

Read the full intervention here: Broda_v_Poland-AmicusCuriae-ICJ&AI-Cases-2020-ENG.

Poland: joint third party intervention in the case of Jan Grzęda v Poland

Poland: joint third party intervention in the case of Jan Grzęda v Poland

The ICJ and Amnesty International have submitted a joint third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Judge Jan Grzęda.

Judge Grzęda’s mandate as a member of the Polish National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ) was prematurely terminated by legislation that entered into force in 2018. Under this law, the mandates of the judicial members of the NCJ appointed under previous legislation were automatically brought to an end once new members were appointed.

Judge Grzęda applied to the European Court of Human Rights alleging that he had been denied access to a tribunal to challenge the termination of his mandate and had been denied an effective remedy for the violations of his rights.

In their third party intervention, the ICJ and Amnesty International analyze international standards on judicial independence and self-governance, including as regards the role national councils for the judiciary, and the consequences of these standards for the right of access to court under Article 6.1 ECHR. The intervention also analyses the role of the NCJ in safeguarding judicial independence in Poland, and recent legislative and policy developments that have seriously undermined the independence of the Polish judiciary.

Read the full intervention text here.

Translate »