CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 septembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 9 October 2023   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 13966/22 and 13967/22 Bożena Krystyna KAPICA against Poland lodged on 8 March 2022 and 3 March 2022 respectively communicated on 18 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was a party to two sets of proceedings before the administrative authorities. She appealed against the administrative decisions given in those proceedings. On 13 September 2021 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court gave rulings in two cases concerning the applicant, dismissing her complaints against two administrative decisions (disputes concerning employees, case no. VI SA/Wa 1469/21, judgment served on 26 October 2021 and VI SA/Wa 1726/21, judgment served on 25 October 2021). The court sat in camera as a panel of three judges, including Ms Dorota Pawłowska, appointed to that court by the President of Poland on 7 May 2020, pursuant to the recommendations of the National Council of the Judiciary ( Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa , “the NCJ”, resolution no. 350/2019 of 21 March 2019) as established under the Amending Act on the NCJ and certain other statutes of 8 December 2017 ( ustawa o zmianie ustawy o Krajowej Radzie Sądownictwa oraz niektórych innych ustaw ). The applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court. The applicant complains that her cases were examined by a judicial formation of the regional administrative court including a newly appointed judge which gave rise to a violation of her right to an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law”, in breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the court which dealt with the applicant’s cases an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   Reference is made to the fact that the applicant’s cases were examined by a formation of an administrative court composed of a judge appointed in the procedure established by the Law of 8 December 2017 Amending the Act on the National Council of the Judiciary. In their replies, the parties are asked to refer to the Court’s judgments in Advance Pharma sp. z o.o v.   Poland , no.   1469/20, 3   February 2022 and Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, §§ 205-290, 1   December 2020.