CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } Published on 9 February 2026   FIRST SECTION Application no. 14625/22 Paweł STRUMIŃSKI against Poland lodged on 1 March 2022 communicated on 19 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns disciplinary measures taken against the applicant – an ordinary court judge – in response to social media posts that he allegedly published. First set of disciplinary proceedings On 6 July 2018 the applicant allegedly published a post on his Twitter account in which he juxtaposed a photo of Mr J. Kaczyński, President of the then-governing “Law and Justice” party, with a statute of Vladimir I. Lenin. The photos were reportedly captioned “Leader” ( Wódz ) and “Soviet truth forever alive” ( Prawda sowiecka wiecznie żywa ). Initially, the deputy disciplinary officer at the Gliwice District Court decided not to open disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, stating that the post had not been aimed at slandering anyone. On 7 February 2019 the deputy disciplinary officer for ordinary court judges ( Zastępca Rzecznika Dyscyplinarnego Sędziów Sądów Powszechnych , “the deputy disciplinary officer”) initiated disciplinary proceedings, charging the applicant with undermining the dignity of the office of judge. On 6 September 2019 the Disciplinary Court at the Lublin Court of Appeal remitted the case to the deputy disciplinary officer for further examination. Upon the deputy disciplinary officer’s appeal, on 21 February 2020 the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court (“the DCSC”) quashed the order. It appears that on an unspecified date, the applicant’s case was transferred to the Disciplinary Court at the Katowice Court of Appeal. In July 2024 the newly appointed disciplinary officer of the Minister of Justice withdrew the request to examine the applicant’s disciplinary charges and requested the proceedings against him to be discontinued. The applicant stated that the Disciplinary Court at the Katowice Court of Appeal scheduled a hearing in his case for 7   March 2025. Second set of disciplinary proceedings On 12 March 2019 the applicant allegedly published a post on his Twitter account in which he referred to an unspecified person as “an agent who by chance happens to be where he is” ( agent, co przez przypadek jest tam, gdzie jest ). In July 2019 the deputy disciplinary officer initiated disciplinary proceedings and charged the applicant with undermining the dignity of the office of judge. On 14 June 2023 the deputy disciplinary officer discontinued the proceedings against the applicant. The complaints The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the DCSC which, on 21 February 2020, quashed the order of the Disciplinary Court at the Lublin Court of Appeal remitting the case to the deputy disciplinary officer, was not “an independent and impartial tribunal established by law”. Also, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the unreasonable length of each set of disciplinary proceedings brought against him. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the disciplinary measures taken against him adversely affected his reputation and, in consequence, amounted to a breach of the right to respect for his private life. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Questions concerning the disciplinary measures taken against the applicant:   1.     Can the applicant claim to be a victim of a violation of his Convention rights, considering that: (i) in the first set of proceedings, the disciplinary officer of the Minister of Justice withdrew the request to examine the applicant’s disciplinary charges; and (ii) the disciplinary officer ultimately discontinued the second set of disciplinary proceedings without referring any charges for disciplinary trial?   2.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil limb applicable to the proceedings before the DCSC in the first set of proceedings? In the affirmative, was the DCSC “an independent and impartial tribunal established by law”, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, §§ 211-52, 1   December 2020; Reczkowicz v. Poland , no. 43447/19, §§ 216-82, 22   July 2021; and Juszczyszyn v. Poland , no. 35599/20, §§ 192-211, 6   October 2022)?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of both sets of disciplinary proceedings brought against him? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? Question concerning the length of the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant:   4.     Was the length of both sets of disciplinary proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?