fourth section decision the facts

Transcription

FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 15189/10
Adam CICHOPEK against Poland
and 1,627 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting
on 14 May 2013 as a Chamber composed of:
Ineta Ziemele, President,
Päivi Hirvelä,
George Nicolaou,
Ledi Bianku,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Faris Vehabović, judges,
and Francoişe Elens-Passos, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the applications listed on the appendix,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. A list of all the applicants is set out in the appendix.
A. Background
2. The so-called “public security authorities” (“aparat bezpieczeństwa
publicznego” or “organy bezpieczeństwa publicznego), i.e. a Polish
communist secret police apparatus, operated in 1944-1990.
2
CICHOPEK v. POLAND AND OTHER APPLICATIONS DECISION
The apparatus, which was reshaped several times, consisted of different
services and institutions, comprising the political police and special armed
forces. It was patterned on the NKVD (Народный комиссариат
внутренних дел/Narodnyy Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del, i.e. the Soviet
People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs) and the KGB (Комитет
государственной безопасности/Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti,
i.e. the Committee for State Security) and established (under the supervision
of the NKVD) in 1944 with a view to securing Communist rule and
combating, suppressing and eliminating groups of political opposition,
including the post-war underground resistance against Communism and the
Polish Church. In the 1950s these organs were in charge of prisons and
labour camps; at that time, they were also competent to conduct criminal
investigations under the rules of criminal procedure (see Domalewski
v. Poland (dec.), no. 4610/97, ECHR 1999-V).
From 1956 onwards, when the level and nature of repression changed,
their tasks involved in the protection of the communist system included,
among other things, the control and infiltration of Polish society secured by
its own members and through a system of paid or unpaid informers and
secret collaborators, denunciation, monitoring of persons in, or cooperating
with, the opposition, political opponents, priests and other persons
suspected of being in any way associated with anti-communist ideas or
critical of the communist party’s programme, its role and members
3. The general information concerning the public security service
published on the official website of the Institute of the National
Remembrance - Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the
Polish Nation (Instytut Pamięci Narodowej – Komisja Ścigania Zbrodni
przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu – “the IPN”)1 reads, in so far as relevant, as
follows:
“Since 1944 until 1990 the functionaries of the security services constituted “the
armed arm of the communist party”. The main goal of the services was to protect the
communists from society and to eliminate opposition.
...
First, the Security Services operated within the Ministry of Public Security which
was created in summer 1944. The executive staff of the Ministry had been trained in
NKVD school in Kuibyshev (USSR). Apart from the central office, the ‘soviet
1. www.ipn.gov.pl; The IPN’s mission is described on its website as follows: “The
Institute of National Remembrance was created to address issues which are considered
essential to the legislative power in Poland, primarily to preserve the memory of: the losses
which were suffered by the Polish Nation as a result of World War II and the post-war
period; patriotic traditions of fighting against occupants, Nazism and Communism;
citizens' efforts to fight for an independent Polish State, in defence of freedom and human
dignity; and to fulfil: the duty to prosecute crimes against peace, humanity and war crimes;
the need to compensate damage suffered by the repressed and harmed people at the times
when human rights were violated by the State”.
3
advisers’ were sent to all newly-created regional Offices of Public Security
throughout Poland.
The official activity of the Ministry of Public Security started on 1 January 1945 and
its wide range of power was not limited by law. The Ministry focused on achieving
goals set by the Polish Workers’ Party (PPR) [Polska Partia Robotnicza] and later the
Polish United Workers’ Party (PZPR) [Polska Zjednoczona Partia Robotnicza]. At
the peak of its expansion in 1953 there were 33,000 functionaries working within the
ministry structures. Additionally, a network of 73,000 informers (in the mid 1950s)
collaborated with the ministry. The informers were recruited by means of brutal
intimidation or promises of financial gain. Nevertheless, some of the informers,
especially members of the communist party, volunteered for the work.
Offices of Public Security and their informants kept under surveillance the political
parties, national and local public administration, social and religious organisations,
factory workers and, in general, social attitudes. One third of adult Poles were
registered in the ministry’s files because they constituted ‘a dubious element’.
In 1954 the Ministry of Public Security was replaced by the Ministry of Interior
Affairs (MSW) and the Committee of Public Security Affairs. In 1956 the Committee
was disbanded and its competences and staff transferred to the Ministry of [the]
Interior ....
The Security Service (SB) operated in Poland between 1956 and 1990. The fall of
the communist system in Poland in 1989 brought an end to the existence of this
political police and organ of terror, which was hostile to Polish society throughout its
existence. ...”
4. The Security Service operated through the following main structures:
Department I (for intelligence), Department II (for counter-intelligence);
Department III (for anti-State activities against the country in the sphere of
ideology, culture and education; the tasks involved, inter alia, infiltration of
artistic, intellectual, academic, journalist and similar circles, finding secret
collaborators within those groups as well as monitoring of targeted persons),
Department IV (church and religious associations; the tasks involved
infiltration of targeted groups, monitoring etc.), Department V (for
protection of industry and anti-State activities in industry and within
workers unions and circles), the Office of Foreign Passports (Biuro
Paszportów), the so-called Bureau "A" (cipher); Bureau "B" (observation)
and Bureau "W" (oversight of correspondence), Bureau “T” (operational
techniques). The subordinate units at local level had departments organised
in the same way. In 1983-1990 they were organised in regional
(wojewódzkie) and district (rejonowe) offices for internal affairs (urzędy
spraw wewnętrznych).
5. Following the fall of Communism in Poland, the Security Service was
dissolved by virtue of the law of 6 Apri1 1990 on the Office for State
Protection (ustawa o Urzędzie Ochrony Państwa) (“the 1990 Act”), a new
body responsible for intelligence and counter-intelligence. At that time the
Security Service comprised around 30,000 persons, including some
4
24,000 functionaries. They could be re-employed by the Office for State
Protection on condition that they successfully passed a vetting procedure,
which some 14,000 officers underwent. 10,439 persons were eventually
found suitable for re-employment and 3,595 were vetted negatively and not
retained (see also paragraphs 57-62 below).
6. On 23 January 2009 Parliament enacted the Act on amendments to the
law on old-age pensions of professional soldiers and their families and to
the law on old-age pensions of functionaries of the police, the Internal
Security Agency, the Intelligence Agency, the Military Counter-Intelligence
Service the Military Intelligence Service, the Central Anti-Corruption
Bureau, the Border Guard, the Government Protection Bureau, the State
Fire Service, the Prison Service and their families (ustawa o zmianie ustawy
o zaopatrzeniu emerytalnym żołnierzy zawodowych oraz ich rodzin oraz
ustawy o zaopatrzeniu emerytalnym funkcjonariuszy Policji, Agencji
Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego, Agencji Wywiadu, Służby Kontrwywiadu
Wojskowego, Służby Wywiadu Wojskowego, Centralnego Biura
Antykorupcyjnego, Straży Granicznej, Biura Ochrony Rządu, Państwowej
Straży Pożarnej i Służby Więziennej oraz ich rodzin – “the 2009 Act”). The
2009 Act, which entered into force on 16 March 2009, introduced new rules
for the calculation of the pensions of former functionaries of the State
security service into the law of 18 February 1994 on old-age pensions of
functionaries of the police, the Internal Security Agency, the Intelligence
Agency, the Military Counter-Intelligence Service, the Military Intelligence
Service, the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau, the Border Guard, the
Government Protection Bureau, the State Fire Service, the Prison Service
and their families (ustawa o zaopatrzeniu emerytalnym funkcjonariuszy
Policji, Agencji Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego, Agencji Wywiadu, Służby
Kontrwywiadu Wojskowego, Służby Wywiadu Wojskowego, Centralnego
Biura Antykorupcyjnego, Straży Granicznej, Biura Ochrony Rządu,
Państwowej Straży Pożarnej i Służby Więziennej oraz ich rodzin –
“the 1994 Act”). In particular, one of the coefficients relevant for the
calculation of pensions of former functionaries was lowered from 2.6% to
0.70% for each year of service with the former communist State security
authorities in the period from 1944 to 1990 (see also paragraphs 68-72
below).
For the purposes of the 2009 Act, the State security authorities are those
listed in the law of 18 October 2006 on the disclosure of information of
documents of the State security authorities in the years 1944-1990 and the
content of such documents (ustawa o ujawnianiu informacji o dokumentach
organów bezpieczeństwa państwa z lat 1944-1990 oraz treści tych
dokumentów – “the 2006 Act” (see also paragraphs 66-67 below).
5
B. The circumstances of the cases
7. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be
summarised as follows.
1. Cichopek v. Poland (no. 15189/10)
8. The applicant, Mr Adam Cichopek, is a Polish national who was born
in 1943. He lives in Chrzanów.
9. From 1969 to 1990 the applicant served in the Security Service,
holding various posts. Starting as an operational inspector in 1969, he was
promoted to the post of Deputy Commandant of the District Office for
Internal Affairs (Rejonowy Urząd Spraw Wewnętrznych) responsible for the
Security Service. In 1990, on his dismissal from service, he held the rank of
major.
10. On 4 November 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the
Ministry of the Interior and Administration (Dyrektor Zakładu EmerytalnoRentowego Ministerstwa Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji), pursuant to
section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and
on the basis of information received from the IPN (see also paragraphs 70-72
below), issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant’s pension,
whereby his benefit was reduced from 3,038.38 Polish zlotys (PLN) to
PLN 1,652.60 monthly. According to the applicant, after taxation, the net
amount of his current pension was PLN 1,380.87.
11. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision with the
Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division (Sąd Okręgowy –
Wydział Ubezpieczeń Społecznych). He sought to have his previous pension
restored, submitting that the impugned decision was based on legal
provisions which were incompatible with Articles 2, 10, 31 § 3 and 31 of
the Constitution (see also paragraphs 77-84 below) and that it had been
contrary to international law.
12. On 23 April 2012 the Regional Court dismissed his appeal as
unfounded. Relying on the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 24 February
2010, whereby a challenge to the constitutionality of the 2009 Act had
meanwhile been examined and rejected (see also paragraphs 85-106 below),
the court held that the relevant provisions of the 2009 Act had been applied
correctly in the applicant’s case.
13. The applicant lodged an appeal on 1 June 2012. According to the
most recent information supplied by the applicant on 31 December 2012,
the proceedings were still pending before the Warsaw Court of Appeal
(Sąd Apelacyjny) and no hearing date had yet been set.
2. Romański and Others v. Poland (no. 24434/10)
14. The application was lodged by eleven Polish nationals: Mr Janusz
Romański (“the first applicant”) was born in 1937, Mr Andrzej Gomuliński
6
(“the second applicant”) was born in 1943, Ms Barbara Gomulińska (“the
third applicant”) was born in 1944, Ms Janina Męcik (“the fourth
applicant”) was born in 1942, Ms Danuta Makuch (“the fifth applicant”)
was born in 1945, Mr Lech Męcik (“the sixth applicant”) was born in 1938,
Ms Wanda Wacławik (“the seventh applicant”) was born in 1942,
Ms Stanisława Fortuna (“the eighth applicant”) was born in 1931,
Ms Elżbieta Duda (“the ninth applicant”) was born in 1941, Ms Wiesława
Giera (“the tenth applicant”) was born in 1936 and Ms Wiesława
Przewrocka (“the eleventh applicant”) was born in 1946. The applicants,
except for the fourth applicant who lives in Mysiadło, live in Warsaw. In the
proceedings before the Court they were represented by Ms M. Gąsiorowska,
a lawyer practising in Warsaw.
15. Except for the first applicant who was positively vetted in 1990, the
remaining applicants were not subjected to the vetting procedure (see also
paragraph 5 above and paragraphs 57-62 below).
Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in
conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of
information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment
of the first applicant’s pension, whereby his benefit was reduced from
PLN 2,365.95 (gross) to PLN 1,676.76 monthly. After taxation, the net
amount of his current pension was PLN 1,399.85.
17. Similar decisions reducing their pensions were issued in respect of
the remaining applicants:
– on 22 October 2009 the second applicant’s benefit was reduced from
PLN 3,273. 85 (gross) to PLN 1,411.68 (gross). After taxation, the net
amount of his current pension was PLN 1,186.63;
– on 29 October 2009 the third applicant’s retirement pension was
reduced to PLN 1,370.97 (gross)/PLN 1,308,97 (net); the applicant failed to
indicate the previous amount. However, at the same time, payment of this
benefit was suspended because she had also the right to a disability pension,
which was more advantageous. The amount of her current disability pension
was PLN 1,563.70;
– on 9 November 2009 the fourth applicant’s retirement pension was
reduced to PLN 1,500.88 (gross); the applicant failed to indicate the
previous amount. However, at the same time, payment of this benefit was
suspended because she had also the right to a disability pension, which was
more advantageous. The amount of her current disability pension was
PLN 1,512.99 (gross);
– on 16 October 2009 the fifth applicant’s benefit was reduced to
PLN 1,063.69 (gross)/PLN 904.93 (net); the applicant failed to indicate the
previous amount;
– on 9 November 2009 the sixth applicant’s benefit was reduced from
PLN 3,895.61(gross) to PLN 2,892.73 (gross);
7
– on 3 November 2009 the seventh applicant’s benefit was reduced from
PLN 2,478.47 (net) to PLN 1,766.51 (gross)/PLN 1,472.52 (net);
– on 13 October 2009 the eight applicant’s benefit was reduced to
PLN 1,429.74 (gross); the applicant failed to indicate the previous amount;
– on 27 October 2009 the ninth applicant’s retirement pension was
reduced from PLN 2,689.44 to PLN 1,243.87 but, at the same time,
payment of this benefit was suspended because she had also the right to a
disability pension, which was more advantageous. The amount of her
current disability pension was PLN 1,344.72;
– on 19 October 2009 the tenth applicant’s old-age pension was reduced
from PLN 2,407.22 to PLN 1,687.11;
– on 2 December 2009 the eleventh applicant’s old-age pension was
reduced from PLN 1,671.45 to PLN 1,002.79.
18. The applicants on various dates appealed to the Warsaw Regional
Court – Social Security Division, submitting in essence that the social
security authority had misinterpreted the provisions of the 2009 Act and that
the impugned decisions were unlawful and contrary to the Constitution and
international treaties ratified by Poland. In particular, they relied on Articles
2, 8, 10 30 and 32 of the Constitution, asserting that the legislature had
overstepped its competence because it had imposed collective punishment
on them, that it had failed to respect the principle of protection of acquired
rights and that they were discriminated against on account of their service in
the State security authorities. They also invoked Articles 6, 7, 13 and 14 of
the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
19. The applicants have not informed the Court about the outcome of the
appeal proceedings, except for the second applicant who produced a copy of
the Supreme Court’s decision of 23 November 2012, refusing to entertain
his cassation appeal against the judgment of the Warsaw Court of Appeal. It
emerges from that decision that the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the
applicant’s appeal against the pension decision on 16 May 2011 and that his
appeal against that judgment was dismissed by the Warsaw Court of Appeal
on 12 January 2012.
3. Giętkowska v. Poland (no. 34213/12)
20. The applicant, Ms Ewa Giętkowska, is a Polish national born in
1954 and living in Serock. In the proceedings before the Court she was
represented by Mr S. Pikulski, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.
21. From 16 July 1984 to 1 October 1989 the applicant was employed in
the Office of Foreign Passports of the Warsaw District Headquarters of the
Civic Militia. From 2 October 1989 to 15 July 2003 she was a policewoman
in the Warsaw-Ochota District Police Headquarters and then in the WarsawCity District Police Headquarters. She worked in the Investigation
Department and the Homicide Department. The applicant retired on 15 July
2003.
8
22. On 19 October 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the
of the applicant’s pension, whereby her benefit was reduced from
PLN 3,010 to PLN 2,462.95 monthly. That meant that instead of receiving
as before 78.84% of her pension’s basis of assessment, she received 52.80%
of that amount.
23. On 12 November 2009 the applicant appealed to the Warsaw
Regional Court – Social Security Division. The court dismissed her appeal
on 7 January 2011. The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment. On
7 July 2011 the Warsaw Court of Appeal rejected the appeal.
24. On 10 October 2011 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal (skarga
kasacyjna). The Court of Appeal rejected it as inadmissible on 17 October
2011. The applicant’s further interlocutory appeal (zażalenie) against that
decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 3 February 2012.
4. Poniecki v. Poland (no. 57285/12)
25. The applicant is a Polish national, born in 1954 and living in Łódź.
In the proceedings before the Court he was represented by Mr T. Srogosz, a
lawyer practising in Częstochowa.
26. From 16 April 1976 to 30 May 1999 the applicant was a functionary
of the Civic Militia and, after having been positively vetted in 1990, of the
Police (Policja). He began his career from a clerk in the field of operational
techniques (referent techniki operacyjnej) in the Office of Foreign Passports
and, until 31 July 1990, he held various posts in units of Bureau “B” and
Bureau “T” of the Security Service (see also paragraph 4 above). In
June-September 1982 the applicant participated in a special course for the
Security Service. In 1983-1986 he followed extramural studies at the
Legionowo Officer Academy of the Ministry of the Interior (Wyższa Szkoła
Oficerska Ministerstwa Spraw Wewnętrznych), an academy which trained
officers for the Security Service.
27. On 1 June 1999 the applicant retired and was granted the right to an
old-age pension corresponding to 63.19% of its basis of assessment.
of the applicant’s pension, whereby his benefit was reduced from
PLN 3,318.51 gross to PLN 2,549.03 gross monthly.
29. In a subsequent decision, issued on 17 December 2009, the
applicant’s pension was assessed at PLN 2,549.03 gross and PLN 2,104.62
net.
9
30. The applicant appealed against both decisions to the Warsaw
Regional Court – Social Security Division. He argued, among other things,
that they were in breach of the constitutional principles of
non-discrimination, protection of acquired rights and presumption of
innocence, and also incompatible with Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
The court, noting that from 8 January 1978 to 31 July 1990 the applicant
had been a functionary of the Security Service, which justified the
application of the 2009 Act, and having regard to the Constitutional Court’s
judgment of 24 February 2010 (see paragraphs 91-106 below), rejected the
appeal on 15 July 2011. The judgment, following the applicant’s further
appeal, was upheld by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 5 April 2012. The
court stressed that the amount of the applicant’s benefit – even after the
reduction – remained higher that the average old-age pension under the
general social security scheme.
5. Przybylski v. Poland (no. 32251/10)
31. The applicant is a Polish national born in 1948 and living in Poznań.
In the proceedings before the Court he was represented by Mr P. Sowisło, a
lawyer practising in Poznań.
32. The applicant was a functionary of the Security Service from
16 December 1973 to 31 March 1990. On the latter date he retired.
PLN 2,163.42 to PLN 1,537.78 monthly.
34. The applicant appealed to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social
Security Division, arguing that the provisions of the 2009 Act on which the
impugned decision was based were unconstitutional. In particular, he
alleged a breach of the principles of the protection of acquired rights, the
separation and balance of powers, proportionality, equality before the law
and non-discrimination.
On 18 April 2011 the Regional Court, relying on the Constitutional
Court’s judgment of 24 February 2010, dismissed the appeal. The applicant
appealed.
On 22 February 2012 the Warsaw Court of Appeal heard the appeal and
partly amended the first-instance judgment, holding that in respect of the
period from 1 October 1975 to 1 August 1978, during which the applicant
had studied at the Legionowo Officer Academy of the Ministry of the
Interior, the relevant coefficient for the pension’s basis of assessment should
be 2.6%, not 0.7%.
10
The applicant has not informed the Court of the current, increased
amount of his old-age pension.
6. Weber v. Poland (no. 12248/11)
35. The applicant is a Polish national, born in 1949 and living in
Warsaw. In the proceedings before the Court the applicant was represented
by Mr D. Sucholewski, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.
6 December 1976 to 31 July 1990.
On 16 May 1990 the Vetting Commission for Central Personnel gave a
positive opinion on the applicant’s suitability for re-employment in the new
state security institutions (see also paragraph 5 above and paragraphs 57-62
below). She continued service in the Office for State Protection until
30 June 1998, when she retired.
of the applicant’s pension, whereby her benefit was reduced from
38. On 24 November 2009 the applicant appealed to the Warsaw
Regional Court – Social Security Division, maintaining that the provisions
of the 2009 Act on which the impugned decision was based were
unconstitutional. In particular, she alleged a breach of the principles of the
protection of acquired rights, the separation and balance of powers,
proportionality, equality before the law and non-discrimination. She has not
informed the Court of the outcome of the proceedings.
7. Czajka v. Poland (no. 58207/11)
39. The applicant is a Polish national born in 1934 and living in
Suwałki. In the proceedings before the Court he was represented by
Ms B. Świątkiewicz, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.
40. The applicant was a functionary of the Security Service from 1 May
1960 to an unspecified date in 1990. He held various posts, beginning his
career as an operational inspector. On the termination of service he held the
rank of lieutenant colonel. The applicant was granted the right to a disability
pension on 30 April 1990. He did not undergo the vetting procedure.
41. On 26 October 2009 and 17 December 2009 the Director of the
Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration,
pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the
1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a
decision on the re-assessment of the applicant’s pension, whereby his
11
benefit was reduced from PLN 4,365.30 to PLN 2,183.96 gross
(1,982.50 net) monthly.
42. The applicant appealed against both decisions to the Warsaw
Regional Court – Social Security Division, arguing that the provisions of
the 2009 Act on which the impugned decision was based were
unconstitutional. In particular, he alleged a breach of the principles of the
protection of acquired rights, the separation and balance of powers,
proportionality, equality before the law, non-discrimination and the right to
social security. He submitted that the 2009 Act imposed collective
punishment on former functionaries of the Security Service and that they
were refused the right to a hearing and could not defend themselves against
charges of a criminal nature laid against them in the preamble to that Act.
The applicant also invoked Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention and Article 1
of Protocol No.1 to the Convention.
On 30 May 2011 the Regional Court, relying on the Constitutional
Court’s judgment of 24 February 2010 (see paragraphs 91-106 below)
dismissed the appeal. The applicant appealed to the Warsaw Court of
Appeal. He has not informed the Court of the outcome of the proceedings.
8. Kosiorek v. Poland (no. 44980/12)
43. The applicant is a Polish national, born in 1950 and living in
Rogoźnik. In the proceedings before the Court she was represented by
Ms A. K. Wojcieszuk-Kwiatkowska, a lawyer practising in Katowice.
1 January 1970 to 31 May 1987. She held various posts, starting her career
as a typist in the Investigation Department of the Katowice Security Service.
On the termination of her service, she was a senior clerk in the field of
operational techniques. She retired on 23 June 1987.
of the applicant’s pension, whereby her benefit was reduced from 52% to
31.15% of the pension’s basis of assessment. This corresponded to
PLN 862,70 monthly.
Security Division, maintaining that the provisions of the 2009 Act on which
the impugned decision was based were unconstitutional and in breach of the
Convention.
On 25 May 2011 the Regional Court, relying on the Constitutional
Court’s judgment of 24 February 2010 (see paragraphs 91-106 below),
dismissed the appeal. The applicant’s appeal against the judgment was
heard, and rejected, by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 15 March 2012.
12
9. Aleksiuk v. Poland (no. 22543/12)
47. The applicant is a Polish national born in 1946 and living in
Hajnówka. In the proceedings before the Court he was represented by
Ms Z. Daniszewska-Dek, a lawyer practising in Białystok.
1 November 1970 to 1 September 1975 and from 1 August 1978 to
1 January 1990.
Security Division, maintaining that the provisions of the 2009 Act on which
the impugned decision was based were unconstitutional, that that Act of
itself was a form of political repression and revenge based on collective
responsibility and that it was in breach of the Convention. He alleged, in
particular, a violation of the constitutional principles of the protection of
acquired rights, the separation and balance of powers, proportionality,
equality before the law and non-discrimination and also invoked Articles 1
and 14 of the Convention.
On 4 May 2011 the Regional Court, relying on the Constitutional Court’s
judgment of 24 February 2010 (see paragraphs 91-106 below), dismissed
the appeal. The Warsaw Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal
against the first-instance judgment on 15 October 2011.
10. Wyszomirska and Others v. Poland (no. 62131/10)
51. The application was lodged by 15 Polish nationals: Ms Renata
Wyszomirska (“the first applicant), born in 1946; Ms Ewa Linowska (“the
second applicant”), born in 1958, Ms Grażyna Piasny (“the third
applicant”), born in 1957; Ms Anna Kończak (“the fourth applicant”), born
in 1947, Ms Katarzyna Pilarska (“the fifth applicant”), born in 1935,
Ms Ewa Kamińska (“the sixth applicant”), born in 1957; Ms Urszula
Kaczorowska (“the seventh applicant”) born in 1944; Mr Zbigniew
Wyszomirski (“the eight applicant”) born in 1943; Mr Mariusz Klauzo (“the
ninth applicant”), born in 1940; Mr Sławomir Kazimierz Tokarski (“the
tenth applicant”) born in 1943; Mr Juliusz Kowalski (“the eleventh
applicant”) born in 1950; Mr Stanisław Laskowski (“the twelfth applicant”),
born in 1946; Ms Halina Czapska (“the thirteenth applicant”) born in 1961;
Ms Ewa Stępniewska (“the fourteenth applicant”) born in 1957 and
Ms Teresa Pieńkowska (“the fifteenth applicant”) born in 1951. The
applicants, except for the seventh and the twelfth applicants who reside in
13
Legionowo, live in Warsaw. In the proceedings before the Court they were
represented by Ms M. Gąsiorowska, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.
of the first applicant’s pension, whereby her benefit was reduced from
PLN 2,015.53 (net) to PLN 1,780.46 (gross)/ PLN 1,484.22 (net) monthly.
53. Similar decisions were issued in respect of the remaining applicants:
– on 12 October 2009 the second applicant’s benefit was reduced to
PLN 3,072.16 (gross)/PLN 2,526.67 (net); the pension’s basis of assessment
was reduced from 75% to 52.94%. Pursuant to an indexation decision of
12 March 2010, the applicant’s pension was fixed at PLN 2,689.41 (net).
The applicant has failed to specify the amount before the decrease but an
indexation decision of 4 May 2009, which she produced, stated that her
pension was fixed at PLN 3,560.62 (net).
– on 26 February 2010 the third applicant’s benefit was reduced to
PLN 3,103.40 (net); she has failed to specify the amount before the
decrease. On 16 June 2010 her old-age pension was lowered to
PLN 2,455.04 (net) due to the fact that she was in paid employment, which
justified a statutory reduction of her social security benefits;
– on 28 October 2009 the fourth applicant’s benefit was reduced from
PLN 1,669.85 (net) to PLN 1,100.97 (gross)/PLN 934.88 (net);
– on 23 October 2009 the fifth applicant’s benefit was reduced to
PLN 944.38 (gross)/PLN 809.39 (net). The applicant has failed to specify
the amount before the decrease;
– on 12 October 2009 the sixth applicant’s benefit was reduced from
4,341.31 (gross) to PLN 3,261.77 (gross); the pension’s basis of assessment
was reduced from 75% to 56.35% ;
– on 24 November 2009 the seventh applicant’s benefit was reduced
from PLN 2,368.61(gross) to PLN 1,344.31 (gross);
– on 28 October 2009 the eighth applicant’s benefit was reduced to
PLN 1,805.61 (gross); according to the applicant, his pension’s basis of
assessment was reduced from 75% to 43.53%. He has not specified clearly
the amount before the decrease but an indexation decision of 27 February
2009, which he submitted, stated that the net amount of his pension was
fixed at PLN 2,557.98 (net) in 2009. In his case, the social security authority
issued three decisions: the first of 28 October 2009 (described above), the
second of 17 December 2009 specifying the gross (PLN 1,805.61) and net
(PLN 1,504.11) amounts of his pension and the third (indexation decision)
of 26 February 2010 fixing his pension at PLN 1,699.94 (net);
– on 15 October 2009 the ninth applicant’s benefit was reduced from
PLN 2,698.19 (net) to PLN 1,596.77 (gross)/PLN 1,336.06 (net) ;
14
– on 8 October 2009 the tenth applicant’s benefit was reduced from
PLN 3,504.73(gross) to PLN 2,245.65 (gross);
– on 4 November 2009 the eleventh applicant’s benefit was reduced to
PLN 1,703.78 (gross). The applicant has failed to state clearly the amount
before the decrease but an indexation decision of 27 February 2009, which
he submitted, indicated that for 2009 his pension was increased to
PLN 1,952.69 (gross)/PLN 1,622.95 (net). Subsequently, by an indexation
decision of 26 February 2010, the applicant’s gross pension of
PLN 1,782.50 was reduced by PLN 1,336.87 due to the fact that he was in
paid employment, which justified a statutory reduction of his old-age
benefits. In consequence, the applicant’s pension was fixed at PLN 1,125.55
(net) for 2010.
– on 23 September 2009 the twelfth applicant’s benefit was reduced
from PLN 2,321.01 (net) to PLN 1,765.00 (gross)/PLN 1,471.15 (net);
– on 9 October 2009 the thirteenth applicant’s benefit was reduced to
PLN 1,742.45 (gross)/PLN 1,453.63; the pension’s basis of assessment was
reduced from 45.75% to 35.46%. The applicant has failed to state clearly
the amount before the decrease but an indexation decision of 27 February
2009, which she submitted, indicated that her pension was fixed at
PLN 2,258.40 (gross)/PLN 1,870.14 (net) for 2009;
– on 13 October 2009 the fourteenth applicant’s benefit was reduced to
PLN 1,450.51 (gross)/PLN 1,217.96 (net); the pension’s basis of assessment
was reduced from 55.19% to 42.52%. The applicant has failed to state
clearly the amount before the decrease;
– on 19 October 2009 the fifteenth applicant’s benefit was reduced from
PLN 3,418.28 (gross)/PLN 2,806.63 (net) to PLN 2,954.31 (gross)/
PLN 2,432.42 (net).
54. The applicants, on various dates, appealed to the Warsaw Regional
Court – Social Security Division, submitting in essence that the social
security authority had misinterpreted the provisions of the 2009 Act and that
the impugned decisions were unlawful and contrary to the Constitution and
international treaties ratified by Poland. In particular, they relied on
Articles 2, 8, 10, 30 and 32 of the Constitution, asserting that the legislature
had overstepped its competence because it had imposed collective
punishment on them, that it had failed to respect the principle of protection
of acquired rights and that they were discriminated against on account of
their service with the State security authorities. They also invoked
Articles 6, 7, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to
the Convention.
The applicants have not informed the Court about the outcome of the
appeal proceedings.
15
11. Remaining cases listed in the appendix
55. In the remaining 1,618 cases the applicants, on various dates
between September and December 2009, received similar decisions
reducing their pensions with effect from 1 January 2010 issued by the
Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and
Administration. As in the cases described above, those decisions were based
on section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act
and information on their employment in the State security authorities
received from the IPN.
56. Most applicants contested – unsuccessfully – the decisions before
the Warsaw Regional Court. The court, rejecting their appeals, relied on the
same grounds as those cited above. Subsequently, the vast majority of the
applicants lodged appeals with the Warsaw Court of Appeal. The appeals,
except for a few cases where certain parts of the first-instance judgments
relating to technical points or mistakes in the calculations were amended,
were dismissed (see also paragraphs 12, 30, 34, 42, 46 and 50 above).
Certain applicants have failed to inform the Court of the outcome of the
appeal proceedings and, as it emerges from the material in the Court’s
possession, some cases are still pending before the domestic courts.
C. Relevant domestic law and practice
1. Vetting procedure for former functionaries of the Security Service
(a) The 1990 Act
57. The 1990 Act entered into force on 10 May 1990. It was repealed on
29 June 2002 and replaced by the law of 24 May 2002 on the Internal
Security Agency and the Intelligence Agency (ustawa o Agencji
Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego oraz Agencji Wywiadu).
Section 129(1) of the 1990 Act read:
“The Security Service shall be dissolved once the Office for State Protection has
been set up.”
Section 131 read:
“1. Once the Office for State Protection has been set up, functionaries of the
Security Service shall be dismissed from the service by virtue of law.
2. The [preceding] provision shall also apply to functionaries of the Civil Militia
(Milicja Obywatelska) who were functionaries of the Security Service on 31 July
1989.”
58. Pursuant to section 132 § 2, the Cabinet was to determine, within ten
days following the 1990 Act’s entry into force, the procedure and conditions
for admission to service and re-employment of former functionaries of the
16
Security Service. On 21 May 1990 the Cabinet issued Resolution 69 on the
procedure and conditions for admitting functionaries of the Security Service
to service in the Office for State Protection and other organisational units
under the Minister of the Interior, and on their employment in the Ministry
of the Interior (uchwała w sprawie trybu i warunków przyjmowania byłych
funkcjonariuszy Służby Bezpieczeństwa do służby w Urzędzie Ochrony
Państwa i w innych jednostkach organizacyjnych podległych Ministrowi
Spraw Wewnętrznych oraz zatrudniania ich w Ministerstwie Spraw
Wewnętrznych – “the 1990 Resolution”).
59. Under section 133 of the 1990 Act, functionaries of the former
Security Service and Civic Militia who were admitted to service or reemployed in organisational units under the Minister of the Interior preserved
continuity of their service or employment.
(b) The 1990 Resolution
60. The 1990 Resolution (which was repealed on 30 March 2001) set up
the Vetting Commission for Central Personnel (Komisja Kwalifikacyjna do
Spraw Kadr Centralnych) and regional vetting commissions (wojewódzkie
komisje kwalifikacyjne). Pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 6, the regional vetting
commissions instituted a procedure on an application from a former
functionary and gave opinions on candidates. The Vetting Commission for
Central Personnel was responsible for the supervision of the process,
handling appeals against the regional commissions’ opinions and reporting
on the conduct of vetting proceedings to the Cabinet.
61. Pursuant to paragraph 7.1, a regional vetting commission evaluated
the usefulness of a candidate for service on the basis of his application,
personal files, records of service and other documents supplied. It could
also, of its own motion or at the candidate’s request, conduct an interview.
62. Paragraph 8.1 of the 1990 Resolution read as follows:
“A regional vetting commission shall give a positive opinion on a candidate if it is
satisfied that he meets the requirements for a functionary of a given service or for an
employee of the Ministry of the Interior specified by law and if it is convinced that he
has moral standing (kwalifikacje moralne) to perform service, in particular:
1) in the course of his service he has not infringed the law;
2) he has performed his duties in a manner not infringing the rights and dignity of
other persons;
3) he has not used his function for unofficial purposes.”
17
2. The 1994 Act
63. Section 13 of the 1994 Act in the version applicable until 15 March
2009, before the entry into force of the 2009 Act (see paragraph 6 above),
read as follows:
“1. The following types of service shall be treated as equivalent to service in the
police, the Office for State Protection, the Border Guard, the State Fire Service or the
Prison Service:
1) service performed as a functionary of the national police, the State security
service, public order and national security authorities, other than service referred to in
subsection 2;
2) military service relevant for the determination of the right to a military pension;
3) service performed as a functionary of the Rail Security Guard (Służba Ochrony
Kolei) if [the person concerned] was transferred directly to service in the Civic Militia
or the Prison Service before 1 April 1955;
4) employment or service in professional units for fire protection and education in
firefighter schools, as a member of the Fire Service Technical Corps, or as a
functionary of the Fire Service before 31 January 1992.
2. Subsection 1 shall not apply to service performed between 1944 and 1956 as a
functionary of the State security service, public order and national security authorities
if, in the course of performing his duties, a functionary committed an offence against
justice or [offence] infringing the personal rights of a citizen and, in consequence, was
dismissed from service in disciplinary proceedings or if criminal proceedings against
him were discontinued in view of the minimal degree of social danger of his act, or if
he was convicted for an intentional offence by a final judgment of a court.”
64. Section 15(1) of the 1994 Act, in the version applicable until
16 March 2009, read, in so far as relevant:
“The retirement pension of a functionary who remained in service before 2 January
1999 shall amount to 40% of its basis of assessment2 for the first fifteen years of
service and shall be increased by:
1) 2.6% of the basis of assessment – for each subsequent year of service;
2) 2.6% of the basis of assessment – for each year of contributory periods preceding
service but not for more than three years from those contributory periods;
3) 1.3% of the basis of assessment – for each year of contributory periods over and
above the three year contributory period referred to in subsection 2;
4) 0.7% of the basis of assessment – for each non-contributory year preceding
service.”
2. The “basis of assessment of a pension” (podstawa wymiaru emerytury) is an income
which constitutes a reference base for calculating pension contributions.
18
65. Under the 1994 Act and previous uniformed services pension laws a
professional soldier and a functionary of a uniformed service were entitled
to a retirement pension after 15 years of service. Accordingly, a condition
for the acquisition of pension rights was the requisite period of service, not
the reaching of a certain age. The right to a retirement pension under the
uniformed services pension scheme as applicable in the past and currently
was not linked with the requirement to pay contributions by the person
concerned since those pensions were financed from State funds.
3. Definition of “State security authorities” under the 2006 Act
66. The preamble to the 2006 Act reads as follows:
“We hereby recognise that employment or service in the security authorities of the
Communist state, or assistance provided to those authorities by an informer,
consisting in combating democratic opposition, trade unions, associations, churches
and religious organisations, violations of the right to freedom of expression and
assembly, the right to life, liberty, property and security of citizens, was inextricably
linked with violations of human and civil rights committed in the name of the
Communist totalitarian regime.
Having regard to the foregoing and the need to ensure that functions, posts and
professions requiring public confidence are held by persons whose conduct shows,
and has showed in the past, their honesty, nobility, a sense of responsibility for their
words and acts, civil courage and integrity; also having regard to the constitutional
guarantees securing to citizens the right to information on persons who have held such
positions, have enacted as follows ...”
67. The relevant parts of section 2 of the 2006 Act read as follows:
“1. State security .... authorities, within the meaning of this Act, shall be:
1) the Department of Public Security of the Polish Committee of National
Liberation;
2) the Ministry of Public Security;
3) the Committee for Public Security;
4) organisational units subordinate to the authorities mentioned in points 1-3, in
particular the units of the Civic Militia in the period up to 14 December 1954;
5) central bodies of the Security Service of the Ministry of the Interior and their
subordinate local units in the regional, district, and equivalent Civic Militia
headquarters, as well as in the regional, district, and equivalent offices for internal
affairs;
6) the Academy of Internal Affairs;
7) the Reconnaissance Unit of the Border Defence Force;
19
8) the Main Board of the Internal Service of the military units of the Ministry of the
Interior and their subordinate sections;
9) the Military Information Corps;
10) the Military Internal Service;
11) Directorate II of the General Staff of the Polish Army;
12) other services of the Armed Forces providing operational intelligence or
conducting investigative activities, including those within various armed services and
branches and within military districts.
...
3. Within the meaning of this Act the State security service units shall be those
units of the Ministry of the Interior which were dissolved by virtue of law upon the
reorganisation of the Office for State Security, as well as their predecessors.”
4. The 2009 Act
68. The 2009 Act opens with a preamble, the relevant parts of which
read as follows:
“Recognising that the system of communist power was mainly based on a
widespread network of State security authorities, which essentially performed the
function of a political police, applying unlawful methods and infringing fundamental
human rights,
noting that crimes were committed against organisations and persons defending
independence and democracy and, at the same time, [their] perpetrators were
exempted from responsibility and escaped justice,
seeing that functionaries of the State security service performed their duties without
risking their health or life, taking advantage of various economic and legal privileges
in exchange for the preservation of the inhuman regime,
...
rewarding the conduct of those functionaries and citizens who, taking a huge risk,
took the side of freedom and the injured citizens,
being guided by the principle of social justice which does not permit toleration and
reward of lawlessness,
have enacted as follows ...”
69. Section 2 of the 2009 Act introduced a number of amendments to
section 13 of the 1994 Act (see paragraph 63 above).
Point 1) in subsection (1) was rephrased as follows:
“Periods of service as a functionary of the Office for State Protection”.
20
New points 1a) and 1b) were also added to subsection (1):
“1a. Periods of service as a functionary of the Civic Militia, except for service
referred to in subsection 2.
1b. Periods of service as a functionary of the State security service referred to in
section 2 of the [2006 Act] in accordance with the principles mentioned in section
15b, except for service described in subsection 2.”
70. Section 2 added a new section 13a to the 1994 Act. This provision,
in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“1. On a request from the relevant pension authority, [the IPN] shall prepare on the
basis of personal files in its possession information on the course of service of named
functionaries of the State security service referred to in section 2 of [the 2006 Act]
and shall transmit it to that authority within four months of receipt of the request.
...
4. Information on the course of service referred to in subsection 1 shall contain;
1) the functionary’s personal data ...
2) an indication of the periods of service in the State security service referred to in
section 2 of [the 2006 Act],
3) information whether documents in [the IPN] archives show that during that
period the functionary, without his superiors’ knowledge, cooperated and actively
supported persons or organisations acting for the Polish State’s independence.”
71. New section 15b was also added. It reads as follows:
“1. For a person who served in the State security authorities referred to in section 2
of [the 2006 Act] and who was in service before 2 January 1999, his pension shall
amount to:
1) 0.7% of its basis of assessment – for each year of service in the State security
authorities between 1944 and1990;
2) 2.6% of its basis of assessment – for each year of service or periods equivalent to
service referred to in section 13 (1) (1-1a) and (2-4).
2. Sections 14 and 15 shall apply accordingly.
3. At a [functionary’s] request, the full period of service in the State security service
can be added to the periods referred to in section 13(1) if he can show that before
1990, without his superiors’ knowledge, he cooperated with and actively supported
persons or organisations acting for the Polish State’s independence.
4. In the situation mentioned in subsection 3, evidence can comprise information
described in section 13 a (1) and, equally, other kinds of proof, in particular a criminal
conviction, even if not final, in connection with an activity, [undertaken] without his
superiors’ knowledge and consisting of cooperating with and actively supporting
21
persons or organisations acting for the Polish State’s independence when serving in
the State security service between 1944 and 1990.”
72. The relevant part of section 3 of the 2009 Act reads as follows:
“2. For persons in respect of whom information referred to in section 13a ... shows
that between 1944 and 1990 they worked in the State security service referred to in
section 2 of [the 2006 Act] and who on the date of entry into force of this Act receive
benefits accorded under [the 1994 Act], the relevant pension authority ... shall of its
own motion institute proceedings for the determination of the right to benefits and
their amounts. [An] appeal to a court against a decision of the pension authority shall
not stop the enforcement of that decision.
3. Payment of benefits determined in accordance with subsection ... (2) shall be
made with effect from 1 January 2010.”
5. Retirement pensions under the general social security scheme
73. The rules for the determination of retirement pensions under the
general social security scheme are laid down in the law of 17 December
1998 on pension benefits from the Social Insurance Fund (ustawa o
emeryturach i rentach z Funduszu Ubezpieczeń Społecznych).
The general system operates on the basis of two schemes, known as “the
old scheme” and “the new scheme”.
74. Under the old scheme, which applies essentially only to persons born
before 1 January 19493, the right to a retirement pension is generally
acquired by women aged 60 with at least a twenty-year contributory and/or
non-contributory period and men aged 65 years with at least a twenty-five
contributory and/or non-contributory period. A retirement pension amounts
to 24% of the so-called “base amount” (kwota bazowa) (i.e. 100% of the
average salary in Poland4 in the previous calendar year, reduced by
compulsory social insurance contributions deducted from the salary) + 1.3%
of the basis of assessment for each contributory year + 0.7% of the basis of
assessment for each non-contributory year. The basis of assessment is, to
simplify the rules, calculated with reference to the average salary (reduced
by social insurance contributions) received by the person concerned in ten
years selected from the last twenty years of employment or twenty years
chosen by the person concerned.
75. The new scheme is composed of the so called “three pillars”
(trzy filary).
The first pillar is managed by the Social Security Board, which is a
public institution and the second and the third pillars are managed by private
3. Pensions rights under the old scheme could also be acquired by persons born after this
date but before 1 January 1969 if they opted for the old scheme and would fulfil conditions
for being granted a pension by 31 December 2008.
4. For instance, in March 2012 the base amount was PLN 2,974.69.
22
institutions. The third pillar manages supplementary, private pension plans
based on voluntary contributions and is not relevant to the present cases.
In the first and second pillars social insurance contributions are
compulsory and the scheme applies to persons born after 31 December
19485. The right to a retirement pension is acquired by persons who have
reached the statutory retirement age (from 60 to 67 years for women and
from 65 years and five months to 67 years for men). The amount of a
retirement pension is the equivalent of the total amount of pension
contributions after indexation collected since 31 December 1998 and what is
known as “initial capital” (contributions collected before 1 January 1999)
after indexation, divided by the average life expectancy expressed in months
for a person whose age is the same as the retirement age of the person
concerned.
76. According to an official communiqué on the minimum statutory
pension, issued by the President of the Social Security Board on
16 November 2011 (published in the Official Gazette (Monitor Polski) of
2011 no. 15, item 162), in 2012 the minimum statutory pension was fixed at
728.18 Polish zlotys (PLN).
6. Relevant provisions of the Constitution
77. Article 2 of the Constitution states:
“The Republic of Poland shall be a democratic state ruled by law and implementing
the principles of social justice.”6
“1. The system of government of the Republic of Poland shall be based on the
separation of and balance between the legislative, executive and judicial powers.
2. Legislative power shall be vested in the Sejm7 and the Senate, executive power
shall be vested in the President of the Republic of Poland and the Council of
Ministers, and judicial power shall be vested in courts and tribunals.”
“Marriage, being a union of a man and a woman, as well as the family, motherhood
and parenthood, shall be placed under the protection and care of the Republic of
Poland.”
“The inherent and inalienable dignity of the person shall constitute a source of
freedoms and rights of persons and citizens. It shall be inviolable. The respect and
protection thereof shall be the obligation of public authorities.”
5. See also note 9.
6. The English translation of the Constitution is based on the text available on the
Constitutional Court’s website www.trybunal.gov.pl
7. Lower house of the Polish Parliament.
23
81. Article 31 § 3 of the Constitution states:
“Any limitation upon the exercise of constitutional freedoms and rights may be
imposed only by statute, and only when necessary in a democratic state for the
protection of its security or public order, or to protect the natural environment, health
or public morals, or the freedoms and rights of other persons. Such limitations shall
not violate the essence of freedoms and rights.”
“1. All persons shall be equal before the law. All persons shall have the right to
equal treatment by public authorities.
2. No one shall be discriminated against in political, social or economic life for any
reason whatsoever.
“1. Only a person who has committed an act prohibited by a statute in force at the
moment of commission thereof, and which is subject to a penalty, shall be held
criminally responsible. This principle shall not prevent punishment of any act which,
at the moment of its commission, constituted an offence within the meaning of
international law.
2. Anyone against whom criminal proceedings have been brought shall have the
right to defence at all stages of such proceedings. He may, in particular, choose
counsel or avail himself - in accordance with principles specified by statute - of
counsel appointed by the court.
3. Everyone shall be presumed innocent of a charge until his guilt is determined by
the final judgment of a court.
84. Article 67 § 1 of the Constitution states:
“A citizen shall have the right to social security whenever incapacitated for work by
reason of sickness or disability as well as having attained retirement age. The scope
and forms of social security shall be specified by statute.”
7. Constitutional Court’s judgment of 24 February 2010 (case no. K 6/09)
(a) Arguments before the Constitutional Court
(i) The applicant deputies
85. On 23 February 2009 a group of members of Parliament belonging
mostly to the Democratic Left Alliance (Sojusz Lewicy Demokratycznej)
asked the Constitutional Court (Trybunał Konstytucyjny) to declare that the
2009 Act was in its entirety incompatible with Articles 2, 10, 31 § 3 and 32
of the Constitution. Subsequently, in their pleading of 30 August 2009, they
also relied on Articles 18, 30, 42, 45 and 67 § 1 of the Constitution.
24
86. The main thrust of the very extensive arguments submitted in
support of the application, which were made both in writing and at an oral
hearing can be summarised as follows.
1) The 2009 Act, drastically reducing the pensions of former
functionaries, had deprived some of them of the possibility of living with
dignity and consequently was contrary to the principle of respect for human
dignity laid down in Article 30 of the Constitution. At the same time, it
infringed the very essence of the right to social security set forth in
Article 67 § 1 of the Constitution.
2) All the functionaries of the State security service who had been
re-employed after 1990 had undergone a vetting procedure under the 1990
Resolution and had been considered fit for service in the democratic
Republic of Poland. They had obtained their pension rights lawfully under
the 1994 Act, a law enacted by independent, democratic Poland. The 2009
Act extinguished their rights acquired under a democratic system in an
arbitrary fashion and unjustifiably, in breach of the principle of the
protection of acquired rights laid down in Article 2 of the Constitution.
3) Vetting and re-employing former functionaries of the State security
service constituted a special declaration, made on behalf of the Republic of
Poland by the State authorities, that they would be treated on an equal basis
with all functionaries of services created after 1990. In turn, the
functionaries, under oath, took upon themselves an obligation to serve the
nation faithfully and protect the legal order established by the Constitution,
and the security of the State and its citizens. They fulfilled their duties;
otherwise, they would not have been granted their pensions.
The 2009 Act, enacted some twenty years later, amounted to a breach of
this special pact and, consequently, violated the principle of the citizens’
confidence in the State and the laws made by it laid down in Article 2 of the
Constitution.
4) The 2009 Act was based on the rule of collective responsibility and
presumption of guilt on the part of former functionaries of the State security
service. It applied an automatic restriction of pension rights of all former
State security service functionaries, notwithstanding their actual individual
conduct and the nature of the duties they had performed in the past. As a
result, the 2009 Act, drastically lowering the coefficient used for the
determination of their pensions, constituted a form of unjustified repression
against positively vetted and re-employed functionaries.
This was tantamount to considering service before 1990 a
non-contributory period. In particular, the legislature did not put
functionaries on an equal footing with other persons receiving pensions
under the general social security scheme, where a coefficient of 1.3%
applies, which could give the deceptive appearance of a “withdrawal of
privileges”, but placed them in a decisively more disadvantageous position.
25
This constituted a breach of the principle of social justice laid down in
Article 2 of the Constitution.
5) The legislature also violated the principle of separation and balance of
powers laid down in Article 10 § 1 of the Constitution. It imposed collective
punishment on all persons who had been functionaries of the State security
service before 1990. The mere fact of service in those authorities was
decisive. No legal procedure was available to review the legality,
justification, adequacy and proportionality of the sanction imposed. For all
practical purposes, the legislature took over the role of the courts of law. In
consequence, functionaries were punished collectively, regardless of
whether they had indeed been responsible for any acts which were unlawful,
infringed human dignity or were morally reprehensible.
6) The 2009 Act was in breach of the principle of proportionality laid
down in Article 31 § 3 of the Constitution because it constituted an
extremely serious restriction on the pension rights of positively vetted and
re-employed functionaries and imposed an excessive burden on them.
Moreover, the 2009 Act entirely disregarded the Council of Europe
Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1096 (1996) on measures to dismantle
the heritage of former communist totalitarian systems (“the 1996 PACE
Resolution”) and its accompanying guidelines, recommending that that
process should be terminated within ten years of the fall of the communist
dictatorship (see also paragraph 115 below).
7) The 2009 Act, contrary to the principles of equality before the law
and non-discrimination laid down in Article 32 of the Constitution,
introduced discrimination between functionaries who had been vetted
positively and subsequently re-employed and functionaries who had not
served in the State security authorities before 1990. There was no basis for
this difference in treatment as both groups had the same characteristics.
87. The deputies also stressed that the legislature had ignored the fact
that functionaries of the State security service had performed various duties
and that, in particular, many of them had been administrative personnel, had
been teachers, secretaries, or drivers or they had dealt with common or
economic crime and had not been involved in surveillance of or combat
against the opposition. In their view, these persons should not be affected by
the 2009 Act. It was profoundly unjust that a functionary who had worked
all his professional life in the State security service in a lowly technical or
administrative position, not infringing the rights of others, not combating
the opposition and not acting for the preservation of the communist regime
should now receive a pension of only PLN 600 zlotys8.
8. At the material time this amount was close to the minimum pension under the general
social security scheme.
26
(ii) Other parties
88. The other parties to the proceedings, namely the Sejm, represented
by its Speaker (Marszałek) and the Prosecutor General, also submitted
extensive arguments.
89. The Speaker of the Sejm asked the Constitutional Court to dismiss
the application, stressing, in particular, that the impugned reduction could
not be regarded as disproportionate or excessive having regard to the lowest
benefits available under the general social security scheme or those received
by persons who had been subjected to political repression under the
totalitarian system.
90. The Prosecutor General asked the Constitutional Court to dismiss the
application in part contesting the reductions in pensions, and to discontinue
the proceedings in respect of the remainder.
(b) The ruling
91. The Constitutional Court, sitting in a panel of fourteen judges9, heard
the application on 13 and 14 January and 24 February 2010. It gave
judgment on the last of these dates, holding that the contested amendments
to the 1994 Act introduced by the 2009 Act were compatible with the
Constitution. Five judges voted against the ruling and submitted dissenting
opinions (see paragraphs 107-111 below). One of the judges10 submitted a
concurring opinion.
92. The judgment contains very extensive reasoning, which can be
summarised as follows.
93. As regards the scope of the constitutional review in the case, the
Constitutional Court held that the application would eventually be examined
under Articles 2, 10, 30, 32, 42 and 67 § 1 read in conjunction with
Article 31 § 3 of the Constitution (see also paragraphs 77-84 above) and,
finding that the deputies had not advanced meritorious arguments
concerning the other alleged breaches, discontinued the proceedings in that
respect.
94. In an introductory part of the judgment the Constitutional Court
referred at length to various general issues, such as the Polish Parliament’s
resolutions condemning the former communist regime and the
de-communisation laws adopted by Poland. It also had regard to resolutions
of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in particular, the
1996 PACE Resolution and the Resolution 1481 (2006) on the need for
international condemnation of crimes of totalitarian communist regimes
(“the PACE 2006 Resolution”; see also paragraphs 115-116 below), as well
9. B. Zdziennicki, President; Judges S. Biernat; Z. Cieślak; M. Gintowt-Jankowicz;
M. Granat; W. Hermeliński; A. Jamróz; M. Kotlinowski; T. Liszcz; E. Łętowska;
M. Mazurkiewicz; J. Niemcewicz; A. Rzepliński, Rapporteur, and M. Wyrzykowski.
10. Judge T. Liszcz.
27
as to laws and measures affecting pension rights of functionaries of the
former communist State security service in other countries (in particular, in
Germany, the Czech Republic, Latvia and Romania). It referred to the
Court’s case-law on lustration and de-communisation measures and its own
jurisprudence on settling accounts with the communist past.
95. The Constitutional Court next referred to the essential features and
activities of the communist State security service. This part of the reasoning
reads, in so far as relevant, as follows11:
“6.2. ... The State security authorities of the Polish People’s Republic and their
functionaries safeguarded the communist regime in Poland in the years 1944-89, they
preserved the situation in which in Poland there was no liberty and democracy,
no market economy and no affiliation with the Western world. [A] direct consequence
thereof was a degradation of the country’s civilisation, which was demonstrated by,
among other things, a deep disintegration of its economy and financial situation.
The [communist] system was founded on a secret political police apparatus which
was extensive in terms of its structure and number [of employees]. The main objective
of this apparatus was to preserve and support the communist regime. To this end,
functionaries of the State security service of the Polish People’s Republic in the initial
period used terror and, routinely, humiliation, surveillance of innocent people, and
fabrication of evidence; they violated fundamental human rights and freedoms. The
methods they used and the scale and intensity [of their activities] changed over time,
but their essence was the same – to support a political regime which was hostile to
human rights. In reward, the ruling communist party gave those functionaries practical
impunity for abuses of power, promotions that were faster than in other uniformed
services, a high remuneration for service, other numerous additional economic and
social privileges, and high retirement pension benefits.
6.3. This court does not judge the individual motivations of the tens of thousands of
people who chose voluntarily to serve in the State security authorities of the Polish
People’s Republic, mostly young men. It is likely that purely professional motivation
(service in the secret police) was similar to that which exists today. A considerable
difference lies in the object of the choice. In no case does the choice of service in the
secret political police of the communist State merit approval, notwithstanding the
organisational unit and the grade of the functionary ...
By the closing days of the Polish People’s Republic about 30,000 functionaries were
employed by the State security authorities. Today there are in total about 10,000. This
is not just one-third of the previous total. The security authorities of the Polish
People’s Republic, instead of serving to protect the political, social and economic
aspirations of Poles, constituted a highly specialised net of institutions which worked
against these aspirations. The “product” that remained after those security authorities
had been disbanded is over eighty-six kilometres of files, of which only 850 m are
important for national security today and are in the restricted archives of the IPN ...”
11. The translation of this part and further passages from the judgment is based on the text
available on the Constitutional Court’s website www.trybual.gov.pl, which was adapted by
the Registry.
28
96. In respect of the deputies’ argument that the functionaries adversely
affected by the 2009 Act had been either positively vetted or not subjected
to the vetting procedure, the Constitutional Court held, among other things,
that:
“6.4 ...[A]s a result of democratic transformation in Poland the Security Service was
... dissolved. The ... sovereign Polish State needed new services, which would ensure
its security and would at the same time act in accordance with the standards of a
democratic state ruled by law. There were two possible options: 1) constructing the
new services from scratch, and recruiting exclusively persons who had not served in
the Security Service, with the prospect of a long period of preparation for their tasks
or 2) setting up a new State protection police quickly, taking unavoidably large
numbers of former functionaries of the dissolved Security Service, the legislature
chose the second option. It meant that former functionaries of the Security Service
could be admitted to service in the Office for State Protection.
6.4.1. The object of the vetting procedure was not to issue certificates of good moral
standing to functionaries of particular departments of the Security Service ...”
97. A considerable part of the reasoning was devoted to a comparison
between pensions under the general social security scheme and the
uniformed services system.
In respect of the calculation of pensions under the general rules, it was
noted that the system was organised in such a way that an ordinary
employee on his retirement received 40% of his salary calculated for a
period of ten calendar years chosen by him from the last twenty years
preceding his retirement, including contributory and non-contributory
periods. The longer the period of employment, the higher the pension. In
practice, in order to receive a pension close to half the average salary in the
last ten years, a person had to be employed for at least thirty years.
In contrast, a functionary of the uniformed services acquired the right to
a pension equal to 40% of his average salary after only fifteen years of
service. The average salary of persons insured under the general scheme
was 50% that of the uniformed services personnel and this difference was
even more marked in comparison to the special services. Accordingly, a
pensioner insured in the general scheme received 40% of his average salary
for the last ten years for a period of employment which was twice as long.
98. As regards the belated introduction of the new rules and
non-conformity of the 2009 Act with the 1996 PACE Resolution, the
Constitutional Court observed, inter alia, the following:
“ ... The lapse of time since the Polish State gained sovereignty in 1989, although
not without significance, cannot be a decisive criterion for the evaluation of
constitutionality of the regulations adopted by the legislature in order to settle
accounts with the former functionaries of the communist regime. There is no
provision in the Constitution which would impose a prohibition on enacting such
regulations. The Constitution does not set time-limits for the settling of accounts with
the past communist regime. It is not within the competence of the Constitutional Court
to give an opinion on whether, and if so by when, the legislature of free Poland can
29
introduce such laws ... How much time elapses between the collapse of the communist
regime and the adoption of a given law depends on the existence of a configuration of
power capable of enacting the law during its parliamentary term. As shown by the
examples of Poland and other countries in our region of Europe, as well as certain
countries in South America, many years may elapse after the establishment or
re-establishment of democracy before laws are enacted regulating a certain aspect of
responsibility for systemic abuses of power ...
8.4. Referring to the argument that the 2009 Act of 23 January 2009 is in ‘flagrant
contradiction’ of the 1996 Pace Resolution and of the guidelines to that document ...
the Constitutional Court finds that there is no suggestion in those documents that
settling of accounts with the communist period should only take place during the first
ten years after the overthrow of the dictatorship. Laws on settling accounts have been
introduced in various [countries] and in various years over the past two decades,
including in recent years ... As the Constitutional Court has noted above, pursuant to
§ 14 of the 1996 PACE Resolution: ‘In exceptional cases, where the ruling elite of the
former regime awarded itself pension rights higher than those of the ordinary
population, these should be reduced to the ordinary level’”
99. As regards the argument that an interference with the functionaries’
right to social security was excessive, the Constitutional Court noted that, in
essence, the legislature reduced the coefficient of the pension’s basis of
assessment from 2.6% to 0.7% only in respect of functionaries of the State
security service who were in service before 2 January 1999 and who had
been employed for at least fifteen years. Other elements relevant to the
assessment of pensions remained unchanged, in particular the right to a
pension after fifteen years of service, advantageous calculation of the
pensions’ basis of assessment in comparison to the general system, rules
and terms regarding indexation, invalidity and survivor pensions benefits,
special allowances and increases in pensions due to, for instance, service
during the war, combating terrorism, serving in hazardous conditions or in
the counter-intelligence service.
In that context, the Constitutional Court also cited various information
supplied by the social security authorities, concerning levels of pensions of
functionaries as determined under the 2009 Act in comparison to ordinary
pensioners. In January 2010 the average pension of the former amounted to
2,558.82 Polish zlotys (PLN), whereas the average pension received under
the general social security scheme was PLN 1,618.70. At the material time
the minimum statutory pension was PLN 675.10.
In February 2010 the average pension received by former functionaries
of the State security service was lowered by PLN 346 and was still higher
by 58% than the average pension under the general scheme. Only in respect
of ordinary functionaries was the average pension (PLN 1,499.64) slightly
lower than under the general scheme. Junior officers received PLN 2,102.12
on average (formerly PLN 2,670.930, senior officers PLN 3,479.67
(formerly PLN 4,156.21) and generals received PLN 8,598.43 (formerly
PLN 9,578.41).
30
100. According to information produced by the Director of the Board for
Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration on 5 February
2010, the board issued 38,563 decisions re-assessing pensions of former
functionaries. In 7,227 cases the pensions remained unchanged due to the
fact that certain periods of employment, which had not previously been
included, were taken into account. In 589 cases the application of the 0.7%
coefficient as established by the 2009 Act would have resulted in reducing
pensions below the statutory minimum and, therefore, those pensions were
increased so as to reach that amount.
In view of the foregoing, the Constitutional Court held that the
legislature, being guided by the principle of social justice, pursued the
legitimate aim of adjusting the pensions of former functionaries of the State
security service to the average level of pensions under the general social
security scheme. In consequence, in January 2010 the average pension of a
functionary was still higher that the average ordinary pension. This
reduction limited, but did not extinguish, the excessive, unjustly acquired
generous benefits of former state security functionaries. This demonstrated
that the legislature was not seeking revenge but greater social justice.
101. Considering the above circumstances, the Constitutional Court
concluded that the impugned provisions were not incompatible with
Article 67 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 31 § 3 of the Constitution. It
held, inter alia, as follows:
“8.9. The Constitutional Court finds that the legislature did not infringe the essence
of the right to social security by introducing the 2009 Act. Although it considers that
the reduction in retirement pensions of ... the functionaries of the State security
service of the Polish People’s Republic was significant, it nevertheless remained
within the margin of appreciation determined by the Constitution. An infringement of
[their] right to social security would, in particular, have occurred if the legislature had
taken away all their retirement pension rights or reduced their pensions to a level
below the social minimum standards. By reducing [their] retirement benefits the
legislature not only guaranteed that their benefits would not be lower than the
minimum statutory retirement pension under the general social security system ... but
also ensured that the amount of [their] average retirement pension under the new
provisions remains still significantly higher than the average retirement pension paid
under the general social security system.”
102. Rejecting the arguments as to the alleged incompatibility of section
13(1) and (1b) and section 15b of the 1994 Act as introduced by the 2009
Act with Article 30 of the Constitution (the principle of respect for human
dignity), the Constitutional Court held:
“9.2. The impugned provisions are neither aimed at depriving the functionaries of
security authorities of the minimum means of subsistence, nor at humiliating them.
[The] aim is to reduce their retirement pension benefits, which ... stem from the
privileged system of social security. As ... already established above .... after the entry
into force of the 2009 Act, the average reduced retirement pension of a functionary of
the State security authorities ... is still 58% higher than the average retirement pension
in the general retirement pension system, and almost four times higher than the
31
minimum statutory retirement pension. In this situation, the legislature under the
impugned provisions still provides retired functionaries of the State security
authorities .... with adequate, justified and fair social security benefits for the period of
their service before 1990 ... In conclusion, the contested provisions conform to Article
30 of the Constitution.”
103. The Constitutional Court further rejected the arguments in respect
of the alleged incompatibility of sections 13(1) and (1b) and 15b(1) of the
1994 Act as introduced by the 2009 Act with Article 2 of the Constitution
(the principle of citizens’ confidence in the state and the law made by it, the
principle of protection of acquired rights and the principle of social justice).
The relevant part of the reasoning reads as follows:
“10.2. ... The legislature was entitled – despite the lapse of over nineteen years since
the transformation of the system – to introduce provisions reducing retirement
pensions for periods of service in the State security authorities ... It does not follow
from the constitutional principle of protection of citizens’ confidence in the State and
the laws made by it that everyone, regardless of his or her personal circumstances,
may assume that the rules governing his social rights will never change to his
disadvantage in the future ...
The protection of acquired rights does not mean that those rights are inviolable, and
does not exclude the enactment of less advantageous regulations. The Constitutional
Court has stressed on many occasions that departure from the principle of protection
of acquired rights is permissible, provided it has a basis in other constitutional
principles, provisions or values .... According to the well-established jurisprudence of
the Constitutional Court, the principle of protection of acquired rights does not apply
to rights acquired unjustly or dishonourably, nor to rights which lacked a basis in the
constitutional order binding at the time of adjudication ...
By enacting the contested provisions the legislature expressed a negative opinion on
the activities of ... the security authorities of the communist State, which was
confirmed in the course of legislative work and in the preamble to the 2009 Act. In the
preamble, the legislature declared it had been guided by the ‘principle of social
justice, which does not permit the toleration and reward of lawlessness’. ... As already
stated above, the legislature of free Poland has never expressed a single positive
opinion on the secret political police of the years 1944-89, and in the years 1989-2009
this opinion has been reflected in laws and adopted resolutions many times. As long
as constitutional principles and values are respected, the legislature has the right to
draw conclusions from the historical experience of the Polish People’s Republic ...
The applicant seems to suggest that the impugned provisions would conform to the
constitutional principle of social justice if the coefficient of the basis of assessment for
the retirement pension was 1.3% ... which, in the applicant’s opinion, might give a
deceptive appearance of a “withdrawal of privileges”. The 0.7%, however ...placed
those affected by it in a position where their pension was significantly lower than in
the general retirement pension system, which, according to the applicant, amounts to
repression ...
This argument is ill-founded ...
32
As this court has already found ... the ... 0.7% for every year of service must be
assessed taking into account the fact that functionaries of the State security authorities
had been receiving remunerations significantly higher than the average salary in
Poland .... The amount of the retirement benefit is not determined by the coefficient
for the basis of assessment alone (2.6%, 1.3% or 0.7%), but is a result of the “base
amount” and other factors, relevant to the establishment of the final amount of the
whole benefit ...
This court has already established that, after the 2009 Act’s entry into force, the
average reduced retirement pension of a functionary of the State security authorities ...
is still 58% higher than the average retirement pension in the general old-age pension
system, and almost four times the statutory minimum retirement pension. ...
10.7. In sum, the privileges in respect of retirement pension rights [of the
functionaries] have been acquired dishonourably. The aims and methods of ... the
State security service of the Polish People’s Republic cannot be considered legitimate.
This court finds that service in State institutions and authorities which systemically
violated fundamental human rights and the rule of law may not justify claims that
privileges acquired before the fall of the regime should be preserved in a democratic
state ruled by law.
One of the ways of rewarding [the functionaries] ... for service was, among many
other things, providing them with retirement pension privileges. These privileges were
preserved by their beneficiaries in free Poland, which was confirmed in the 1994 Act.
In 2009, assessing negatively the State security authorities of the Polish People’s
Republic, the legislature was able to resort to the abolition or limitation of unjustly
acquired retirement pension benefits. ... This court considers that the manner in which
the legislature ... reduced unjustly acquired retirement privileges in 2009 was
balanced, restrained and proportional.”
104. The argument that the impugned provisions were incompatible with
Article 32 of the Constitution (the principle of equality before the law and
non-discrimination) because all the functionaries were treated in the same
way, despite the fact that most of them had been positively vetted, was
likewise rejected. In that regard, the Constitutional Court once again
stressed that the positive outcome of the vetting procedure did not mean an
approval of service in the former communist secret political police and it did
not eradicate the fact that the functionaries concerned had served in that
institution voluntarily. All the functionaries were treated in exactly the same
way and they were partly deprived of their pension benefits on the same
ground, which was the fact that they had served in an institution which had
engaged in reprehensible activities over the relevant period. Their service
after the cut-off date in 1990 for democratic Poland was treated without
discrimination since they acquired the same pension rights as the others,
notwithstanding their past.
105. The Constitutional Court found no breach of Article 10 of the
Constitution (the principle of division and balance of power) in respect of
the allegation that the legislature enacted the 2009 Act in order to impose a
collective punishment on the former State security functionaries. It observed
33
that Parliament had not overstepped its competences set out in the
Constitution and that the contested provisions were not designed to punish
the functionaries collectively but to reduce their pensions to the level of the
average pension under the general social security scheme.
106. Lastly, as regards the argument that the contested provisions of the
2009 Act were based on collective responsibility and presumption of guilt
since all the functionaries of the State security service were equally
considered criminals who did not deserve any rights, the Constitutional
Court found that Article 42 of the Constitution (the principles of the right to
defence, presumption of innocence, nulla poena sine lege) did not apply in
the case. It stressed that this provision concerned only criminal
responsibility and criminal proceedings and could not be interpreted
extensively. There were no criminal sanctions included in the impugned
provisions. Nor did they prejudge criminal guilt of functionaries, and they
did not constitute a form of repression.
(c) Dissenting opinions
107. In Judge Jamroz’s view the 2009 Act was in its entirety
incompatible with Article 2 and Article 10 of the Constitution. In his
dissenting opinion he stated, among other things, the following:
“Changes in the retirement pension system are obviously permissible, and also in
certain circumstances justly acquired rights cannot be absolute. However, this needs
to be done with respect for constitutional principles, and in particular those in
Article 2 of the Constitution ...
The 2009 Act is in breach of Article 10 of the Constitution, since the legislature has
imposed collective punishment on all those who were functionaries of the State
security authorities before 1990, without considering the conduct of individual
functionaries. The decisive factor is the mere fact of serving in the State security
authorities of the Polish People’s Republic. In this way the legislature entered the
realm of authority which is constitutionally restricted to judicial bodies, without
taking any action to check or verify the legitimacy, adequacy, legality, fairness and
proportionality of the sanction imposed. As a consequence the legislature, relying on
the principle of collective responsibility, has imposed severe punishment, regardless
of whether the functionaries are responsible for any unlawful acts which violated
human dignity, or whether their actions were morally reprehensible ...
The judgment ... following the intentions of the legislature which have been
expressed in the preamble, passes on political and moral judgment regarding the
functioning of the State security authorities in the Polish People’s Republic and draws
from it legal consequences with regard to constitutional matters. However, I object to
the methodology of adjudicating in the name of “pure justice” which has been
assumed by the Constitutional Court, which has been inspired by political and moral
opinions but has omitted the constitutional principles reflecting contemporary longstanding standards of a democratic state ruled by law established in its jurisprudence
....”
34
108. Judge Łętowska considered that the Preamble to the 2009 Act was
incompatible with Article 2 of the Constitution, that sections 1 and 2 read in
conjunction with Article 3 of the 2009 Act were incompatible with
Articles 2 and 67 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 31 § 3 of the
Constitution and disagreed with the majority with regard to certain general
ideas expressed in the reasoning. The relevant parts of her opinion read as
follows:
“I do not question the constitutional admissibility (and legitimacy) of reducing
retirement pensions for the staff who formed a kind of “Praetorian Guard” of the
totalitarian regime, subsequently discredited in the democratic system. I question the
way in which it has been carried out. ...
The preamble to the Act first of all stigmatises the persons to whom the reduction of
retirement pensions applies and, secondly, specifies the aims of the Act. With regard
to the former, it states that, as functionaries of State security authorities, they received
pensioner status granted ‘in exchange for the preservation of the inhumane regime’ in
which, at the same time, ‘the perpetrators were exempted from responsibility and
escaped justice”. These charges contain a strong emotional, moral and legal
condemnation. When such a charge is made globally assertion of humiliation is
thereby justified.
The mere fact of the above-mentioned stigmatisation of all persons to whom the
2009 Act applies, constitutes, in my view, a breach of the principle of proper
legislation (Article 2 of the Constitution), as the scope ratione personae of the Act is
broader than the group of persons at whom the Act is aimed, as indicated in the
preamble, (deprivation of privileges unjustly acquired during the period of the
totalitarian regime). ...
I do not share the view expressed in the judgment that the positive vetting of the
staff of the Civic Militia and the Security Service, carried out in 1990, is irrelevant to
an assessment of the constitutionality of the 2009 Act. ...
It cannot be assumed (as it has been in the judgment) that nobody guaranteed
through the vetting the prospects of a retirement pension under the uniformed services
system. The uniformed service brings with it not merely an obligation to perform
work and the right to remuneration, but an entire legal status related to that service.
The status also includes acquiring (as a continuous process during the period of
service) retirement pension entitlements appropriate for uniformed services. That
entitlement was granted to the positively vetted persons by allowing them to perform
service in the democratic state ... .”
109. Judge Mazurkiewicz stated that the Preamble to the 2009 Act was
incompatible with Articles 2 and 10 of the Constitution, that section 1 taken
together with section 3(1) and (3) and section 2 taken together with section
3(2) and (3) of the 2009 Act were incompatible with Articles 2, 10, 32 § 2
and Article 67 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 31 § 3 of the
Constitution. The relevant passages of his dissenting opinion read as
follows:
35
“The Constitutional Court is a court of law, and not a court passing judgments on
history. Respecting the principles of proper legislation is functionally linked with
legal certainty and security, as well as with the protection of citizens’ confidence in
the State and the laws made by it ... The principle of legal security requires that the
legislature respects the existing legal relations. Introducing amendments during the
legislative process which are not objectively justified and which divert the previous
direction of the legislative process that was set by ... the 1994 Act infringes the
principle of a democratic state ruled by law ...
The principle of legality obliges the legislature to formulate laws to be enacted in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution ... The challenged provisions of the
2009 Act are also inconsistent with the constitutional right to social security
(Article 67 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 31 § 3 of the Constitution), and the
variation in the level of retirement pensions under the uniformed services system: 1)
due to the lack of connection between the distinction which has been introduced
between pensioners from the uniformed services and the main aim of the statutes on
retirement pensions, 2) due to the lack of proportionality of the applied legal solutions
and 3) without any justification arising from a possible need for the protection of
another, more important, constitutional value – must be regarded as inconsistent with
Article 32 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 31 § 3 of the Constitution. ....”
110. Judge Wyrzykowski stated that the preamble to the 2009 Act was
incompatible with Articles 2, 10 and 42 of the Constitution and that section
15b of the 1994 Act as introduced by the 2009 Act was incompatible with
Article 2 read in conjunction with Articles 67 § 1 and 31 § 3, as it infringed
the principle of protection of acquired rights and that it was also
incompatible with Articles 10 and 42 of the Constitution.
The dissenting opinion reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“The first problem that arises in connection with the judgment concerns the
significance of the passage of time for limitations on the legislature’s activities. The
2009 Act was enacted almost twenty years after the change of the political and social
system in Poland. ...
The citizens of the Republic of Poland affected by the 2009 Act had all the reasons
to assume that the rules which were binding for the last twenty years would not be
changed unless there were new circumstances justifying radical amendment of the
legal provisions. ...
The legal fiction introduced by the legislature, namely applying the 0.7% coefficient
to the basis of assessment for every year of service in the State security authorities in
the years 1944-90, which means that the legislature treats those affected as though
they had not worked in that period, cannot be regarded as consistent with the
Constitution. [Under the general social security scheme] the 0.7% coefficient applies
to persons who have not paid pension contributions ... The functionaries employed in
the State security authorities performed work (service) and the application of the
fiction in 2009, changing the rules for the calculation of retirement pensions, must be
justified in a particularly convincing way. The legislature did not delegalise work
(service) [in the State security authorities] or [those] authorities, but only condemned
them in the preamble to the 2009 Act ... The application of the 0.7% coefficient is not,
by its nature, a revocation of a privilege, but a kind of individually addressed sanction.
...
36
The preamble to the 2009 Act contains a statement which may be regarded as
crucial for understanding the essence of the changes introduced to the rules for the
calculation of retirement pension benefits. As the justification for the Act, it is stated
that ‘crimes were committed against organisations and persons defending
independence and democracy and, at the same time, the perpetrators were exempted
from responsibility and escaped justice’. ...
This is not a mere stigmatisation of particular individuals to whom the decisions
specifying the new amount of retirement pensions were addressed, but is also about
the use of rhetoric which at very least suggests that the adopted statutory solutions
concerning retirement pensions are a form of punishment for undetected crimes
against organisations and persons defending independence and democracy, and that
those crimes were committed by perpetrators who escaped responsibility and justice ...
If behind the legislature’s decision ... is an assumption that the addressees
committed crimes and did not bear responsibility for their acts, then this means that
the legislature qualifies certain acts. The point is that such qualification should be
done by a criminal court, and not by the legislature. Whether a crime has been
committed must be determined in the course of court proceedings, and not in the
course of the legislative work. There is no doubt that the legislature has infringed
Articles 10 and 42 of the Constitution ...”
111. Judge Zdziennicki stated that the 2009 Act taken as a whole was
unconstitutional and incompatible with all the provisions cited by the
deputies. The relevant parts of his dissenting opinion read as follows:
“The drastic reduction of retirement pensions vis-à-vis their level estimated under
the rules previously and currently applicable under the uniformed services retirement
pension system constitutes economic repression directed against specific recipients
and, it should be stressed, their families. This repression is accompanied .... by penal
stigmatisation of pensioners, in the form of describing their service in the Polish
People’s Republic as nothing but unlawful activities and continual commission of
crimes violating fundamental human rights – all this in order to ‘preserve the inhuman
regime’.
In the present case what happened is not a revocation of ‘unjustly acquired
privileges’ since ... retirement pensions paid under the uniformed services system are
not privileges, and the rules for granting them have always been the same for
everyone. The ostensible action conceals the real legislative aim, namely collective
repression directed against the functionaries of the State security authorities of the
Polish People’s Republic ... by means of a drastic reduction (twenty years after the fall
of the communist regime) of the retirement pensions they have so far received. ...
Subjecting certain individuals to ex lege repression (by drastically reducing the
retirement pensions which they have so far received) means that the legislative power
has decided to substitute itself for the judiciary, although there is a constitutional
requirement that guilt and punishment should be determined in court. This amounts to
a breach of both the principle of separation of powers (Article 10 of the Constitution)
and the constitutional right to a court.
37
Reducing ex lege pensions already being awarded ... without individual inquiry
proceedings, and passing a condemnatory moral judgment with regard to a specific
group of citizens, means assigning collective responsibility, which is inadmissible in a
democratic state ruled by law (compare Articles 2 and 42 of the Constitution) ...
[The measure] applied leaves no doubt that the 2009 Act has introduced
inadmissible, extra-judicial and collective criminal responsibility in respect of persons
regarded as former political opponents of the current parliamentary majority. ...”
8. Supreme Court’s resolution of 3 March 2011(case no. II UZP 2/11)
112. On 3 March 2011 the Supreme Court dealt with a legal question
submitted in the case of a certain E.C. by the Warsaw Court of Appeal,
asking whether the provision of section 15b(2) of the 1994 Act (as amended
by the 2009 Act) that stated that section 15 of the 1994 Act should apply
accordingly meant that persons who had been functionaries of the State
security service preserved the right to a retirement pension equal to 40% of
its basis of assessment for the first fifteen years of employment.
113. The Supreme Court ruled that its response to the question would be
as follows:
“ For every year of service in [the State security authorities] between 1944 and
1999 the pension should be 0.7% of its basis of assessment (section 15b (1)(1) of the
1994 Act), which means that the amount of the pension calculated exclusively in
respect of the period of such service may be lower than 40% of the basis of
assessment.”
114. The relevant parts of the reasoning read as follows:
“No ways or means of interpretation of reference to section 15 of the 1994 Act
contained in section 15b(2) gives persons who have served in the [State security
authorities] any legal possibility or arguments to assert the determination of their
pensions on any other basis of assessment than 0.7% for each year of service ... In
contrast, the legal provisions under consideration are unambiguously plain, and
therefore clear and not requiring any deeper legal analysis. However, having regard to
a considerable number of persons who are concerned by ... reductions in pensions, this
court has decided to resolve the submitted legal question ...
Taking 40% of the basis of assessment for fifteen years of service as a minimum ...
would lead to an inadmissible and unjustified negation of the [2009 Act’s] aim.
Chronologically, as a matter of principle, service in the years 1944-90 would
correspond to the ‘first’ (initial) years of service giving an entitlement to uniformed
services’ pension rights. [An] interpretation that they would preserve at least 40% of
the basis of assessment ... would exclude or at least considerably limit ... the rule that
their pensions should be calculated with reference to the 0.7% coefficient of the basis
of assessment for each year of service in the State security authorities between 1944
and 1990 ...
It should be firmly stressed that the aim of the provisions under consideration, added
by [the 2009 Act], was not to deprive pensioners of the rights acquired due to service
in the totalitarian State security authorities between 1944 and 1990. [T]he legislature
did not take away from them the right to take advantage of the uniformed services’
38
pension scheme, including for their periods of service in the State security authorities
of the Polish People’s Republic, but, in accordance with the constitutional principles
of social justice and elementary (ordinary) decency, adjusted the levels of their
benefits ... only in respect of periods of service which consisted in betraying the
values of independence, freedom and democracy – to the level of benefits under the
general social security scheme, without a further (pro futuro) possibility of taking
advantage of the privileges unjustly or dishonourably acquired due to service in the
totalitarian State security authorities between 1944 and 1990. Including this period in
the ‘pensionable service’ under the unformed services’ pension scheme and giving
them 0.7% of the basis of assessment calculated in relation to the last, namely in
principle the highest monthly salary in their last post, does not in any way
discriminate against these persons. On the contrary, this is still a comparable, and
even more advantageous [solution] than under the general social security scheme,
having regard to the fact that [a pension’s basis of assessment under the general
scheme] is determined not with reference to the highest income in one (last) month of
employment but to the average basis for social security contributions for ten
subsequent calendar years selected from the last twenty years, or twenty calendar
years selected from the entire contributory period ....
In that context, the impugned legislation does not constitute any breach of the
common principle of equality or proportionality of benefits received under the
pension scheme for uniformed services by persons who served in the security
authorities of the totalitarian state, who engaged in unlawful and dishonourable acts or
methods of political violence against compatriots – in comparison to benefits
available under the general social security system.
It is worth noting that the provisions governing pension rights of victims of political
repression by the State security service are still less advantageous [Their] periods of
imprisonment on political grounds are included in the contributory periods but the
relevant coefficient for a pension’s basis of assessment is 0% because of their lack of
income ... whereas those who subjected them to that repression are entitled to the
0.7% coefficient ...
Moreover, the 0.7% coefficient calculated with reference to the highest
remuneration normally does not differ unfavourably from the 1.3% coefficient of the
basis of assessment under the general social security scheme ... having regard to the
fact that uniformed services pensions are calculated with reference to a higher (2.6%)
or at least equal (1.3%) coefficients of the basis of assessment for periods before or
after the termination of service ...
Admission to ... public service in the State security institutions of the democratic
state governed by the rule of law restored in Poland after 1990 does not constitute
rehabilitation for the time of service in the security structures of the totalitarian state
according to the standards of the democratic state ... which does not have the right or
duty to maintain the privileges [acquired] on account of unlawful suppression of
citizens’ inherent rights and freedoms by the State security service of the totalitarian
state. ...
The Supreme Court unequivocally criticises and disqualifies any arguments for
maintaining privileges acquired due to, or in connection with, participation in the
system of enslavement and political repression by the State security service of the
communist totalitarian state ... The privileges so acquired are not protected in a
democratic system where there is domestic law, community law and international law,
39
because persons who fight against fundamental human rights, rights of the nation and
fundamental freedoms do not have the right or moral authority to assert that their
pension privileges must be preserved in respect of the periods when the Polish
nation’s aspirations for independence, freedom and democracy were suppressed ...”
D. Relevant Council of Europe’s instruments
1. The 1996 PACE Resolution
115. On 27 June 1996 PACE adopted Resolution 1096 (1996) on
measures to dismantle the heritage of former communist totalitarian
systems. It reads, in so far as relevant:
“1. The heritage of former communist totalitarian systems is not an easy one to
handle. On an institutional level this heritage includes (over)centralisation, the
militarisation of civilian institutions, bureaucratisation, monopolisation, and
over-regulation; on the level of society, it reaches from collectivism and conformism
to blind obedience and other totalitarian thought patterns. To re-establish a civilised,
liberal state under the rule of law on this basis is difficult - this is why the old
structures and thought patterns have to be dismantled and overcome. ...
4. Thus a democratic state based on the rule of law must, in dismantling the heritage
of former communist totalitarian systems, apply the procedural means of such a state.
It cannot apply any other means, since it would then be no better than the totalitarian
regime which is to be dismantled. A democratic state based on the rule of law has
sufficient means at its disposal to ensure that the cause of justice is served and the
guilty are punished - it cannot, and should not, however, cater to the desire for
revenge instead of justice. It must instead respect human rights and fundamental
freedoms, such as the right to due process and the right to be heard, and it must apply
them even to those people who, when they were in power, did not apply them
themselves. A state based on the rule of law can also defend itself against a resurgence
of the communist totalitarian threat, since it has ample means at its disposal which do
not conflict with human rights and the rule of law, and are based upon the use of both
criminal justice and administrative measures.
5. The Assembly recommends that member states dismantle the heritage of former
communist totalitarian regimes by restructuring the old legal and institutional systems,
a process which should be based on the principle(s) of:
i. demilitarisation, to ensure that the militarisation of essentially civilian institutions,
such as the existence of military prison administration or troops of the Ministry of the
Interior, which is typical of communist totalitarian systems, comes to an end;
ii. decentralisation, especially at local and regional levels and within state
institutions;
iii. demonopolisation and privatisation, which are central to the construction of
some kind of a market economy and of a pluralist society;
40
iv. debureaucratisation, which should reduce communist totalitarian over-regulation
and transfer the power from the bureaucrats back to the citizens.
6. This process must include a transformation of mentalities (a transformation of
hearts and minds) whose main goal should be to eliminate the fear of responsibility,
and to eliminate as well the disrespect for diversity, extreme nationalism, intolerance,
racism and xenophobia, which are part of the heritage of the old regimes. All of these
should be replaced by democratic values such as tolerance, respect for diversity,
subsidiarity and accountability for one’s actions.
7. The Assembly also recommends that criminal acts committed by individuals
during the communist totalitarian regime be prosecuted and punished under the
standard criminal code. If the criminal code provides for a statute of limitations for
some crimes, this can be extended, since it is only a procedural, not a substantive
matter. Passing and applying retroactive criminal laws is, however, not permitted. On
the other hand, the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which
at the time when it was committed did not constitute a criminal offence according to
national law, but which was considered criminal according to the general principles of
law recognised by civilised nations, is permitted. Moreover, where a person clearly
acted in violation of human rights, the claim of having acted under orders excludes
neither illegality nor individual guilt. ...
9. The Assembly welcomes the opening of secret service files for public
examination in some former communist totalitarian countries. It advises all countries
concerned to enable the persons affected to examine, upon their request, the files kept
on them by the former secret services. ....
11. Concerning the treatment of persons who did not commit any crimes that can be
prosecuted in accordance with paragraph 7, but who nevertheless held high positions
in the former totalitarian communist regimes and supported them, the Assembly notes
that some states have found it necessary to introduce administrative measures, such as
lustration or de-communisation laws. The aim of these measures is to exclude persons
from exercising governmental power if they cannot be trusted to exercise it in
compliance with democratic principles, as they have shown no commitment to or
belief in them in the past and have no interest or motivation to make the transition to
them now.
12. The Assembly stresses that, in general, these measures can be compatible with a
democratic state under the rule of law if several criteria are met. Firstly, guilt, being
individual, rather than collective, must be proven in each individual case - this
emphasises the need for an individual, and not collective, application of lustration
laws. Secondly, the right of defence, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty,
and the right to appeal to a court of law must be guaranteed. Revenge may never be a
goal of such measures, nor should political or social misuse of the resulting lustration
process be allowed. The aim of lustration is not to punish people presumed guilty this is the task of prosecutors using criminal law - but to protect the newly emerged
democracy.
13. The Assembly thus suggests that it be ensured that lustration laws and similar
administrative measures comply with the requirements of a state based on the rule of
law, and focus on threats to fundamental human rights and the democratisation
process.
41
14. Furthermore, the Assembly recommends that employees discharged from their
position on the basis of lustration laws should not in principle lose their previously
accrued financial rights. In exceptional cases, where the ruling elite of the former
regime awarded itself pension rights higher than those of the ordinary population,
these should be reduced to the ordinary level. ...”
2. The 2006 PACE Resolution
116. On 25 January 2006 PACE adopted Resolution 1481 (2006) on the
need for international condemnation of crimes of totalitarian communist
regimes in which it referred, in particular, to its Resolution 1096(1996),
cited above (see paragraph 115 above). It read, in so far as relevant, as
follows:
“2. The totalitarian communist regimes which ruled in central and eastern Europe in
the last century, and which are still in power in several countries in the world, have
been, without exception, characterised by massive violations of human rights. The
violations have differed depending on the culture, country and the historical period
and have included individual and collective assassinations and executions, death in
concentration camps, starvation, deportations, torture, slave labour and other forms of
mass physical terror, persecution on ethnic or religious grounds, violation of freedom
of conscience, thought and expression, of freedom of the press, and also lack of
political pluralism. ...
5. The fall of totalitarian communist regimes in central and eastern Europe has not
been followed in all cases by an international investigation of the crimes committed
by them. Moreover, the authors of these crimes have not been brought to trial by the
international community, as was the case with the horrible crimes committed by
National Socialism (Nazism).
6. Consequently, public awareness of crimes committed by totalitarian communist
regimes is very poor. Communist parties are legal and active in some countries, even
if in some cases they have not distanced themselves from the crimes committed by
totalitarian communist regimes in the past.
7. The Assembly is convinced that the awareness of history is one of the
preconditions for avoiding similar crimes in the future. Furthermore, moral
assessment and condemnation of crimes committed play an important role in the
education of young generations. The clear position of the international community on
the past may be a reference for their future actions. ...
13. Furthermore, [the Assembly] calls on all communist or post-communist parties
in its member states which have not yet done so to reassess the history of communism
and their own past, clearly distance themselves from the crimes committed by
totalitarian communist regimes and condemn them without any ambiguity.
14. The Assembly believes that this clear position of the international community
will pave the way to further reconciliation. Furthermore, it will hopefully encourage
historians throughout the world to continue their research aimed at the determination
and objective verification of what took place.”
42
COMPLAINTS
117. In the 1,628 cases before the Court the applicants, although they
sometimes formulated their Convention grievances in different terms, made
the following complaints.
118. They first of all alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to
the Convention in that the 2009 Act had arbitrarily reduced their pensions to
levels that could not be justified by any legitimate aim pursued in the public
interest. In that regard, they heavily relied on the arguments put forward by
the group of deputies before the Constitutional Court (see paragraphs 85-87
above), essentially repeating their submissions.
They stated that the impugned reductions were disproportionate, unfair
and imposed an excessive burden on them. The abrupt and drastic lowering
of the coefficient used for the determination of their pensions from 2.6% per
year of pensionable employment to a mere 0.7% in respect of the service
performed between 1944 and 1990 could not, in their view, be regarded as
compatible with that provision.
The Polish State’s interference with their acquired right to a pension – a
property right protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – in fact constituted a
collective punishment and political repression for their past employment
with the former State security authorities, despite the fact they had been
either positively vetted or not subjected to the vetting procedure in the
democratic Poland of 1990. In their view, admission to the
newly-established State security service or police at that time meant that the
authorities had recognised that they had moral qualities required of a
member of the uniformed services in a democratic state and, consequently,
the right to the status attached to the service, including the full right to
benefits accorded under the special retirement pension scheme. Those rights
were further recognised in the 1994 Act, under which they had been entitled
to the same pensions as functionaries who had not been employed in the
State security service between 1944 and 1990.
The applicants also attached importance to the fact that the 2009 Act had
been introduced nearly 20 years after the change of the political system of
the State. The interference with their property rights was therefore not only
excessive but also belated. The State was entitled to introduce laws aimed at
settling accounts with the communist past and the communist authorities.
This, however, was subject to the condition that such measures, in addition
to passing the test of proportionality, were taken in good time.
Also, as confirmed by the 1996 PACE Resolution, laws designed to settle
accounts could not be motivated by revenge or amount to collective
punishment. In contrast, as emerged from the preamble to the 2009 Act, the
State attributed to them collectively, without any consideration being given
to their individual actions and conduct, general responsibility for communist
43
repressions, violations of human rights and even crimes of the totalitarian
system.
Moreover, the reductions in pensions applied automatically and no
regard had been given to the nature of the duties actually performed, the
function held or the scope of activities. The 2009 Act operated without any
distinction between functionaries who had in reality committed the acts
condemned in its preamble or stifled the democratic opposition and those
who had merely belonged to the administrative personnel or had been
employed in low technical or administrative positions.
In the applicants’ submission, this demonstrated that the aim of
reductions was to seek revenge and penalise them on account of their past
employment, and not, as declared by the authorities, to pursue the principles
of social justice.
119. The applicants next complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
read in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention that they had been
subjected to discrimination on the ground of their past employment in the
former State security service.
In particular, the years of their employment in that service between 1944
and 1990 were accorded the 0.7% coefficient per year, which under the
general social security scheme applied only to non-contributory periods,
whereas contributory periods were accorded 1.3%. Those years were treated
as non-existent, as if they had not been employed at all. In consequence,
they were discriminated against in the enjoyment of their pension rights in
comparison to other pensioners in Poland.
120. The applicants also alleged a violation of their right to a fair
hearing guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 and, in particular, a breach of the
principle of presumption of innocence laid down in Article 6 § 2 of the
Convention.
In that regard, citing the dissenting opinions to the Constitutional Court’s
judgment (see paragraphs 107-111 above), they maintained that the
preamble to the 2009 Act stated, in unambiguous terms, that all the
functionaries of the former State security service had “committed crimes”.
They had, accordingly, been charged, presumed guilty and collectively
condemned to the payment of a financial penalty without any possibility of
being heard by a court and have the criminal responsibility attributed to
them determined individually.
121. The applicants also alleged a violation of Article 7 of the
Convention, submitting that the radical reductions of their pensions on the
ground that they bore collective responsibility for, as stated in the preamble
to the 2009 Act, “crimes ... against organisations and persons defending
independence and democracy” were tantamount to punishment without law,
prohibited by that provision.
122. Invoking Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complained
that their right to the protection of their reputation had not been respected
44
because the preamble to the 2009 Act in a general but unequivocal manner
assigned to them full responsibility for the crimes, wrongs and injustices of
the communist system. In consequence, they had been labelled as persons
who had committed morally reprehensible acts, without having any legal or
practical means to clear their name and protect their right to good
reputation.
123. Furthermore, the applicants alleged a breach of Article 8 read in
conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention in that they had been
discriminated against on the ground of their past employment because they
had been collectively attributed negative personal characteristics in the
preamble to the 2009 Act.
124. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants maintained
that they had been subjected to degrading treatment and severely
humiliated.
First, the State had attributed to them without any concrete evidence
collective responsibility for acts described in the preamble to the 2009 Act
such as “applying unlawful methods, infringing fundamental human rights”,
and committing “crimes ... against organisations and persons defending
independence and democracy”.
In that respect, they cited the views expressed in the dissenting opinions
to the Constitutional Court’s judgment as regards the humiliating nature of
the preamble (see paragraphs 107-111 above) and stated that it stigmatised
them as persons who had received their pensions not because they had
worked but “in exchange for the preservation of the inhumane regime”.
Secondly, the excessive reductions applied under the 2009 Act deprived
them of a significant part of their means of subsistence and exposed them to
financial hardship. As a result, many of them had been deprived of the
possibility to continue to live in dignity.
125. Lastly, under Article 13 read alone and in conjunction with
Articles 3, 6 § 1, 6 § 2, 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1,
the applicants complained that they had no effective remedy to contest
collective responsibility and morally reprehensible conduct attributed to
them by the preamble to the 2009 Act and the resultant restrictions on their
pension rights.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
126. In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court
decides that the present applications should be joined.
45
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO
THE CONVENTION
A. Preliminary issues
1. Scope of the Court’s ruling
127. All the present 1,628 cases originated in the same legislation – the
2009 Act – under which pensions of functionaries of the former communist
State security authorities were reduced due to the introduction of a less
favourable coefficient used for the determination of their pensions in so far
as they had been acquired through employment in those authorities between
1944 and 1990. As shown by the facts of the ten cases described above, the
same pattern, in terms of the same provisions of substantive law and
procedure, applied to each applicant. The pension reductions were
predetermined by the contested regulations, which left no room for
discretion in their application. The applicants’ complaints are similar and
are directed against the legislative provisions of a general character (see
paragraphs 117-125 above). In the Court’s view, for the purposes of its
ruling, the cases described in detail above demonstrate sufficiently the
effects that the 2009 Act had on the asserted Convention rights of the
persons affected by the impugned legislation. Accordingly, the conclusions
reached below apply to all the cases listed in the appendix (see also
paragraph 126 above).
2. Exhaustion of domestic remedies
128. The Court notes that in some cases before it proceedings in which
the applicants contested the pension authority’s decisions re-assessing their
pensions in accordance with the 2009 Act have not yet terminated. Also, in
certain cases the applicants failed to appeal against first-instance judgments
or had their appeals rejected on procedural grounds. Some applicants have not
informed the Court of the outcome of the proceedings (see paragraphs 8-56
above). However, the Court does not find it necessary to determine in each and
every case whether the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies has been
complied with since it considers that the applications are in any event
inadmissible for the reasons given below.
B. As regards Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
129. The applicants alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to
the Convention, maintaining that under the 2009 Act their pensions had
46
been reduced in a manner incompatible with that provision (see paragraph
118 above).
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 states as follows:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his
possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest
and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State
to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in
accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other
contributions or penalties.”
1. Principles deriving from the Court’s case-law
130. All principles which apply generally in cases concerning Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 are equally relevant when it comes to pensions.
To begin with, that Article does not guarantee a right to become the
owner of property. By the same logic, it cannot be interpreted as securing a
right to a pension of a particular amount. It places no restriction on the
Contracting State’s freedom to decide whether or not to have in place any
form of social-security scheme, or to choose the type or amount of benefits
to provide under any such scheme. If, however, a Contracting State has in
force legislation providing for the payment as of right of a pension –
whether conditional or not on the prior payment of contributions – that
legislation must be regarded as generating a proprietary interest falling
within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 for persons satisfying its
requirements (see Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 77, with
further references, in particular to Stec v. United Kingdom (dec.),
nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2005-X and to Kjartan Ásmundsson
v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 39, ECHR 2004-IX; and Carson and Others
v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 64, ECHR 2010). The
reduction or the discontinuance of a pension may therefore constitute
interference with possessions that needs to be justified (see Valkov and
Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 2033/04, 19125/04, 19475/04, 19490/04, 19495/04,
19497/04, 24729/04, 171/05 and 2041/05, § 84, 25 October 2011 with
further references, in particular to Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 71,
28 April 2009; and Panfile v. Romania (dec.), no 13902/11, § 15, 20 March
2012).
131. The first and most important requirement of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 is that any interference by a public authority with the
peaceful enjoyment of possessions should be lawful. Any interference with
the enjoyment of the right of property must also pursue a legitimate aim (see
Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 147-148, ECHR 2004-V, with
47
further references and Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], no. 35014/97,
§§ 163-164, ECHR 2006-VIII).
132. Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the
national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge
to appreciate what is in the “public”, or “general”, interest. Under the
system of protection established by the Convention, it is thus for the
national authorities to make the initial assessment as to the existence of a
problem of public concern warranting measures to be applied in the sphere
of the exercise of the right of property. Here, as in other fields to which the
safeguards of the Convention extend, the national authorities accordingly
enjoy a margin of appreciation (ibid.).
133. Furthermore, the notion of “public interest” is necessarily
extensive. Finding it natural that the margin of appreciation available to the
legislature in implementing social and economic policies should be a wide
one, the Court has on many occasions declared that it will respect the
legislature’s judgment as to what is “in the public interest” unless that
judgment is manifestly without reasonable foundation (see, among many
other examples, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February
1986, § 46, Series A no. 98; Broniowski, cited above, § 149; Stec and
Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 52,
ECHR 2006-VI Carson, cited above, § 61; and Andrejeva, cited above,
§ 83).
134. Relying on the fundamentally subsidiary role of the Convention,
the Court has consistently recognised that the national authorities, having
direct democratic legitimation, are in principle better placed than an
international court to evaluate local needs and conditions. In matters of
general policy, on which opinions within a democratic society may
reasonably differ widely, the role of the domestic policy-maker should be
given special weight (see, for example, James and Others, cited above,
§ 46; Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97,
§ 97 ECHR 2003-VIII; and Valkov and Others, cited above, § 92 in fine).
135. In its many judgments given in the context of the political changes
that commenced in central and eastern Europe in 1989-1990, the Court has
stressed that these principles apply equally, if not a fortiori, to the measures
adopted in the course of the fundamental reform of the country’s political,
legal and economic system in the transition from a totalitarian regime to a
democratic State, phenomena which inevitably involve the enactment of
large-scale economic and social legislation. Balancing the rights at stake, as
well as the interests of the different persons affected by the process of
transforming the State, is an exceptionally difficult exercise. In such
circumstances, in the nature of things, a wide margin of appreciation should
be accorded to the State (see, among other examples, Broniowski, cited
above, § 182; Hutten-Czapska, cited above, § 166, with further references;
Jahn and Others v. Germany [GC], nos. 46720/99, 72203/01 and 72552/01,
48
§ 113 ECHR 2005-VI; Valkov and Others, cited above § 96; and Vistiņš and
Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no. 71234/01, § 113, ECHR 2013-...).
136. However, that margin is not unlimited. The Court must be satisfied
that there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means
employed and the aim sought to be achieved by any measures applied by the
State. That requirement is expressed by the notion of a “fair balance” that
must be struck between the demands of the general interest of the
community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s
fundamental rights. In particular, the Court must ascertain whether by
reason of the State interference the person concerned had to bear a
disproportionate and excessive burden (see, among many other authorities,
Hutten-Czapska, cited above, § 167, with further references).
137. In the assessment of the proportionality of the measures taken by
the State in respect of pension rights, an important consideration is whether
the applicant’s right to derive benefits from the social insurance scheme in
question has been infringed in a manner resulting in the impairment of the
essence of his right. The nature of the benefit taken away – in particular,
whether it has originated in the special advantageous pension scheme
available only to certain groups of persons – may also be taken into account.
The assessment would vary depending on the particular circumstances of
the case and the applicant’s personal situation; while a total deprivation of
entitlements resulting in the loss of means of subsistence would in principle
amount to a violation of the right of property, the imposition of a reasonable
and commensurate reduction would not (see, among many other authorities,
Domalewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34610/97, ECHR 1999-V; Janković
v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X; Schwengel v. Germany
(dec.), no. 52442/99, 2 March 2000; Apostolakis v. Greece, no. 39574/07,
§§ 41-42, 22 October 2009; Kjartan Ásmundsson, cited above, § 45; Valkov
and Others, cited above, § 97; Maggio and Others v. Italy, nos. 46286/09,
52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08 and 56001/08, § 63, 31 May 2011; and
Frimu and 4 other applications v. Romania (dec.), no. 45312/11, 7 February
2012, §§ 42-48).
138. The specific issue of the privileged position vis-à-vis pension rights
enjoyed by members of the communist elite, political police or armed forces
in the post-communist European countries has already been examined by
the Court on several occasions (see, for instance, Goretzky v. Germany
(dec.) no. 52447/99, 6 April 2000: Lessing and Reichelt v. Germany (dec.)
nos. 49646/10 and 3365/11, 16 October 2012; and Schwengel (dec.),
Domalewski (dec.) and Janković (dec.) cited above).
In those cases the Court found that the aim of eliminating or reducing
unjustified or excessive social security benefits, as pursued by the domestic
legislatures, was a legitimate one. In particular, a national legislature is
entitled to suppress pecuniary privileges of a political nature awarded to
former functionaries by totalitarian regimes. It may do so provided that, as
49
already stated above (see paragraphs 136-137 above), the measures taken
are not disproportionate. Under the Court’s case-law, there is no doubt that
persons benefitting from such privileges do not have any legitimate
expectation that they will preserve their advantageous position in this regard
after the transition to a democratic system (ibid.).
2. Application of the above principles in the present cases
(a) Applicable rule of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
139. The measures applied under the 2009 Act resulted in divesting the
applicants irrevocably of part of the pensions they had received before and
until 1 January 2010 (see paragraph 71-72 above). They constituted an
interference with the applicants’ property rights protected by Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1. Accordingly, the cases fall to be examined under the second
sentence of the first paragraph of that provision, setting out exceptions
permitting deprivation of “possessions ... in the public interest and subject
to conditions provided for by law”.
(b) Principle of lawfulness
140. The impugned measures were applied under the legislation that was
adopted by the Polish Parliament. It was subsequently examined by the
Constitutional Court for its compatibility with the Constitution and found to
be constitutional. Accordingly, the interference with the applicants’ property
rights was lawful for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
(c) Principle of legitimate aim in the public interest
141. The aims pursued by the State in relation to the enactment of the
2009 Act have been stated in its preamble, explained extensively in the
Constitutional Court’s judgment and also referred to in the Supreme Court’s
resolution (see paragraphs 68, 95, 98, 100, 103-104 and 114 above).
The Polish Parliament, having regard to the morally reprehensible role
played by the former security service – political police – in preserving the
communist system and repressing organisations and persons defending
democracy and to the fact that those employed in that service had been
accorded various, including economic, privileges, decided that the
continuation of their advantageous pension rights could not be reconciled
with the principle of social justice (see paragraph 68 above).
The Constitutional Court shared this view. It held that the legislature,
guided by that principle, had pursued a legitimate aim of adjusting pensions
of former functionaries of the State security service to the level of average
pensions under the general social security scheme. It also stressed that the
categorically negative evaluation by Parliament of service in the communist
State security authorities had been warranted by Poland’s historical
50
experience under the communist rule. Referring to the historical past, it
described the essence of the activities of those authorities as, inter alia,
“supporting the political regime hostile to human rights” and noted that
“[i]n reward, the ruling communist party [had given] functionaries practical
impunity for abuses of power, promotions that [had been] faster than in
other uniformed services, a high remuneration for service, other numerous
economic and social privileges and high old-age pensions”. After a
thorough analysis of various relevant political, social and economic factors,
the Constitutional Court concluded that the measures adopted complied with
the requirements of the constitutional principle of social justice (see, in
particular, paragraphs 95, 98, 100 and 103-104 above).
The Supreme Court’s assessment did not differ either; it placed much
emphasis on the legitimacy of the reductions, stating that the legislature, in
accordance with the principle of social justice had “adjusted the levels of
their benefits ... only in respect of periods of service which [had] consisted
in betraying the values of independence, freedom and democracy”
(see paragraph 114 above).
142. The Court would recall again that in implementing social and
economic policies, in particular in the course of the transition from a
totalitarian regime to a democratic State, the State authorities enjoy a wide
margin of appreciation in deciding what is “in the public interest
(see paragraphs 132-135 above).
This necessarily encompasses the passing of de-communisation laws in
order to settle accounts with the communist past and remove its relics also
in such spheres as social or economic privileges previously accorded to
persons belonging to the former elite, uniformed forces including,
especially, the political police and its secret collaborators, or others who
played crucial roles in safeguarding the undemocratic regime
(see Domalewski (dec.), cited above; Janković (dec.), cited above;
Schwengel (dec.), cited above; Goretzky (dec.), cited above; Lessing and
Reichelt (dec.), cited above; Rasmussen, cited above, §§ 75-76; and Zawisza
v. Poland, no. 37293/09, § 36, 31 May 2011, with further references;
see also paragraph 115 above).
In this context, it should be stressed that the applicants were
functionaries of the State security authorities whose raison d’être was to
infringe the most fundamental values on which the Convention is based (see
143. It is a matter of common knowledge that the political transition in
the post-communist countries has involved numerous complex, far-reaching
and controversial reforms which necessarily had to be spread over time. The
dismantling of the communist heritage has been gradual, with each country
having its own, sometimes slow, way to ensure that the past injustices are
put right and accounts settled. Even though on the collapse of the
totalitarian regimes those countries faced similar problems, there is, and
51
there can be, no common pattern for the restructuring of their political, legal
or social systems. Nor can any specific time-frame or speed for completing
this process be fixed.
Indeed, in assessing whether in a given country, considering its unique
historical and political experience, “the public interest” requires the
adoption of specific de-communisation measures in order to ensure greater
social justice or the stability of democracy, the national legislature
empowered with direct democratic legitimation is better placed than the
Court (see paragraphs 132-134 above with references to the Court’s caselaw). By the same token, the national authorities, having direct knowledge
of their country, are entitled to condemn, in the form and at the time chosen
by them, past institutions or activities which, as shown by the country’s
historical experience, had not respected the principle of democracy, the rule
of law and human rights.
144. The Court sees no reason to differ from the evaluation of the Polish
Parliament, the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court and accepts that
it was legitimate for the State to take measures designed to put an end to
pension advantages regarded as unwarranted or acquired unjustly, in order
to ensure the greater fairness of the pension system (see also §§ 12 and 14
of the 1996 PACE Resolution cited in paragraph 115 above).
It also endorses the Constitutional Court’s arguments rejecting the
assertion that the 2009 Act had served the purposes of revenge and
collective punishment (see paragraphs 105-106 above).
A reduction of pension privileges of those who have contributed to the
maintenance in power of, or have benefited from, an oppressive regime
cannot be regarded as a form of punishment. The pensions in the instant
cases were reduced by the national legislature, not because any of the
applicants committed a crime or was personally responsible for human
rights violations, but because those privileges had been accorded for
political reasons as a reward for services considered to be particularly useful
for the communist State (see paragraphs 95, 98 and 104-106 above and
paragraph 138 above, with references to the Court’s case-law). Indeed,
given the reason for which they were granted and the manner in which they
were acquired, they cannot but be regarded as manifestly unjust from the
point of view of the values underlying the Convention. This being so, the
personal guilt or not of persons who benefited from such unjust privileges is
not material for the consideration of the issue of compliance with Article 1
of Protocol No. 1.
145. It remains for the Court to ascertain, from the standpoint of
proportionality, whether the Polish authorities struck a “fair balance”
between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved.
52
(d) Principle of “fair balance”
146. The Court notes that the pension scheme for the uniformed services
from which the applicants derived their benefits was of a non-contributive
character, as it was fully financed by State funds and the beneficiaries did
not have to pay contributions in order to receive their pensions
(see paragraph 65 above). However, this element is not material for the
determination of the applicant’s Convention claims in the present cases, as
the protection under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 extends not only
contributive but also to non-contributive social security benefits
(see paragraph 130 above).
147. The applicants referred to several aspects of the 2009 Act which, in
their view, demonstrated that the contested reductions were incompatible
with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They also attached importance to the fact
that the 2009 Act had been introduced belatedly, nearly 20 years after the
change of the political system of the State (see paragraph 118 above).
The Court has already held above that one cannot set any specific
time-frame or speed for a State to close the de-communisation process since
it depends on the circumstances particular to its historical and political
background (see paragraph 143 above). It finds that the Constitutional Court
relied on similar considerations in its judgment, holding that there had been
no constitutional prohibition on enacting the 2009 Act even after a
significant lapse of time (see paragraph 98 above).
Considering the weight attached to the opinion of the domestic
policy-maker in that respect, it is for the national authorities to decide when,
regard being had to the demands of the public interest, such measures may
be applied (see paragraphs 132-135 with references to the Court’s
case-law).
148. Moreover, the Court cannot but note that the alleged delay on the
part of the Polish State in implementing the contested measures did not have
any detrimental, retroactive effects on the applicants’ pecuniary rights. In
contrast, for those nearly 20 years, they enjoyed their advantageous pension
rights and continued to draw their benefits untouched. To that extent, a
prompter reduction of pension rates would not have eased the financial
prejudice they claim to have suffered.
149. The applicants asserted that the lowering of the coefficient used for
the calculation of their pensions from 2.6% applicable to the uniformed
services to 0.7% applicable to non-contributory periods under the general
pension scheme had been drastic, unfair and disproportionate (see
53
150. However, the Court finds that, as confirmed by the Constitutional
Court’s in-depth analysis comparing the former functionaries’ situation
before and after the reductions with the situation of an ordinary pensioner,
on the cut-off date of 1 January 2010 the average pension of a functionary
had still been higher by 58% than the average ordinary pension. The former
amounted to some PLN 2,558 and the latter to some PLN 1,618. It was on
average four times higher than the statutory minimum retirement pension
(see paragraphs 97 and 99-102 above). This was mostly due to the fact that
the salaries of persons insured under the general system were 50% lower
than in the uniformed services and that, under the communist regime,
remunerations in the State security service had been significantly higher
than that of ordinary employees (see paragraphs 97 and 102 above).
Moreover, the coefficient used for the calculation of ordinary pensions in
respect of contributory periods was, and still is, 1.3%, namely half of the
2.6% applied to the uniformed services (see paragraphs 71-74 above).
The Supreme Court, in its resolution of 3 March 2011, made the same
findings (see paragraph 114).
151. Despite the fairly large scale revision of the pensions under the
2009 Act – it concerned over 38,000 persons – in respect of only 589
pensioners was the revised benefit lowered below the statutory minimum
which was, however, corrected by increasing the amount to the requisite
level (see paragraph 100 above).
Other elements relevant for the determination of the applicants’ pension
rights remained unchanged. They retained the 2.6% coefficient for each year
of service in democratic Poland, invalidity and survivor pension benefits, as
well as special increases and allowances due for service in hazardous
conditions. The same terms and rules for pension indexation apply to future
increases in their pensions (see paragraph 99 above).
The contested coefficient has to be placed in the wider context of the
whole pension system in Poland. As observed by the Supreme Court, the
0.7% coefficient applied to the basis of assessment of their pension still
results in a more favourable benefit than under the general scheme. The
point of reference for the former functionaries is the last, that is, normally
the highest salary at their last post and not, as under the general system, the
average salary, reduced by social contributions, received over the selected
10 out of the last 20 years of employment or 20 years chosen by the person
concerned. In consequence, the 0.7% coefficient, applied with reference to
the highest salary of a former functionary, did not produce effects materially
different from the application of the 1.3% coefficient with reference to the
average “pensionable” salary available to an ordinary employee
(see paragraphs 74-75 and 114 above).
54
152. The general pattern of reductions described in detail in the
Constitutional Court’s judgment and the Supreme Court’s resolution shows
that in most cases such reductions did not exceed, roughly, 25-30% (see
paragraphs 99-102 and 114 above).
The facts of the selected 10 cases concerning 34 applicants, described
above, confirm that conclusion (see paragraphs 8-54). Naturally, the longer
the period of employment in the State security service, the greater
proportionally was the reduction as manifested in the re-calculated pension.
Most applicants had their pensions reduced by 20-30%, but the recalculated
amounts were either higher, sometimes considerably so, than the average
pension in Poland – PLN 1,618.70 – at the material time, or very close to
that sum. Only a few persons received benefits slightly lower than the
average pension (see paragraphs 10, 16-17, 22, 28-29, 32-33, 37, 41, 45, 49,
52-53 and 99 above). Only in a few cases did the reductions oscillate around
40-50%; however, these cases concerned persons who apparently had had a
long period of service in the communist State security authorities and each
of them after the decrease received the amount above, in some cases well
above, the statutory minimum pension (see paragraph 10, 17, and 53 above).
153. In the circumstances, the measures complained of cannot be
considered as impairing the very essence of the applicants’ pension rights.
It should not be overlooked that, as emphasised by the Supreme Court, in
contrast to former State security functionaries who nevertheless retain the
0.7% coefficient for their service in 1944-1990, victims of communist
repression in Poland have their imprisonment on political grounds regarded
as a pensionable period but are in that respect accorded a 0% coefficient by
reason of the lack of income (see paragraph 114 above).
154. Furthermore, the Court does not share the applicants’ view that
their pension rights, once acquired, were untouchable and could never be
altered. As stated above, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the legislative
power of States extends to reducing or varying the amount of benefits
provided under a social security scheme. A fortiori, they may remove, in
pursuance of the principle of social justice, an existing inequality between
privileged pensions accorded to a specific group and perceived as unjust or
excessive in comparison with benefits under the general system and with
ordinary pensions (see paragraphs 130-138 and 142-143 above).
Similarly, under the Polish Constitution vested rights are protected
provided that they were justly acquired. Privileges acquired in violation of
principles of justice do not engender a legitimate expectation of
unconditional protection (see paragraph 103 above).
The applicants could not therefore legitimately expect that the privileges
granted to them under the communist regime would be irrevocable in all
circumstances.
55
155. The contested measures were applied to the former functionaries of
the State security service as defined by the Polish legislation. All those
persons had benefited not only from a special – uniformed services –
pension scheme much more favourable than the general one but also from
considerably higher pensionable salaries not available to ordinary citizens
who had not been implicated in the work of the communist State security
(see paragraphs 95, 97 and 114 above). The fact of service in the
above-mentioned institution, created to infringe human rights protected
under the Convention, should be regarded as a relevant circumstance for
defining and justifying the category of persons to be affected by the
contested reductions of pension benefits. The Court is satisfied that the
Polish authorities did not extend the personal scope of these measures
beyond what was necessary to achieve the legitimate aim pursued.
156. The Court finds that the applicants in the present cases did not
suffer a loss of means of subsistence or a total deprivation of benefits. It is
to be noted that, although the contested measures reduced pension privileges
especially created for those employed in communist State institutions that
served the undemocratic regime, they nevertheless maintained for such
persons a scheme more advantageous than the general one. Accordingly, it
cannot be said that the Polish State made them bear a “disproportionate and
excessive burden” (see paragraphs 136-137 above).
157. It follows that the applications are manifestly ill-founded within the
meaning of Article 35 § 3(a) and should be rejected in accordance with
Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
158. The applicants also alleged violations of several other provisions of
the Convention (see paragraph 119-125).
However, the Court considers that the issues raised by the applicants
under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, as well as the alleged
discrimination – contrary to Article 14 – in comparison with other
pensioners in Poland have already been adequately addressed above
(see paragraphs 140-155 above).
As regards complaints under Article 6 § 1 (criminal limb), Article 6 § 2
and Article 7, they are evidently incompatible ratione materiae with the
provisions of the Convention, since the guarantees invoked by the
applicants apply only to criminal proceedings.
As regards Article 13, according to the Court’s established case-law
(see, for example, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157,
ECHR 2000-XI) this provision guarantees a domestic remedy to deal with
the substance of an “arguable complaint” under the Convention. The
applicants’ complaints are either manifestly ill-founded or incompatible
56
with the provisions of the Convention. Article 13 is therefore inapplicable in
the present cases.
159. It follows that the remainder of the applications must likewise be
rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications,
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Françoise Elens-Passos
Registrar
Ineta Ziemele
President
CICHOPEK v. POLAND AND OTHER APPLICATIONS DECISION – APPENDIX
57
APPENDIX
App. No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Case Name
15189/10 CICHOPEK v. Poland
16970/10 ZDZIECH v. Poland
17185/10 WASILEWSKA-TŁUŚCIK v.
Poland
18215/10 RAGINI v. Poland
18848/10 STRADOMSKI v. Poland
19152/10 PAWLIK v. Poland
19915/10 LUDWICKI v. Poland
20080/10 JÓZEFOWICZ v. Poland
20705/10 KOWALSKI v. Poland
20725/10 KALINOWSKI v. Poland
21259/10 PAPLACZYK v. Poland
21270/10 PRZEPIÓRA v. Poland
21279/10 POLAŃSKI v. Poland
21456/10 KORDOWIECKI v. Poland
22603/10 NOWAKOWSKI v. Poland
22748/10 VARISELLA v. Poland
23217/10 FEDEROWICZ v. Poland
23585/10 KOKOCIŃSKI v. Poland
23604/10 BRAŃSKA and BRAŃSKI v.
Poland
23991/10 SZUMSKA and Others v.
Poland
24190/10 OLSZYNA v. Poland
24268/10 CELENIK v. Poland
Date of
lodging
10/03/2010
10/03/2010
17/03/2010
27/03/2010
29/03/2010
02/04/2010
06/04/2010
06/04/2010
08/04/2010
10/04/2010
30/03/2010
22/03/2010
29/03/2010
01/04/2010
12/04/2010
06/04/2010
20/04/2010
20/04/2010
23/04/2010
19/04/2010
26/04/2010
19/04/2010
Introduced by
A. Cichopek
L. Zdziech
A. WasilewskaTłuścik
R. Ragini
J. Stradomski
K. Pawlik
J. Ludwicki
Z. Józefowicz
J. Kowalski
M. Kalinowski
B. Paplaczyk
R. Przepióra
Z. Polański
Z. Kordowiecki
K. Nowakowski
A. Varisella
A. Federowicz
T. Kokociński
W. Brańska
J. Brański
A. Jarzyło
Z. Karnenska
B. Kaszkur-Lejewska
H. Lipińska
W. Lipiński
R. Matysiak-Siery
H. Oleksy
M. Ostrowska
L. Pańczyk
N. Pańczyk
D. Prugar
B. Pupar
I. Sowińska
B. Suska
B. Szumska
B. Olszyna
H. Celenik
Name of
Representative
M. Gąsiorowska
M. Gąsiorowska
M. Gąsiorowska
58
App. No.
Case Name
23.
24434/10 ROMAŃSKI and Others v.
Poland
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
24572/10
25029/10
25155/10
25616/10
26067/10
26798/10
27153/10
27257/10
27494/10
27536/10
27594/10
27986/10
28084/10
28296/10
28516/10
28530/10
28586/10
28587/10
28726/10
28796/10
28872/10
28976/10
46.
29112/10 MICKIEWICZ v. Poland
RYDZEWSKI v. Poland
STUDNIAREK v. Poland
KAPUŚCIŃSKA v. Poland
PIETRZAK v. Poland
DANILUK v. Poland
KUPCZAK v. Poland
PIETURA v. Poland
WRZESZCZ v. Poland
KUTEK v. Poland
TURZYNIECKA v. Poland
MARKIEWICZ v. Poland
GLOC v. Poland
MACKIEWICZ v. Poland
BOCZKOWSKI v. Poland
RESZCZYŃSKI v. Poland
PAWLONKA v. Poland
SASIN v. Poland
SZUSTER v. Poland
ANDRZEJEWSKI v. Poland
KUSY v. Poland
GRZEGORCZYK v. Poland
HARASIMIUK and Others v.
Poland
Date of
Introduced by
lodging
19/04/2010 E. Duda
S. Fortuna
W. Giera
B. Gomulińska
A. Gomuliński
D. Makuch
J. Męcik
L. Męcik
W. Przewrocka
J. Romański
W. Wacławik
12/04/2010 S. Rydzewski
27/04/2010 W. Studniarek
15/04/2010 J. Kapuścińska
26/04/2010 Z. Pietrzak
20/04/2010 T. Daniluk
26/04/2010 A. Kupczak
10/05/2010 T. Pietura
10/05/2010 R. Wrzeszcz
12/05/2010 M. Kutek
11/05/2010 K. Turzyniecka
14/05/2010 J. Markiewicz
12/05/2010 Z. Gloc
12/05/2010 S. Mackiewicz
19/04/2010 C. Boczkowski
17/05/2010 R. Reszczyński
07/05/2010 E. Pawlonka
07/05/2010 T. Sasin
04/05/2010 J. Szuster
02/05/2010 W. Andrzejewski
18/05/2010 K. Kusy
16/05/2010 E. Grzegorczyk
02/05/2010 B. Gowin
W. Gowin
L. Harasimiuk
M. Harasimiuk
K. Lange
G. Nowak-Szalecka
D. Rzepoluch
R. Rzepoluch
K. Trzykowski
W. Wolski
A. Zareba
11/05/2010 W. Mickiewicz
Name of
Representative
M. Gąsiorowska
M. Gąsiorowska
M. Gąsiorowska
App. No.
Case Name
47.
29368/10 ŁACH and Others v. Poland
48.
49.
50.
51.
29543/10
29725/10
29727/10
29746/10
BERGER v. Poland
WYDRA v. Poland
BEDNARZ v. Poland
WIDŁAK and Others v. Poland
52.
53.
54.
55.
29852/10
29864/10
30019/10
30055/10
PIĄTEK v. Poland
BLOCH v. Poland
TWERD v. Poland
KSIĄŻKA v. Poland
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
30062/10
30070/10
30154/10
30156/10
30166/10
30180/10
30201/10
30250/10
30262/10
30269/10
30284/10
30299/10
30311/10
30312/10
30384/10
30423/10
KUŁAKOWSKA v. Poland
KALISZ v. Poland
BLOCH v. Poland
STEFANIAK v. Poland
BANCERZ v. Poland
SYSŁO v. Poland
JÓŹWIK v. Poland
JANOTA v. Poland
DYDUŁA v. Poland
MAĆKOWIAK v. Poland
DYSZCZYK v. Poland
UCHMAN v. Poland
JASTRZĘBSKI v. Poland
GOŁĄB v. Poland
KOMAN v. Poland
OGÓREK v. Poland
Date of
Introduced by
lodging
20/05/2010 Z. Garbaczewski
G. Góralewska-Łach
W. Jabłoński
T. Jakubczyk
B. Kąkol
W. Krawczyk
J. Łach
M. Marianowski
Z. Paluch
A. Piętek
G. Rejman
R. Skwirowski
17/05/2010 R. Berger
19/05/2010 M. Wydra
21/05/2010 C. Bednarz
25/05/2010 W. Czapski
W. Grzejszczak
M. Karpiński
K. Korczyński
W. Mioduchowski
J. StawikowskaWidłak
J. Wasiak
W. Widlak
L. Zaniewicz
A. Zgudczyńska
24/05/2010 R. Piątek
17/05/2010 A. Bloch
24/05/2010 Z. Twerd
25/05/2010 C. Książka
R. Książka
25/05/2010 I. Kułakowska
28/05/2010 S. Kalisz
17/05/2010 M Bloch
25/05/2010 A. Stefaniak
27/05/2010 M. Bancerz
14/05/2010 E. Sysło
27/05/2010 T. Jóźwik
27/05/2010 M. Janota
28/05/2010 H. Dyduła
27/05/2010 S. Maćkowiak
26/05/2010 J. Dyszczyk
24/05/2010 Z. Uchman
24/05/2010 A. Jastrzębski
19/05/2010 M. Gołąb
17/05/2010 J. Koman
26/05/2010 A. Ogórek
59
Name of
Representative
M. Gąsiorowska
M. Gąsiorowska
M. Gąsiorowska
60
Date of
lodging
26/05/2010
25/05/2010
28/05/2010
19/05/2010
25/05/2010
18/05/2010
App. No.
Case Name
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
30430/10
30433/10
30437/10
30438/10
30445/10
30681/10
DUSZCZYK v. Poland
DOMAGAŁA v. Poland
BOHATYREWICZ v. Poland
GOŁĘBIOWSKI v. Poland
DUBINIEC v. Poland
ALEKSANDROWICZ and
Others v. Poland
78.
30820/10 KWIECIEŃ and Others v.
Poland
31/05/2010
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
30961/10
31205/10
31249/10
31383/10
31392/10
31412/10
31445/10
31453/10
31472/10
31622/10
31636/10
31835/10
31852/10
31930/10
31941/10
31957/10
32022/10
32031/10
32035/10
32165/10
32204/10
32219/10
32236/10
32240/10
32251/10
32315/10
32321/10
32323/10
32412/10
32554/10
32618/10
31/05/2010
31/05/2010
25/05/2010
01/06/2010
26/05/2010
01/06/2010
24/05/2010
26/05/2010
26/05/2010
01/06/2010
02/06/2010
02/06/2010
25/05/2010
01/06/2010
24/05/2010
25/05/2010
26/05/2010
25/05/2010
25/05/2010
26/05/2010
25/05/2010
26/05/2010
28/05/2010
04/06/2010
26/05/2010
25/05/2010
26/05/2010
04/06/2010
07/06/2010
04/06/2010
02/06/2010
BOCZEK v. Poland
OZIMEK v. Poland
BIAŁEK v. Poland
MALISZ v. Poland
WAŁDOCH v. Poland
PLESZEWSKI v. Poland
PIOTROWSKI v. Poland
POLAK v. Poland
ŻYGADŁO v. Poland
KUŁAKOWSKI v. Poland
KOSSARZECKI v. Poland
JASIŃSKI v. Poland
PRZEWOŹNIAK v. Poland
ŚCISŁY v. Poland
SZYPIELEWICZ v. Poland
SKIBA v. Poland
KRIGER v. Poland
IGNACIUK v. Poland
NOWICKI v. Poland
KOLADO v. Poland
MACIĄŻEK v. Poland
MRÓZ v. Poland
GROCHOCKA v. Poland
JAKOBSON v. Poland
PRZYBYLSKI v. Poland
MANIECKI v. Poland
SOBKOWIAK v. Poland
SOJDA v. Poland
PTAK v. Poland
OZIMEK-GAŁKIEWICZ v.
Poland
Introduced by
P. Duszczyk
I. Domagała
T. Bohatyrewicz
M. Gołębiowski
C. Dubiniec
M. Aleksandrowicz
D. Błażejewska
P. Błażejewski
L. Górski
K. Iwanicka
G. Żmuda
L. Żmuda
W. Kwiecień
W. Raszka
T. Rudna-Krawczyk
S. Boczek
T. Ozimek
M. Białek
K. Malisz
B. Wałdoch
F. Pleszewski
K. Piotrowski
C. Polak
M. Żygadło
Z. Kułakowski
F. Kossarzecki
A. Jasiński
A. Przewoźniak
K. Scisly
J. Szypielewicz
W. Skiba
W. Kriger
A. Ignaciuk
W. Nowicki
T. Kolado
W. Maciążek
M. Mróz
T. Grochocka
E. Jakobson
L. Przybylski
A. Maniecki
Z. Sobkowiak
M. Piotrowski
J. Sojda
K. Ptak
U. OzimekGałkiewicz
Name of
Representative
M. Gąsiorowska
M. Gąsiorowska
M. Gąsiorowska
P. Sowisło
P. Sowisło
P. Sowisło
P. Sowisło
P. Sowisło
P. Sowisło
P. Sowisło
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
App. No.
Case Name
32754/10
32793/10
33289/10
33297/10
33305/10
33312/10
33322/10
33344/10
33460/10
33635/10
33916/10
33922/10
33941/10
34070/10
34153/10
34168/10
34185/10
34204/10
34229/10
34237/10
34289/10
34290/10
34293/10
34294/10
34297/10
34298/10
34347/10
34435/10
34444/10
34467/10
34515/10
34533/10
34553/10
34565/10
34571/10
34684/10
34691/10
34728/10
34735/10
34758/10
34761/10
34794/10
34861/10
34985/10
35015/10
35198/10
35207/10
35217/10
TKACZYK v. Poland
MACHERZYŃSKI v. Poland
KUŹNIAREK v. Poland
KOZŁOWSKI v. Poland
TULEYA v. Poland
ŻUKOWSKI v. Poland
WALUŚKIEWICZ v. Poland
ZIĘBA v. Poland
CZEŚNIK v. Poland
MACUTKIEWICZ v. Poland
GOLCEW v. Poland
DYNAROWICZ v. Poland
DOMINIAK v. Poland
ROSZKOWSKA v. Poland
WÓJCIK v. Poland
FILINGIER v. Poland
PLUCIŃSKI v. Poland
HYHS v. Poland
MALISZEWSKI v. Poland
MRÓZ v. Poland
BORYSEWICZ v. Poland
LANKIEWICZ v. Poland
LEWANDOWSKI v. Poland
BORYCKI v. Poland
WENTEL v. Poland
ŁUKASZEK v. Poland
JABŁOŃSKI v. Poland
DEC v. Poland
DZIĘCIOŁ v. Poland
SOCHACKI v. Poland
SITKIEWICZ v. Poland
MAĆKOWIAK v. Poland
KRIEGEL v. Poland
TOMCZAK v. Poland
TOMCZAK v. Poland
SZYPIELEWICZ v. Poland
SZAMOTA v. Poland
SOBIESKI v. Poland
STRĄCZYŃSKI v. Poland
SOJCZYŃSKI v. Poland
SAKOWICZ v. Poland
ŁUKA v. Poland
SAWICKI v. Poland
PIEKARCZYK v. Poland
JAWORSKI v. Poland
SEMLA v. Poland
ZAJĄC v. Poland
BĘBEN v. Poland
Date of
lodging
08/06/2010
08/06/2010
08/06/2010
28/05/2010
10/06/2010
26/05/2010
03/06/2010
07/06/2010
03/06/2010
08/06/2010
07/06/2010
10/06/2010
08/06/2010
10/06/2010
08/06/2010
09/06/2010
10/06/2010
09/06/2010
04/06/2010
15/06/2010
16/06/2010
07/06/2010
07/06/2010
16/06/2010
17/06/2010
01/06/2010
14/06/2010
17/06/2010
17/06/2010
09/06/2010
08/06/2010
16/06/2010
09/06/2010
15/06/2010
15/06/2010
24/05/2010
14/06/2010
15/06/2010
16/06/2010
16/06/2010
17/06/2010
16/06/2010
18/06/2010
17/06/2010
18/06/2010
18/06/2010
18/06/2010
16/06/2010
Introduced by
K. Tkaczyk
T. Macherzyński
S. Kuźniarek
F. Kozłowski
L. Tuleya
B. Żukowski
J. Waluśkiewicz
P. Zięba
J. Cześnik
E. Macutkiewicz
W. Golcew
W. Dynarowicz
W. Dominiak
M. Roszkowska
R. Wójcik
B. Filingier
J. Pluciński
A. Hyhs
A. Maliszewski
M. Mróz
J. Borysewicz
S. Lankiewicz
K. Lewandowski
J. Borycki
M. Wentel
W. Łukaszek
M. Jabłoński
Z. Dec
G. Dzięcioł
L. Sochacki
R. Sitkiewicz
J. Maćkowiak
M. Kriegel
D. Tomczak
B. Tomczak
R. Szypielewicz
W. Szamota
J. Sobieski
S. Strączyński
W. Sojczyński
L. Sakowicz
B. Łuka
Z. Sawicki
J. Piekarczyk
K. Jaworski
M. Semla
L. Zając
K. Bęben
61
Name of
Representative
62
App. No.
Case Name
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.
172.
173.
174.
175.
176.
177.
178.
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
188.
189.
190.
191.
192.
193.
194.
195.
196.
197.
198.
199.
200.
35223/10
35265/10
35694/10
36145/10
36261/10
36277/10
36320/10
36321/10
36364/10
36396/10
36535/10
36539/10
36559/10
36563/10
36567/10
36619/10
36637/10
36642/10
36644/10
36645/10
36647/10
36650/10
36653/10
36654/10
36661/10
36666/10
36805/10
36809/10
36945/10
37161/10
37196/10
37214/10
37239/10
37242/10
37340/10
37410/10
37634/10
37640/10
37644/10
37656/10
37669/10
37676/10
37680/10
BROJEWSKI v. Poland
BUCZEK v. Poland
SZULC v. Poland
OSTÓJ v. Poland
MAŁYSZCZYK v. Poland
MOSKALIK v. Poland
MATEŃKO v. Poland
BOCHENEK v. Poland
BANAŚ v. Poland
OSEK v. Poland
SNADY v. Poland
SZULIM v. Poland
SMULSKI v. Poland
SZULCZYŃSKI v. Poland
STOLARSKA v. Poland
TOMASZEWSKI v. Poland
KUKAWKA v. Poland
POSPIECH v. Poland
KOSAKOWSKI v. Poland
NIEDŹWIEDŹ v. Poland
KABAŁA v. Poland
ROSZKOWSKI v. Poland
RYBICKI v. Poland
PIASECZYŃSKA v. Poland
KAMIŃSKA v. Poland
DUDEK v. Poland
DUSZCZYK v. Poland
GÓRNY v. Poland
CIESIELSKI v. Poland
CHUDZIŃSKI v. Poland
ZIELIŃSKI v. Poland
WAŃKOWICZ v. Poland
ZATOŃSKI v. Poland
MARCZYK v. Poland
J. v. Poland
BARYS v. Poland
BARCZAK v. Poland
STRAŚ v. Poland
BYCZEK v. Poland
PAŹDZIOR v. Poland
WÓJCIK v. Poland
STOWARZYSZENIE
EMERYTÓW I RENCISTÓW
POLICYJNYCH v. Poland
201.
202.
37684/10 ŁUCZAK v. Poland
37686/10 ZAWISTOWSKA v. Poland
Date of
lodging
15/06/2010
18/06/2010
11/06/2010
22/06/2010
21/06/2010
10/06/2010
23/06/2010
14/06/2010
21/05/2010
14/06/2010
21/06/2010
17/06/2010
17/06/2010
17/06/2010
18/06/2010
21/06/2010
21/06/2010
21/06/2010
24/06/2010
21/06/2010
23/06/2010
22/06/2010
24/06/2010
17/06/2010
14/06/2010
15/06/2010
22/06/2010
16/06/2010
18/06/2010
21/06/2010
21/06/2010
16/06/2010
25/06/2010
28/06/2010
28/06/2010
30/06/2010
29/06/2010
30/06/2010
29/06/2010
30/05/2010
29/06/2010
25/06/2010
29/06/2010
Introduced by
W. Brojewski
H. Buczek
M. Szulc
W. Ostój
L. Małyszczyk
R. Moskalik
B. Mateńko
J. Bochenek
J. Banaś
J. Osek
J. Snady
J. Szulim
H. Smulski
E. Szulczyński
A. Stolarska
P. Tomaszewski
J. Kukawka
M. Pospiech
J. Kosakowski
Z. Niedźwiedź
T. Lewandowski
M. Kabała
M. Roszkowski
J. Rybicki
A. Piaseczyńska
A. Kamińska
A. Dudek
Z. Duszczyk
S. Górny
J. Ciesielski
J. Chudziński
W. Zieliński
Z. Wańkowicz
K. Zatoński
R. Marczyk
J.
C. Barys
S. Barczak
E. Straś
A. Byczek
S. Paździor
B. Wójcik
Stowarzyszenie
Emerytów i
Rencistów
Policyjnych
29/06/2010 A. Łuczak
30/06/2010 A. Zawistowska
Name of
Representative
T. Koncewicz
App. No.
Case Name
203.
204.
205.
206.
207.
208.
209.
210.
211.
212.
213.
214.
215.
216.
217.
218.
219.
220.
221.
222.
223.
37690/10
37695/10
37700/10
37701/10
37706/10
37837/10
37851/10
37966/10
37975/10
37979/10
37983/10
37987/10
37992/10
38003/10
38011/10
38013/10
38060/10
38140/10
38144/10
38358/10
38561/10
ZALEWSKA v. Poland
ZATOŃSKA v. Poland
ZAWISTOWSKI v. Poland
SOBAŃSKI v. Poland
SKRZYPEK v. Poland
DUDEK v. Poland
DOROS v. Poland
KOPCZYŃSKI v. Poland
TARNAWSKA v. Poland
KOZARSKI v. Poland
KACPRZYŃSKI v. Poland
DYLEWSKA v. Poland
KASPRZAK v. Poland
KOZARSKA v. Poland
URBAN v. Poland
KARWOWSKI v. Poland
TANANO v. Poland
KRASUSKA v. Poland
KAŹMIERCZAK v. Poland
ŚCIEGIENKA v. Poland
MAŁEK and Others v. Poland
Date of
lodging
30/06/2010
28/06/2010
30/06/2010
01/07/2010
29/06/2010
28/06/2010
29/06/2010
28/06/2010
30/06/2010
28/06/2010
01/07/2010
25/06/2010
29/06/2010
28/06/2010
24/06/2010
28/06/2010
28/06/2010
29/06/2010
01/07/2010
30/06/2010
05/07/2010
224.
225.
226.
227.
228.
229.
230.
231.
232.
233.
234.
235.
236.
237.
238.
239.
240.
241.
242.
38685/10
38807/10
38892/10
38939/10
38994/10
39585/10
39621/10
39632/10
39691/10
39951/10
40137/10
40150/10
40182/10
40204/10
40206/10
40211/10
40372/10
40436/10
40466/10
MATULEWICZ v. Poland
STACHOWSKI v. Poland
MAGDZIAK v. Poland
SEKUŁA v. Poland
BĄCZEK v. Poland
KOPRUCKI v. Poland
KLIMOWICZ v. Poland
KWIATKOWSKI v. Poland
KAUS v. Poland
KOKOT v. Poland
ROSIŃSKA v. Poland
RACZKOWSKI v. Poland
ANTKOWIAK v. Poland
GRYCUK v. Poland
GRYCUK v. Poland
GÓRSKI v. Poland
BŁASZKIEWICZ v. Poland
RATAJCZAK v. Poland
RYMUSZKA v. Poland
02/07/2010
24/06/2010
05/07/2010
28/06/2010
21/06/2010
05/07/2010
02/07/2010
24/06/2010
02/07/2010
02/07/2010
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
21/06/2010
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
02/07/2010
06/07/2010
26/05/2010
02/07/2010
Introduced by
H. Zalewska
W. Zatońska
J. Zawistowski
Z. Sobański
C. Skrzypek
J. Dudek
J. Doros
J. Kopczyński
A. Tarnawska
J. Kozarski
B. Kacprzyński
I. Dylewska
J. Kasprzak
K. Kozarska
A. Urban
R. Karwowski
B. Tanano
I. Krasuska
B. Kaźmierczak
M. Ściegienka
T. Brodzki
S. Małek
B. Musiał
J. Ołowski
W. Piątkowski
H. Podgórski
S. Powichrowski
A. Siłuch
J. Słupek
F. Matulewicz
W. Stachowski
J. Magdziak
J. Sekuła
A. Bączek
M. Koprucki
K. Klimowicz
W. Kwiatkowski
J. Kaus
S. Kokot
G. Rosińska
M. Raczkowski
J. Antkowiak
Z. Grycuk
J. Grycuk
H. Górski
W. Błaszkiewicz
M. Ratajczak
R. Rymuszka
63
Name of
Representative
M. Gąsiorowska
P. Sowisło
64
App. No.
243.
244.
245.
Case Name
246.
247.
248.
249.
250.
251.
252.
253.
254.
255.
256.
257.
258.
259.
260.
261.
262.
263.
264.
265.
266.
267.
268.
269.
270.
271.
272.
273.
40510/10 CZAPIEWSKI v. Poland
40514/10 ZWIERZYCKI v. Poland
40517/10 NOWAKOWSKA-RAJCA v.
Poland
40564/10 STANIEK v. Poland
40677/10 POŻAROWSZCZYK v. Poland
40714/10 KISZKA v. Poland
40720/10 KORALEWICZ v. Poland
40754/10 ŁĄGIEWKA v. Poland
40770/10 KONIECZNY v. Poland
40813/10 KUBISZTAL v. Poland
40818/10 KENIG v. Poland
40823/10 TRZNADEL v. Poland
40870/10 SZMANIA v. Poland
40880/10 HORBACZEK v. Poland
40884/10 MAŁKIEWICZ v. Poland
40887/10 MACIEJEWSKI v. Poland
40907/10 RAJCA v. Poland
40939/10 NIEDBAŁA v. Poland
40976/10 WALOTEK v. Poland
41183/10 POLKIEWICZ v. Poland
41196/10 WALASZEK v. Poland
41229/10 CZERWIEC v. Poland
41245/10 ZIEMIEWICZ v. Poland
41260/10 ZON v. Poland
41622/10 OSTROWICKA v. Poland
41650/10 ORATOR v. Poland
41655/10 BARANOWSKA v. Poland
41662/10 FRUNZE v. Poland
41678/10 ĆWIKLIŃSKA v. Poland
41682/10 ŻOŁĄDKIEWICZ v. Poland
41803/10 ŁABĘCKI and Others v. Poland
274.
275.
41854/10 KOTLAREK v. Poland
42185/10 MAJEWSKI v. Poland
Date of
lodging
10/06/2010
22/06/2010
30/06/2010
09/07/2010
13/07/2010
16/07/2010
15/07/2010
13/07/2010
06/07/2010
08/07/2010
12/07/2010
09/07/2010
15/07/2010
11/06/2010
13/07/2010
15/07/2010
30/06/2010
22/06/2010
23/06/2010
29/06/2010
10/07/2010
08/07/2010
21/06/2010
07/07/2010
08/07/2010
06/07/2010
03/07/2010
09/07/2010
20/07/2010
22/06/2010
13/07/2010
22/06/2010
12/07/2010
Introduced by
S. Czapiewski
S. Zwierzycki
H. NowakowskaRajca
A. Staniek
S. Pożarowszczyk
J. Kiszka
J. Koralewicz
B. Łągiewka
S. Konieczny
T. Kubisztal
J. Kenig
T. Trznadel
B. Szmania
M. Horbaczek
Z. Małkiewicz
G. Maciejewski
J. Rajca
Z. Niedbała
E. Walotek
W. Polkiewicz
Z. Walaszek
J. Czerwiec
C. Ziemiewicz
R. Zon
B. Ostrowicka
W. Orator
I. Baranowska
J. Frunze
A. Ćwiklińska
J. Żołądkiewicz
J. Banach
K. Cieślak
S. Cyrta
A. Kieler
J. Łabęcki
J. Madej
H. Makowska
W. Michalak
W. Panasiuk
G. Skurski
M. Śliwiński
P. Sosinowicz
S. Szeruda
L. Wolski
B. Zieliński
Z. Kotlarek
S. Majewski
Name of
Representative
P. Sowisło
M. Gąsiorowska
P. Sowisło
App. No.
Case Name
276.
277.
278.
279.
280.
281.
282.
283.
284.
285.
286.
42416/10
42419/10
42426/10
42517/10
42519/10
42524/10
42544/10
42571/10
42616/10
42628/10
42629/10
RZEPCZYŃSKA v. Poland
RATAJCZAK v. Poland
RAKOWSKA-GROOS v. Poland
MATUSZCZYK v. Poland
DUDZIAK v. Poland
MALISZEWSKI v. Poland
SITKOWSKI v. Poland
SIWIEC v. Poland
SKÓRA v. Poland
GNIECIECKA v. Poland
HOLI and Others v. Poland
Date of
lodging
16/07/2010
20/07/2010
22/07/2010
29/06/2010
19/07/2010
12/07/2010
19/07/2010
19/07/2010
15/07/2010
16/07/2010
30/06/2010
287.
288.
289.
290.
291.
292.
293.
294.
295.
296.
297.
298.
299.
300.
301.
302.
303.
304.
305.
306.
42828/10
42830/10
42876/10
43251/10
43295/10
43451/10
43561/10
43641/10
43649/10
43651/10
43653/10
43657/10
44138/10
44382/10
44474/10
44515/10
44556/10
44560/10
44564/10
44565/10
RAKOWSKI v. Poland
MAŁKUSZEWSKI v. Poland
GRĄZ v. Poland
CHLASZCZAK v. Poland
WALECZEK v. Poland
KENG v. Poland
WIŚNIEWSKI v. Poland
BUDZYŃSKI v. Poland
FAJFROWSKI v. Poland
BOROWSKI v. Poland
BIELA v. Poland
BIAŁY v. Poland
KOZIK v. Poland
NEWEL v. Poland
ADAMSKI v. Poland
SUCHOLEWSKI v. Poland
GADZIŃSKI v. Poland
WOJTYNIAK v. Poland
BERNE v. Poland
ORZYŁOWSKI v. Poland
26/07/2010
20/07/2010
23/07/2010
26/07/2010
17/07/2010
26/07/2010
27/07/2010
27/07/2010
23/07/2010
13/07/2010
20/07/2010
22/07/2010
29/07/2010
02/08/2010
26/07/2010
28/07/2010
02/08/2010
02/08/2010
02/08/2010
30/07/2010
Introduced by
C. Rzepczyńska
M. Ratajczak
R. Rakowska-Groos
S. Matuszczyk
A. Dudziak
S. Maliszewski
J. Sitkowski
B. Siwiec
R. Skóra
E. Gnieciecka
K. Debudaj
A. Gorgol
W. Gorgol
W. Holi
M. Jagielski
H. Jaksa
A. Kowalik
Z. Łasoń
J. Leks
T. Łukasik
J. Mokry
Z. Olkuski
W. Szczepański
T. Wolczuk
S. Rakowski
W. Małkuszewski
H. Grąz
R. Chlaszczak
K. Waleczek
J. Keng
Z. Wiśniewski
S. Budzyński
A. Fajfrowski
K. Borowski
S. Biela
W. Biały
E. Kozik
S. Newel
K. Adamski
L. Sucholewski
M. Gadziński
W. Wojtyniak
J. Berne
J. Orzyłowski
65
Name of
Representative
D. Sucholewski
E. Mazurek
66
App. No.
Case Name
307.
44598/10 BIEŚ and Others v. Poland
308.
309.
310.
311.
312.
313.
314.
315.
316.
317.
318.
319.
320.
321.
322.
323.
324.
325.
326.
327.
328.
329.
330.
331.
332.
44688/10
44805/10
44972/10
45235/10
45499/10
45503/10
45515/10
45535/10
45542/10
45575/10
45722/10
45729/10
45731/10
45736/10
45750/10
45761/10
45792/10
45888/10
45938/10
45961/10
45982/10
45996/10
46040/10
46044/10
46153/10
333.
334.
335.
336.
337.
338.
339.
340.
341.
342.
343.
344.
46164/10
46169/10
46175/10
46187/10
46198/10
46560/10
46561/10
46828/10
46834/10
46876/10
46933/10
47135/10
345.
346.
347.
348.
47179/10
47211/10
47226/10
47371/10
RUNOWSKI v. Poland
SANOCKI v. Poland
PROTASEWICZ v. Poland
MARCZEWSKI v. Poland
SKIKIEWICZ v. Poland
TARCZEWSKI v. Poland
GRZYWACZ v. Poland
STACHOWIAK v. Poland
BUDZIŁO v. Poland
JABŁOŃSKI v. Poland
KAROLCZYK v. Poland
KOWALSKI v. Poland
NOWICKI v. Poland
NIEMIRA v. Poland
PIŃSKI v. Poland
NALEPA v. Poland
RAKSZEWSKA v. Poland
PODEDWORNY v. Poland
PANKIEWICZ v. Poland
LASEK v. Poland
CIURKO v. Poland
BALCEREK v. Poland
KUCHARSKA v. Poland
KACPRZYŃSKI v. Poland
STRYCZYŃSKA-JANICKA v.
Poland
GAJEWSKI v. Poland
DZIEWIRZ v. Poland
RANIEWICZ v. Poland
GONTAREK v. Poland
ALZAK v. Poland
ŚWITAŁA v. Poland
SUROWIEC-SMÓŁKO v. Poland
ZUBIŃSKI v. Poland
SKOWRON v. Poland
BRĄŻKIEWICZ v. Poland
NIESSNER v. Poland
JANAS-SKÓRKIEWICZ v.
Poland
ŚWITAŁA v. Poland
SKULSKI v. Poland
ŚWIĘCH v. Poland
PISARSKI v. Poland
Date of
Introduced by
lodging
22/07/2010 A. Bieś
W. Fonfara
H. Jasik
A. Starchurski
02/08/2010 T. Runowski
02/08/2010 M. Sanocki
02/08/2010 I. Protasewicz
03/08/2010 B. Marczewski
03/08/2010 M. Skikiewicz
28/07/2010 M. Tarczewski
04/08/2010 S. Grzywacz
05/08/2010 K. Stachowiak
30/07/2010 W. Budziło
30/07/2010 R. Jabłoński
03/08/2010 T. Karolczyk
26/07/2010 M. Kowalski
29/07/2010 C. Nowicki
02/08/2010 W. Niemira
06/08/2010 R. Piński
06/08/2010 S. Nalepa
30/07/2010 W. Rakszewska
02/08/2010 Z. Podedworny
28/07/2010 Z. Pankiewicz
04/08/2010 S. Lasek
15/06/2010 J. Ciurko
30/07/2010 M. Balcerek
06/08/2010 E. Kucharska
06/08/2010 S. Kacprzyński
30/07/2010 J. StryczyńskaJanicka
07/08/2010 Z. Gajewski
06/08/2010 H. Dziewirz
06/08/2010 W. Raniewicz
09/08/2010 Z. Gontarek
03/08/2010 K. Alzak
11/08/2010 H. Świtała
09/08/2010 G. Surowiec-Smółko
06/08/2010 Z. Zubiński
13/08/2010 E. Skowron
11/08/2010 A. Brążkiewicz
10/08/2010 S. Niessner
11/08/2010 B. Janas-Skórkiewicz
11/08/2010
11/08/2010
12/08/2010
10/08/2010
D. Świtała
Z. Skulski
R. Święch
J. Pisarski
Name of
Representative
M. Gąsiorowska
349.
350.
351.
352.
353.
354.
355.
356.
357.
358.
359.
360.
361.
362.
363.
364.
365.
366.
367.
368.
369.
370.
371.
372.
373.
374.
375.
376.
377.
378.
379.
380.
381.
382.
383.
384.
385.
386.
387.
388.
389.
390.
391.
392.
393.
394.
395.
396.
App. No.
Case Name
47633/10
47963/10
47987/10
48030/10
48034/10
48041/10
48047/10
48053/10
48094/10
48109/10
48117/10
48129/10
48285/10
48323/10
48328/10
48341/10
48362/10
48364/10
48365/10
48390/10
48446/10
48768/10
48836/10
48837/10
48843/10
48862/10
48878/10
48898/10
48982/10
48990/10
49002/10
49005/10
49008/10
49010/10
49015/10
49017/10
49022/10
49034/10
49038/10
49043/10
49045/10
49047/10
49048/10
49049/10
49053/10
49144/10
49154/10
49160/10
NALBORCZYK v. Poland
MANTAY v. Poland
GÓRSKI v. Poland
DRYŃKOWSKI v. Poland
GROBELNY v. Poland
GNIECIECKI v. Poland
KORONOWSKI v. Poland
KOŹBIELSKI v. Poland
KRUPSKI v. Poland
SZCZEPANEK v. Poland
STEC v. Poland
SOBOLEWSKA v. Poland
MATERNICKI v. Poland
KISIEL v. Poland
SZTYLER v. Poland
SAMOTIUK v. Poland
PIETRYKOWSKI v. Poland
PŁUŻAŃSKI v. Poland
RÓG v. Poland
SAWICKI v. Poland
NADWORSKI v. Poland
MADEJ v. Poland
STRZELEC v. Poland
ŚWIĄTEK v. Poland
KAMIŃSKI v. Poland
KIESIEWICZ v. Poland
KUNCER v. Poland
BŁASIK v. Poland
RUTKOWSKI v. Poland
PLISZCZUK v. Poland
BUKOWSKI v. Poland
WNUK v. Poland
WOŹNICA v. Poland
OLKIEWICZ v. Poland
BILIŃSKI v. Poland
ZAWADZKI v. Poland
ĆWIK v. Poland
PISKORSKI v. Poland
BRZOZOWSKI v. Poland
PINDLOWSKI v. Poland
BOLESŁAWSKI v. Poland
PROSKURA v. Poland
PARYLAK v. Poland
NIZNER v. Poland
TOMASIK v. Poland
WASAK v. Poland
WRÓBEL v. Poland
ZDROJEWSKI v. Poland
Date of
lodging
12/08/2010
14/08/2010
09/08/2010
11/08/2010
12/08/2010
07/08/2010
04/08/2010
12/08/2010
13/08/2010
12/08/2010
11/08/2010
09/08/2010
17/08/2010
14/08/2010
17/08/2010
15/08/2010
17/08/2010
16/08/2010
16/08/2010
17/08/2010
15/08/2010
19/08/2010
12/08/2010
12/08/2010
10/08/2010
17/08/2010
19/08/2010
16/08/2010
18/08/2010
19/08/2010
17/08/2010
17/08/2010
16/08/2010
17/08/2010
12/08/2010
13/08/2010
29/06/1938
18/08/2010
19/08/2010
20/08/2010
19/08/2010
18/08/2010
20/08/2010
11/08/2010
17/08/2010
10/08/2010
19/08/2010
16/08/2010
Introduced by
J. Nalborczyk
J. Mantay
S. Górski
M. Dryńkowski
Z. Grobelny
M. Gnieciecki
J. Koronowski
Z. Koźbielski
W. Krupski
Z. Szczepanek
L. Stec
U. Sobolewska
M. Maternicki
A. Kisiel
J. Sztyler
R. Samotiuk
G. Pietrykowski
M. Płużański
J. Róg
B. Sawicki
J. Nadworski
T. Madej
W. Strzelec
E. Świątek
R. Kamiński
B. Kiesiewicz
T. Kuncer
W. Błasik
K. Rutkowski
M. Pliszczuk
I. Bukowski
R. Wnuk
A. Woźnica
J. Olkiewicz
W. Biliński
T. Zawadzki
H. Ćwik
M. Piskorski
L. Brzozowski
C. Pindlowski
M. Bolesławski
J. Proskura
J. Parylak
U. Nizner
L. Tomasik
A. Wasak
K. Wróbel
F. Zdrojewski
67
Name of
Representative
M. Gąsiorowska
68
App. No.
Case Name
397.
398.
399.
400.
401.
402.
403.
404.
405.
406.
407.
408.
49179/10
49200/10
49204/10
49220/10
49224/10
49225/10
49226/10
49236/10
49237/10
49242/10
49301/10
49312/10
409.
410.
411.
412.
413.
414.
415.
416.
417.
418.
419.
420.
421.
422.
423.
424.
425.
426.
427.
428.
429.
430.
431.
432.
433.
434.
435.
436.
437.
438.
439.
440.
441.
442.
443.
49328/10
49375/10
49376/10
49378/10
49381/10
49417/10
49441/10
49450/10
49466/10
49474/10
49563/10
49568/10
49571/10
49582/10
49807/10
49855/10
49971/10
49981/10
50026/10
50118/10
50183/10
50448/10
50473/10
50493/10
50510/10
50519/10
50552/10
50570/10
50584/10
50627/10
50636/10
50666/10
50685/10
50692/10
50698/10
SPIEGOLSKA v. Poland
MICHALEWICZ v. Poland
MATUSZEWSKI v. Poland
CZARNECKI v. Poland
BRZEZEK v. Poland
BŁAŻEJEWSKI v. Poland
PĘCHERZEWSKI v. Poland
LASKA v. Poland
BIERNACKA v. Poland
LISICKI v. Poland
MAGDZIARZ v. Poland
CZEMPLIŃSKI and
MALINOWSKI v. Poland
SAWKA v. Poland
DĘBSKI v. Poland
BIELAWIAK v. Poland
BISZCZAK v. Poland
OPAŁKA v. Poland
DANIEL v. Poland
SZCZERBICKI v. Poland
ŚLIWA v. Poland
DOMSKI v. Poland
GROCHOWSKI v. Poland
ŚWIĘTALSKI v. Poland
STEFAŃSKI v. Poland
MAŚNICA v. Poland
MIODUSZEWSKA v. Poland
KRÓL v. Poland
NATOŃSKI v. Poland
KWIECIŃSKI v. Poland
NOWACKI v. Poland
KWIECIEŃ v. Poland
TURA v. Poland
KIJANKA v. Poland
HARAJ v. Poland
PRZYBYSZEWSKI v. Poland
PRZYBYSZEWSKA v. Poland
PROKOP v. Poland
LESIÓW v. Poland
JOPERT v. Poland
KUKUŁA v. Poland
KSIĄŻEK v. Poland
UMIĘCKI v. Poland
GRANICZNY v. Poland
KISIEL v. Poland
CIUPEK v. Poland
KLUZ v. Poland
KORNECKI v. Poland
Date of
lodging
20/08/2010
20/08/2010
16/08/2010
12/08/2010
18/08/2010
19/08/2010
17/08/2010
16/08/2010
20/08/2010
10/08/2010
19/08/2010
10/08/2010
18/08/2010
20/08/2010
16/08/2010
16/08/2010
20/08/2010
20/08/2010
17/08/2010
09/08/2010
12/08/2010
09/08/2010
24/08/2010
23/08/2010
23/08/2010
24/08/2010
24/08/2010
19/08/2010
18/08/2010
23/08/2010
16/08/2010
25/08/2010
23/08/2010
17/08/2010
26/08/2010
26/08/2010
07/08/2010
19/08/2010
21/08/2010
18/08/2010
23/08/2010
23/08/2010
23/08/2010
20/08/2010
26/08/2010
20/08/2010
20/08/2010
Introduced by
G. Spiegolska
L. Michalewicz
T. Matuszewski
J. Czarnecki
M. Brzezek
A. Błażejewski
S. Pęcherzewski
W. Laska
T. Biernacka
R. Lisicki
D. Magdziarz
G. Czempliński
W. Malinowski
S. Sawka
J. Dębski
E. Bielawiak
S. Biszczak
L. Opałka
H. Daniel
E. Szczerbicki
E. Śliwa
J. Domski
J. Grochowski
K. Świętalski
R. Stefański
J. Maśnica
M. Mioduszewska
L. Król
W. Natoński
B. Kwieciński
L. Nowacki
R. Kwiecień
A. Tura
I. Kijanka
R. Haraj
Z. Przybyszewski
B. Przybyszewska
J. Prokop
W. Lesiów
W. Jopert
E. Kukuła
W. Książek
A. Umięcki
J. Graniczny
M. Kisiel
H. Ciupek
A. Kluz
J. Kornecki
Name of
Representative
M. Gąsiorowska
App. No.
Case Name
444.
445.
446.
447.
448.
449.
450.
451.
452.
453.
454.
455.
456.
457.
458.
459.
460.
461.
462.
463.
50710/10
50725/10
50730/10
50731/10
50770/10
50783/10
50787/10
50793/10
50798/10
50808/10
50809/10
50832/10
50854/10
50875/10
50920/10
50922/10
50923/10
50928/10
50930/10
51403/10
464.
465.
466.
467.
468.
469.
470.
471.
472.
473.
51454/10
51497/10
51501/10
51575/10
51762/10
51896/10
51925/10
52083/10
52087/10
52089/10
BUJAS v. Poland
WIERZYŃSKI v. Poland
CHRZANOWSKI v. Poland
BUKOWIECKI v. Poland
KARBOWIAK v. Poland
STOLARCZYK v. Poland
STALEWSKI v. Poland
SZCZYGIEŁ v. Poland
SZYMONIAK v. Poland
SOŁDEK v. Poland
OBROK v. Poland
BARAŃSKI v. Poland
BALAZY v. Poland
BEKSA v. Poland
FORMA v. Poland
BAŁBATUN v. Poland
ŻAK v. Poland
WARCZYGŁOWSKI v. Poland
FILIPIAK v. Poland
KRYNICKA-TAROCIŃSKA v.
Poland
LANG v. Poland
BUCHAJCZYK v. Poland
RADKO v. Poland
BAROW v. Poland
STEC v. Poland
SEREK v. Poland
SZYKNY v. Poland
STRĄCZKOWSKA v. Poland
MIRA v. Poland
STEC and Others v. Poland
474.
475.
476.
477.
478.
479.
480.
481.
482.
483.
484.
485.
486.
487.
488.
52347/10
52447/10
52461/10
52467/10
52471/10
52495/10
52780/10
52867/10
53348/10
53358/10
53473/10
53549/10
53629/10
53775/10
53776/10
SKOREK v. Poland
SZEWC v. Poland
ANDRZEJEWSKI v. Poland
GOŁASZEWSKI v. Poland
SAWICKI v. Poland
KALICIAK v. Poland
RÓŻAŃSKI v. Poland
SZCZEPANEK v. Poland
KINA-WROŃSKI v. Poland
WOJCIECHOWSKI v. Poland
ŚWIERCZEWSKI v. Poland
BARYŁA v. Poland
OTMIANOWSKI v. Poland
KAMIŃSKI v. Poland
TOTA v. Poland
Date of
lodging
21/08/2010
25/08/2010
18/08/2010
23/08/2010
27/08/2010
26/08/2010
23/08/2010
22/08/2010
23/08/2010
22/08/2010
18/08/2010
19/08/2010
18/08/2010
23/08/2010
19/08/2010
23/08/2010
23/08/2010
19/08/2010
30/08/2010
20/08/2010
19/08/2010
23/08/2010
30/08/2010
02/09/2010
24/08/2010
23/08/2010
20/08/2010
28/08/2010
27/08/2010
02/09/2010
02/09/2010
12/08/2010
16/08/2010
19/08/2010
19/08/2010
27/08/2010
30/08/2010
03/09/2010
08/09/2010
31/08/2010
13/09/2010
27/08/2010
05/09/2010
01/09/2010
13/09/2010
Introduced by
J. Bujas
E. Wierzyński
K. Chrzanowski
S. Bukowiecki
H. Karbowiak
M. Stolarczyk
R. Stalewski
B. Szczygieł
H. Szymoniak
M. Sołdek
R. Obrok
K. Barański
E. Balazy
A. Beksa
S. Forma
A. Bałbatun
S. Żak
R. Warczygłowski
M. Filipiak
K. KrynickaTarocińska
W. Lang
S. Buchajczyk
C. Radko
T. Barow
T. Stec
L. Serek
K. Szykny
B. Strączkowska
H. Mira
K. Leja
J. Nowicki
R. Stec
A. Skorek
J. Szewc
G. Andrzejewski
Z. Gołaszewski
R. Sawicki
E. Kaliciak
E. Różański
W. Szczepanek
W. Kina-Wroński
B. Wojciechowski
J. Świerczewski
K. Baryła
Z. Otmianowski
J. Kamiński
M. Tota
69
Name of
Representative
M. Gąsiorowska
70
App. No.
Case Name
489.
490.
491.
492.
493.
494.
495.
496.
497.
498.
499.
500.
54267/10
54348/10
54977/10
55602/10
55616/10
55633/10
55871/10
55894/10
55901/10
56076/10
56202/10
56261/10
GARSZTKA v. Poland
GÓRCZYŃSKI v. Poland
STĘPIEŃ v. Poland
BERENDT v. Poland
OLSZLEGER v. Poland
ORNOCH v. Poland
OGRZYŃSKI v. Poland
KUBINA v. Poland
BRENDZEL v. Poland
URBAŃSKI v. Poland
KOSTYRA v. Poland
SKONIECZNY and Others v.
Poland
501.
502.
503.
504.
505.
506.
507.
56400/10
56517/10
56993/10
57584/10
57599/10
57680/10
57839/10
508.
509.
510.
511.
512.
513.
514.
515.
516.
517.
518.
519.
520.
521.
522.
523.
524.
525.
526.
527.
57972/10
58013/10
58782/10
58826/10
58908/10
58983/10
59137/10
59151/10
59227/10
59924/10
60192/10
60198/10
60269/10
60277/10
60289/10
61189/10
61392/10
61397/10
61517/10
61684/10
BYLINOWSKI v. Poland
PADUSZYŃSKI v. Poland
JANKOWSKI v. Poland
SZLAMA v. Poland
BIGOSIŃSKA v. Poland
KUŚNIERZ v. Poland
GARGOL-KOWALCZYK v.
Poland
WIŚNIOWSKA v. Poland
KĘPIŃSKI v. Poland
PASZKIEWICZ v. Poland
PAWLICKI v. Poland
FAL v. Poland
DOBROGOSZCZ v. Poland
KOWIESKI v. Poland
MILCZAREK v. Poland
GŁOWACKI v. Poland
TERCZEWSKI v. Poland
NIEWĘGŁOWSKI v. Poland
LEONOWICZ v. Poland
PLEBAN v. Poland
ROŻYBOWSKI v. Poland
ROŻYBOWSKA v. Poland
BĄK v. Poland
SZYMAŃSKI v. Poland
POHL v. Poland
HAGNO v. Poland
DURCZYŃSKI v. Poland
Date of
lodging
10/09/2010
01/09/2010
13/09/2010
24/08/2010
10/09/2010
21/09/2010
20/09/2010
21/09/2010
16/09/2010
07/09/2010
20/09/2010
23/09/2010
Introduced by
17/09/2010
24/09/2010
30/09/2010
28/09/2010
01/10/2010
30/09/2010
29/09/2010
S. Garsztka
J. Górczyński
M. Stępień
M. Berendt
K. Olszleger
M. Ornoch
A. Ogrzyński
J. Kubina
D. Brendzel
Z. Urbański
I. Kostyra
S. Janusiewicz
Z. Kozłowski
J. Skonieczny
A. Zawicki
J. Ziółkowski
J. Bylinowski
M. Paduszyński
W. Jankowski
E. Szlama
J. Bigosińska
E. Kuśnierz
B. Gargol-Kowalczyk
30/09/2010
01/10/2010
30/09/2010
28/09/2010
29/09/2010
01/10/2010
04/10/2010
07/10/2010
25/05/2010
07/10/2010
05/10/2010
09/10/2010
09/10/2010
09/10/2010
08/10/2010
13/10/2010
09/10/2010
11/10/2010
15/10/2010
14/10/2010
R. Wiśniowska
A. Kępiński
L. Paszkiewicz
Z. Pawlicki
M. Fal
J. Dobrogoszcz
J. Kowieski
J. Milczarek
Z. Głowacki
K. Terczewski
K. Niewęgłowski
Z. Leonowicz
E. Pleban
K. Rożybowski
G. Rożybowska
W. Bąk
A. Szymański
J. Pohl
T. Hagno
R. Durczyński
Name of
Representative
P. Gerhardy
M. Gąsiorowska
P. Sowisło
App. No.
Case Name
528.
62074/10 SUSZCZEWSKI and Ohers v.
Poland
529.
530.
62100/10 CHYLAK v. Poland
62131/10 WYSZOMIRSKA and Others v.
Poland
531.
62911/10 BARTCZAK-MALESZKA v.
Poland
63202/10 STAROŃ v. Poland
63241/10 JÓŹWIAK v. Poland
63336/10 WUDARSKA v. Poland
63538/10 BOGDANOWICZ v. Poland
63542/10 BOGDANOWICZ v. Poland
63561/10 SZĄBARA v. Poland
64671/10 WIŚNIEWSKA v. Poland
64895/10 BRODZISZ v. Poland
64930/10 ZABIELSKI v. Poland
64983/10 ŁADA v. Poland
66597/10 GUTRAL v. Poland
66828/10 KALBARCZYK v. Poland
66992/10 HAJDUK v. Poland
67010/10 IWANIEWICZ v. Poland
67694/10 BOSEK v. Poland
68151/10 RATAJCZAK v. Poland
68266/10 KRASICKI v. Poland
69277/10 STĘPIEŃ-ALZAK v. Poland
70315/10 MIZERA v. Poland
70418/10 MIKOŁAJCZYK v. Poland
532.
533.
534.
535.
536.
537.
538.
539.
540.
541.
542.
543.
544.
545.
546.
547.
548.
549.
550.
551.
Date of
Introduced by
lodging
04/10/2010 S. Czeszak
J. Dolecki
B. Łukasik
L. Nowicki
S. Pytlarz
Z. Ryszawa
W. Siewert
W. Suszczewski
S. Szczepaniak
K. Zawalska
18/10/2010 S. Chylak
04/10/2010 H. Czapska
U. Kaczorowska
E. Kamińska
M. Klauzo
A. Kończak
J. Kowalski
S. Laskowski
E. Linowska
G. Piasny
T. Pieńkowska
K. Pilarska
E. Stępniewska
S. Tokarski
R. Wyszomirska
Z. Wyszomirski
20/10/2010 U. BartczakMaleszka
11/10/2010 W. Staroń
13/10/2010 Z. Jóźwiak
23/10/2010 W. Wudarska
22/09/2010 E. Bogdanowicz
22/09/2010 P. Bogdanowicz
21/10/2010 W. Sząbara
02/11/2010 B. Wiśniewska
02/11/2010 E. Brodzisz
08/10/2010 S. Zabielski
26/10/2010 H. Łada
08/11/2010 K. Gutral
09/11/2010 Z. Kalbarczyk
29/10/2010 J. Hajduk
09/11/2010 H. Iwaniewicz
13/11/2010 T. Bosek
29/10/2010 S. Ratajczak
03/11/2010 R. Krasicki
19/11/2010 M. Stępień-Alzak
24/11/2010 S. Mizera
13/11/2010 W. Mikołajczyk
71
Name of
Representative
M. Gąsiorowska
M. Gąsiorowska
P. Sowisło
M. Wiśniewski
M. Gąsiorowska
72
App. No.
Case Name
552.
553.
554.
555.
556.
557.
558.
559.
560.
561.
562.
563.
564.
565.
566.
567.
568.
569.
570.
571.
572.
573.
574.
575.
576.
577.
578.
579.
580.
581.
582.
583.
584.
585.
586.
587.
588.
589.
590.
591.
592.
593.
70435/10
70507/10
70701/10
71638/10
72090/10
72137/10
72206/10
72288/10
72290/10
72297/10
72361/10
72668/10
72683/10
73014/10
73037/10
73286/10
73421/10
73599/10
73617/10
73626/10
74045/10
74437/10
74830/10
74930/10
74942/10
75007/10
75125/10
416/11
442/11
803/11
890/11
972/11
982/11
1097/11
1199/11
1228/11
1761/11
2708/11
3116/11
3131/11
3615/11
3623/11
594.
595.
596.
597.
3772/11
4921/11
5034/11
5071/11
BOGUSZEWSKA v. Poland
ŁOBATIUK v. Poland
NIEDŹWIECKI v. Poland
WÓJCIK v. Poland
NOWAK v. Poland
NOWAKOWSKI v. Poland
ŁAPUSZEK v. Poland
IWICKA-KAMIŃSKA v. Poland
PRUSZYŃSKI v. Poland
LAMBER v. Poland
DUDEK v. Poland
GÓRALCZYK v. Poland
CHUDZIŃSKI v. Poland
KRUPOWICZ v. Poland
JANIUK v. Poland
GWIAZDA v. Poland
TOLAK v. Poland
SILUK v. Poland
RACZYŃSKA v. Poland
BINKOWSKI v. Poland
WEREMCZUK v. Poland
DOLECKI v. Poland
GRZYBOWSKI v. Poland
LIPIEC v. Poland
NOWACKI v. Poland
GŁOMSKI v. Poland
MOSEK v. Poland
OGORZELEC v. Poland
BORTKIEWICZ v. Poland
KOLBOWICZ v. Poland
KRASUSKI v. Poland
OPALA v. Poland
LASKOWSKI v. Poland
LUBASIŃSKI v. Poland
CHOCIESZYŃSKI v. Poland
BŁAZIAK v. Poland
WEBER v. Poland
WEJNER v. Poland
SZCZYGIEŁ and ZAJĄC v.
Poland
PUK v. Poland
WÓJCIK v. Poland
PIETRZAK v. Poland
ROGOWSKI v. Poland
Date of
lodging
23/11/2010
07/11/2010
08/11/2010
25/11/2010
20/11/2010
08/11/2010
15/11/2010
01/12/2010
22/11/2010
24/11/2010
22/11/2010
01/12/2010
01/12/2010
02/12/2010
06/12/2010
07/12/2010
07/12/2010
07/12/2010
06/12/2010
07/12/2010
03/12/2010
08/12/2010
15/12/2010
06/12/2010
14/12/2010
29/11/2010
14/12/2010
03/12/2010
29/12/2010
21/12/2010
08/12/2010
21/12/2010
06/12/2010
28/12/2010
23/12/2010
16/12/2010
13/12/2010
05/01/2010
15/12/2010
05/01/2011
30/12/2010
02/01/2011
10/01/2011
11/01/2011
21/12/2010
24/12/2010
Introduced by
H. Boguszewska
B. Łobatiuk
J. Niedźwiecki
J. Wiśniewski
J. Wójcik
J. Nowak
M. Nowakowski
H. Łapuszek
M. Iwicka-Kamińska
P. Pruszyński
B. Lamber
Z. Dudek
H. Góralczyk
L. Chudziński
J. Krupowicz
A. Janiuk
W. Gwiazda
R. Tolak
M. Siluk
J. Raczyńska
W. Kwiatkowski
J. Binkowski
T. Weremczuk
J. Dolecki
A. Grzybowski
S. Lipiec
A. Nowacki
B. Głomski
S. Mosek
K. Ogorzelec
A. Bortkiewicz
M. Kolbowicz
I. Krasuski
E. Opala
L. Laskowski
C. Lubasiński
T. Chocieszyński
M. Błaziak
R. Weber
W. Wejner
R. Stachowiak
W. Szczygieł
A. Zając
K. Puk
A. Wójcik
J. Pietrzak
M. Rogowski
Name of
Representative
M. Gąsiorowska
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
M. Gąsiorowska
M. Gąsiorowska
598.
599.
600.
601.
602.
603.
604.
605.
606.
607.
608.
609.
610.
611.
612.
613.
614.
615.
616.
617.
618.
619.
620.
621.
622.
623.
624.
625.
626.
627.
628.
629.
630.
631.
632.
633.
634.
635.
636.
637.
638.
639.
640.
641.
642.
643.
644.
App. No.
Case Name
5610/11
5750/11
5821/11
6110/11
6418/11
6633/11
6677/11
6785/11
6901/11
7142/11
7193/11
7226/11
7301/11
7348/11
7380/11
7435/11
7558/11
7564/11
7569/11
7578/11
7649/11
7737/11
7742/11
7842/11
7915/11
8079/11
8802/11
9064/11
9726/11
9925/11
10011/11
10072/11
10094/11
10112/11
10117/11
10273/11
10360/11
10445/11
10635/11
11187/11
11705/11
11848/11
11880/11
12004/11
12008/11
12248/11
12383/11
MUSZAŁKIEWICZ v. Poland
POLAK v. Poland
KOSTRZEWSKI v. Poland
KAMIENIAK v. Poland
CYLWIK v. Poland
SNARSKI v. Poland
SOCHA v. Poland
STĘPIEŃ v. Poland
ZDYBICKI v. Poland
KWASEK v. Poland
MACHNIK v. Poland
ŁADNO v. Poland
SEN v. Poland
BAKA-ORGANIŚCIAK v. Poland
KAŃCZUGOWSKI v. Poland
NYCH v. Poland
GĘDZIOROWSKI v. Poland
GÓRNA v. Poland
GÓRNY v. Poland
GODLEWSKI v. Poland
GAJDAMOWICZ v. Poland
ROCZNIAK v. Poland
RYCAJ v. Poland
CIEBIEŃ v. Poland
WOJTYSIAK v. Poland
SZUMSKI v. Poland
KLEPUSZEWSKI v. Poland
BUCZAK v. Poland
CZEMPORA v. Poland
KOSOWSKI v. Poland
ŚPIEWAK v. Poland
GDANIEC v. Poland
KISIEL v. Poland
ŚMIGIEL v. Poland
ŚLIWIŃSKI v. Poland
ŁYP v. Poland
KORDEK v. Poland
PIĄTKOWSKA v. Poland
WICHER v. Poland
OLEJNIK v. Poland
BIAŁEK v. Poland
BARAŃSKI v. Poland
BUFAN-GOCYK v. Poland
MIASKOWSKI v. Poland
WEBER v. Poland
KADAJ v. Poland
Date of
lodging
10/01/2011
19/01/2011
18/01/2011
18/01/2011
18/01/2011
13/01/2011
20/01/2011
25/01/2011
24/01/2011
21/01/2011
28/01/2011
18/01/2011
18/01/2011
19/01/2011
26/01/2011
28/01/2011
25/01/2011
27/01/2011
27/01/2011
28/01/2011
24/01/2011
29/01/2011
28/01/2011
25/01/2011
24/01/2011
07/01/2011
25/01/2011
29/01/2011
01/02/2011
07/02/2011
04/02/2011
25/01/2011
04/02/2011
07/02/2011
26/01/2011
04/02/2011
31/01/2011
11/02/2011
09/02/2011
01/02/2011
04/02/2011
05/02/2011
03/02/2011
16/02/2011
17/02/2011
14/02/2011
17/02/2011
Introduced by
W. Muszałkiewicz
H. Polak
G. Kostrzewski
K. Kamieniak
J. Cylwik
W. Snarski
W. Socha
S. Stępień
M. Zdybicki
J. Kwasek
A. Machnik
W. Ładno
P. Sen
K. Baka-Organiściak
H. Kańczugowski
M. Nych
C. Gędziorowski
L. Górna
K. Górny
K. Godlewski
T. Gajdamowicz
A. Roczniak
R. Rycaj
J. Ciebień
S. Wojtysiak
F. Szumski
A. Klepuszewski
Z. Buczak
M. Czempora
W. Kosowski
L. Śpiewak
K. Gdaniec
T. Kisiel
M. Śmigiel
W. Śliwiński
J. Łyp
W. Kordek
M. Piątkowska
S. Pruszyński
B. Wicher
A. Olejnik
H. Białek
M. Barański
J. Bufan-Gocyk
S. Miaskowski
M. Weber
R. Kadaj
73
Name of
Representative
M. Gąsiorowska
D. Sucholewski
74
App. No.
Case Name
645.
646.
647.
648.
649.
650.
12845/11
12852/11
13012/11
13016/11
13018/11
13034/11
651.
652.
653.
654.
655.
656.
657.
658.
659.
660.
661.
662.
663.
664.
665.
666.
667.
668.
669.
670.
13589/11
13622/11
13745/11
13758/11
13906/11
13940/11
13988/11
13991/11
14029/11
14042/11
14483/11
14708/11
14718/11
15855/11
16672/11
16696/11
16768/11
17611/11
17615/11
17722/11
671.
672.
673.
674.
675.
676.
677.
678.
679.
680.
681.
682.
683.
684.
685.
686.
687.
688.
689.
690.
18059/11
18266/11
18451/11
18727/11
18743/11
18750/11
18801/11
18827/11
18871/11
18885/11
18921/11
18955/11
19187/11
19440/11
19515/11
19527/11
19633/11
20406/11
20410/11
20492/11
PIECHOTA v. Poland
ROMAN v. Poland
DOGIEL v. Poland
KURPIEWSKI v. Poland
KRZYŻANOWSKI v. Poland
ADAMCZEWSKA-WAGNER v.
Poland
ŁESAK v. Poland
JAREMEK v. Poland
KOSNO v. Poland
LESKI v. Poland
NOWICKI v. Poland
RYCOMBEL v. Poland
SIADAK v. Poland
SAJEWSKI v. Poland
OLĘDZKI v. Poland
DOGIEL v. Poland
GOCYK v. Poland
GOROŃSKI v. Poland
SOSNOWSKI v. Poland
JANISZEWSKI v. Poland
SZADY v. Poland
KULEJ v. Poland
HAWRYŁO v. Poland
HAWRYŁO v. Poland
PASZKOWSKA-GABRYSZAK v.
Poland
MŁYŃCZAK v. Poland
LORENC v. Poland
PŁOTKOWIAK v. Poland
GONERA v. Poland
ŻYCZYCA v. Poland
GORZELANY v. Poland
MAŁECKI v. Poland
LANGE v. Poland
KANIECKI v. Poland
KASPRZAK v. Poland
JANUS v. Poland
PISKOREK v. Poland
SAK v. Poland
SOSZYŃSKI v. Poland
ŁYSAKOWSKI v. Poland
BEREZECKI v. Poland
WITKOWSKI v. Poland
JANUSZEWSKI v. Poland
MAIK v. Poland
OZYP v. Poland
Date of
lodging
17/02/2011
17/02/2011
22/02/2011
21/02/2011
21/02/2011
17/02/2011
22/02/2011
09/02/2011
18/02/2011
24/02/2011
23/02/2011
08/02/2011
23/02/2011
23/02/2011
23/02/2011
25/02/2011
23/02/2011
21/02/2011
21/02/2011
10/02/2011
03/03/2011
02/03/2011
22/02/2011
07/03/2011
07/03/2011
14/03/2011
14/03/2011
16/03/2011
10/03/2011
03/03/2011
15/03/2011
07/03/2011
18/03/2011
14/03/2011
07/03/2011
14/03/2011
18/03/2011
16/03/2011
14/03/2011
22/03/2011
23/03/2011
14/03/2011
03/03/2011
21/03/2011
21/03/2011
20/03/2011
Introduced by
M. Piechota
W. Roman
M. Dogiel
S. Kurpiewski
J. Krzyżanowski
Z. AdamczewskaWagner
B. Łesak
J. Jaremek
L. Kosno
S. Leski
E. Nowicki
J. Rycombel
M. Siadak
R. Sajewski
W. Stachowiak
J. Olędzki
E. Dogiel
A. Gocyk
M. Goroński
S. Sosnowski
J. Janiszewski
R. Szady
K. Kulej
E. Hawryło
E. Hawryło
Z. PaszkowskaGabryszak
W. Młyńczak
A. Lorenc
R. Płotkowiak
M. Gonera
Z. Życzyca
J. Gorzelany
Z. Małecki
R. Lange
J. Kaniecki
M. Kasprzak
D. Janus
R. Piskorek
S. Sak
M. Soszyński
J. Łysakowski
S. Berezecki
P. Witkowski
A. Januszewski
A. Maik
T. Ozyp
Name of
Representative
M. Gąsiorowska
691.
692.
693.
694.
695.
696.
697.
698.
699.
700.
701.
702.
703.
704.
705.
706.
707.
708.
709.
710.
711.
712.
713.
714.
715.
716.
717.
718.
719.
720.
721.
722.
723.
724.
725.
726.
727.
728.
729.
730.
731.
732.
733.
734.
735.
736.
737.
738.
App. No.
Case Name
20776/11
20927/11
21018/11
21400/11
21401/11
22361/11
22418/11
22425/11
22434/11
22994/11
23168/11
23251/11
23294/11
23397/11
24193/11
24336/11
24560/11
24966/11
25218/11
25376/11
25378/11
25792/11
25800/11
26081/11
26101/11
26483/11
26847/11
27662/11
27694/11
27695/11
27763/11
27850/11
28185/11
28232/11
28927/11
29000/11
29029/11
29265/11
29500/11
29502/11
29816/11
29917/11
29983/11
30021/11
30323/11
30743/11
30900/11
30921/11
GAŁĄZKA v. Poland
SZEWCZYK v. Poland
KOCOT v. Poland
KOWAŃSKA v. Poland
ZIAJKO v. Poland
KUBISZ v. Poland
KABALA v. Poland
TRACZYK v. Poland
OLSZEWSKI v. Poland
SAK v. Poland
WOŚ v. Poland
PRĄTNICKI v. Poland
SULIKOWSKI v. Poland
ZARĘBSKI v. Poland
KLAJA v. Poland
ROGALSKI v. Poland
MARZEC v. Poland
DEPTUSZEWSKI v. Poland
KACZOROWSKI v. Poland
MUSIDLAK v. Poland
MOTAŁA v. Poland
MICHNO v. Poland
ŻERLAK v. Poland
CIASTOWICZ v. Poland
KRUSZYŃSKI v. Poland
SOCHA v. Poland
BARANKIEWICZ v. Poland
MILKA v. Poland
STACHOWICZ v. Poland
ŁONIEWSKA v. Poland
SKOREK v. Poland
PUTKOWSKI v. Poland
SKAWIŃSKI v. Poland
KAMIENIAK v. Poland
KOTARSKI v. Poland
MAZIK v. Poland
HOSZKIEWICZ v. Poland
SAWICKI v. Poland
DOLINIAK v. Poland
KUCZYK v. Poland
KURZACZ v. Poland
SKUPIŃSKI v. Poland
OCHMAŃSKI v. Poland
BĘDKOWSKI v. Poland
KAPUŚCIŃSKI v. Poland
Date of
lodging
16/03/2011
24/03/2011
16/03/2011
14/03/2011
20/03/2011
30/03/2011
31/03/2011
29/03/2011
30/03/2011
04/04/2011
03/12/2010
08/04/2011
07/04/2011
06/04/2011
11/04/2011
06/04/2011
13/04/2011
14/04/2011
15/04/2011
09/04/2011
08/04/2011
19/04/2011
20/04/2011
22/04/2011
15/04/2011
15/04/2011
14/04/2011
15/04/2011
28/04/2011
27/04/2011
13/04/2011
26/04/2011
26/04/2011
22/04/2011
28/04/2011
26/04/2011
02/05/2011
27/04/2011
28/04/2011
06/05/2011
05/05/2011
28/04/2011
05/05/2011
28/04/2011
09/05/2011
06/05/2011
05/05/2011
09/05/2011
Introduced by
P. Matuszewski
Z. Gałązka
J. Szewczyk
E. Kocot
A. Kowańska
J. Ziajko
P. Kubisz
L. Kabala
W. Kwieciński
W. Traczyk
W. Olszewski
T. Sak
M. Woś
M. Prątnicki
J. Sulikowski
M. Zarębski
H. Klaja
J. Rogalski
J. Marzec
E. Deptuszewski
R. Kaczorowski
J. Musidlak
A. Motała
J. Michno
A. Żerlak
K. Ciastowicz
W. Kruszyński
S. Socha
Z. Barankiewicz
T. Milka
H. Stachowicz
I. Łoniewska
E. Skorek
A. Putkowski
F. Skawiński
J. Kamieniak
A. Kotarski
A. Mazik
W. Hoszkiewicz
J. Sawicki
Z. Doliniak
S. Kuczyk
L. Kwieciński
A. Kurzacz
Z. Skupiński
Z. Ochmański
J. Będkowski
S. Kapuściński
75
Name of
Representative
M. Gąsiorowska
P. Sowisło
76
739.
740.
741.
742.
743.
744.
745.
746.
747.
748.
749.
750.
751.
752.
753.
754.
755.
756.
757.
758.
759.
760.
761.
762.
763.
764.
765.
766.
767.
768.
769.
770.
771.
772.
773.
774.
775.
776.
777.
778.
779.
780.
781.
782.
783.
784.
785.
786.
App. No.
Case Name
30923/11
30966/11
30977/11
31156/11
31185/11
31352/11
31358/11
31382/11
31407/11
31414/11
31427/11
31582/11
32080/11
32331/11
32431/11
32483/11
32484/11
32538/11
32559/11
32601/11
32714/11
33089/11
33190/11
33872/11
33957/11
34223/11
34280/11
34284/11
34830/11
34944/11
34953/11
34991/11
35014/11
35018/11
35046/11
35499/11
35508/11
35527/11
36632/11
37162/11
37174/11
37185/11
37207/11
37293/11
37414/11
37415/11
37447/11
37634/11
KOZIEŁ v. Poland
MUSZALSKA v. Poland
JAROS v. Poland
SADOWSKI v. Poland
PUKIS v. Poland
GUTKIEWICZ v. Poland
GODZIŃSKA v. Poland
GŁOWIŃSKI v. Poland
GRABOWSKI v. Poland
DOMINOWSKI v. Poland
DESKA v. Poland
WILK v. Poland
SMAGA v. Poland
TRYBUS v. Poland
ŚLĘCZEK v. Poland
ZUBALA v. Poland
NAWROCKI v. Poland
LESZCZYŃSKI v. Poland
LISOWSKI v. Poland
BIGAJ v. Poland
JURECZKO v. Poland
WASILEWSKA v. Poland
KACZMAREK v. Poland
CHUDY v. Poland
DOBRZYŃSKA v. Poland
KACZOR v. Poland
PLEŚNIARSKI v. Poland
PIASECZYŃSKI v. Poland
PRESSLER v. Poland
ZMARZŁA v. Poland
SOŁTYSIAK v. Poland
STUDZIŃSKI v. Poland
KUJAWA v. Poland
KLECZYK v. Poland
NAPIERAŁA v. Poland
CYCHOWSKA v. Poland
WÓJCIK v. Poland
WOJNARSKI v. Poland
PATRZAŁEK v. Poland
WALKOWICZ v. Poland
WALKOWICZ v. Poland
WALKOWICZ v. Poland
WILKIEWICZ v. Poland
BŁAŻ v. Poland
NOWAK v. Poland
ZIOMEK v. Poland
LUBA v. Poland
SŁOMKA v. Poland
Date of
lodging
12/05/2011
11/05/2011
09/05/2011
11/05/2011
06/05/2011
13/05/2011
03/05/2011
06/05/2011
11/05/2011
11/05/2011
10/05/2011
04/05/2011
16/05/2011
13/05/2011
17/05/2011
17/05/2011
17/05/2011
29/04/2011
05/05/2011
16/05/2011
23/05/2011
16/05/2011
18/05/2011
23/05/2011
26/05/2011
26/05/2011
27/05/2011
24/05/2011
30/05/2011
28/05/2011
31/05/2011
31/05/2011
24/05/2011
31/05/2011
30/05/2011
03/06/2011
23/05/2011
25/05/2011
10/06/2011
09/06/2011
30/05/2011
30/05/2011
14/06/2011
08/06/2011
16/06/2011
07/06/2011
13/06/2011
01/06/2011
Introduced by
J. Kozieł
T. Muszalska
M. Jaros
J. Sadowski
S. Pukis
I. Gutkiewicz
W. Godzińska
K. Głowiński
B. Grabowski
W. Dominowski
S. Deska
A. Wilk
W. Smaga
J. Trybus
B. Ślęczek
S. Zubala
S. Nawrocki
M. Leszczyński
W. Lisowski
A. Bigaj
R. Jureczko
H. Wasilewska
D. Kaczmarek
J. Chudy
E. Dobrzyńska
L. Kaczor
C. Pleśniarski
J. Piaseczyński
J. Pressler
D. Zmarzła
L. Sołtysiak
F. Studziński
W. Kujawa
S. Kleczyk
Z. Napierała
D. Cychowska
M. Wójcik
Z. Wojnarski
J. Patrzałek
T. Walkowicz
A. Walkowicz
J. Walkowicz
M. Wilkiewicz
W. Błaż
Z. Nowak
K. Ziomek
E. Luba
A. Słomka
Name of
Representative
D. Sucholewski
App. No.
Case Name
787.
788.
789.
790.
791.
792.
793.
794.
795.
796.
797.
798.
799.
800.
801.
802.
803.
804.
805.
806.
807.
808.
809.
37889/11
37902/11
37943/11
38614/11
38632/11
38674/11
38676/11
38680/11
38684/11
38700/11
38705/11
38761/11
38772/11
38829/11
38847/11
38853/11
38892/11
38953/11
39014/11
39021/11
39026/11
39030/11
39041/11
810.
39313/11
811.
812.
813.
814.
815.
816.
817.
818.
819.
820.
821.
822.
39506/11
40010/11
40074/11
40118/11
40123/11
40297/11
40309/11
40793/11
40797/11
40798/11
40820/11
40901/11
823.
824.
825.
826.
827.
828.
829.
830.
831.
40904/11
41001/11
41005/11
41071/11
41078/11
41084/11
41184/11
41264/11
41278/11
MAREK v. Poland
MASZKOWSKI v. Poland
SAPETA v. Poland
BROMBOSZCZ v. Poland
CIEPAK v. Poland
WRÓBLEWSKA v. Poland
JĘDRASZKO v. Poland
REDUCH v. Poland
KOROLEWICZ v. Poland
KASPRZYK v. Poland
CHUDA v. Poland
GRUSZKA v. Poland
KUREK v. Poland
BIAŁOSIEWICZ v. Poland
DOBROWOLSKI v. Poland
SZWAJKA v. Poland
GIEROWSKA v. Poland
PABISIAK v. Poland
FELIGA v. Poland
TOCZEWSKI v. Poland
PALUSZKIEWICZ v. Poland
BŁACHUT v. Poland
TERLECKA-SEMKOWICZ v.
Poland
JAKOWSKA-RĄCZKOWSKA v.
Poland
DURSKI v. Poland
MICHNO-ZAŁOGA v. Poland
WRONA v. Poland
WÓJCIK v. Poland
CHYLEŃSKI v. Poland
JERZYKOWSKA v. Poland
ŚCISŁEK v. Poland
SKOBIEJ v. Poland
SALAMON-PIÓRKO v. Poland
KRWAWNIKOWSKI v. Poland
BACZEWSKA-JARMOLIŃSKA v.
Poland
DYMARSKI v. Poland
LESZCZEWSKA v. Poland
SOLECKA v. Poland
ARTEMSKI v. Poland
BORAL v. Poland
SULIMA v. Poland
PIĄTKOWSKI v. Poland
WINIARSKI v. Poland
CZARNECKA v. Poland
Date of
lodging
06/06/2011
10/06/2011
11/06/2011
17/06/2011
09/06/2011
14/06/2011
20/06/2011
16/06/2011
20/06/2011
18/06/2011
16/06/2011
31/05/2011
31/05/2011
17/06/2011
06/06/2011
09/06/2011
01/06/2011
21/06/2011
07/06/2011
13/06/2011
20/06/2011
04/06/2011
08/06/2011
21/06/2011
14/06/2011
21/06/2011
24/06/2011
15/06/2011
09/06/2011
20/06/2011
27/06/2011
21/06/2011
27/06/2011
20/06/2011
20/06/2011
21/06/2011
20/06/2011
27/06/2011
24/06/2011
28/06/2011
21/06/2011
27/06/2011
18/06/2011
27/06/2011
27/06/2011
Introduced by
A. Marek
S. Maszkowski
E. Sapeta
M. Bromboszcz
A. Ciepak
D. Wróblewska
J. Jędraszko
S. Reduch
D. Korolewicz
S. Kasprzyk
J. Chuda
T. Gruszka
J. Kurek
H. Białosiewicz
M. Dobrowolski
J. Szwajka
B. Gierowska
T. Pabisiak
J. Feliga
H. Toczewski
B. Paluszkiewicz
C. Błachut
L. TerleckaSemkowicz
A. JakowskaRączkowska
J. Zieliński
M. Durski
H. Michno-Załoga
J. Wrona
T. Wójcik
J. Chyleński
I. Jerzykowska
B. Ścisłek
K. Skobiej
B. Salamon-Piórko
Z. Krwawnikowski
G. BaczewskaJarmolińska
K. Dymarski
R. Leszczewska
E. Solecka
J. Artemski
M. Boral
M. Sulima
K. Piątkowski
R. Winiarski
Ł. Czarnecka
77
Name of
Representative
78
App. No.
Case Name
832.
833.
834.
835.
836.
837.
838.
839.
840.
841.
842.
843.
844.
845.
846.
847.
848.
849.
850.
851.
852.
853.
854.
855.
41375/11
41380/11
41433/11
41446/11
41797/11
41886/11
41898/11
41902/11
41904/11
42066/11
42111/11
42124/11
42140/11
42163/11
42190/11
42193/11
42197/11
42201/11
42205/11
42223/11
42307/11
42346/11
42377/11
42437/11
856.
857.
858.
859.
860.
861.
862.
863.
864.
42439/11
42504/11
42584/11
42593/11
42603/11
42616/11
42627/11
42635/11
42640/11
MROCZEK v. Poland
CZARNECKI v. Poland
POPIEL v. Poland
ROZŁONKOWSKI v. Poland
MATUKIN v. Poland
KRZYSZTAŁ v. Poland
SERAFIŃCZYK v. Poland
SAWICKI v. Poland
WEJGT v. Poland
ROSIŃSKI v. Poland
RYCHLEWSKI v. Poland
PAJOR v. Poland
KOSIŃSKI v. Poland
LESIEWICZ v. Poland
KALINOWSKI v. Poland
KOGUTKIEWICZ v. Poland
KAPITUŁA-WRONA v. Poland
KALISZ v. Poland
KOWALCZYK v. Poland
KOBUS v. Poland
SALA v. Poland
JANICKI v. Poland
SKRABA v. Poland
SZYMCZYK-MACIEJEWSKA v.
Poland
SZNERCH v. Poland
DUBINIECKI v. Poland
DUDA v. Poland
GÓRSKA v. Poland
DULSKI v. Poland
URBANIAK v. Poland
GIERUSZKA v. Poland
DORMAN and Others v.
Poland
865.
866.
867.
868.
869.
42641/11
42647/11
42661/11
42690/11
42776/11
GORYSZEWSKI v. Poland
GREJNER v. Poland
ZAREK v. Poland
ZAGUBIEŃ v. Poland
WIŚNIEWSKA v. Poland
Date of
lodging
30/06/2011
27/06/2011
28/06/2011
01/07/2011
24/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
28/06/2011
30/06/2011
04/07/2011
24/06/2011
24/06/2011
30/06/2011
28/06/2011
28/06/2011
21/06/2011
15/06/2011
24/06/2011
24/06/2011
27/06/2011
24/06/2011
29/06/2011
04/07/2011
05/07/2011
07/07/2011
29/06/2011
06/07/2011
29/06/2011
28/06/2011
30/06/2011
04/07/2011
30/06/2011
05/07/2011
21/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
23/06/2011
24/06/2011
Introduced by
W. Mroczek
A. Czarnecki
C. Popiel
J. Rozłonkowski
J. Matukin
M. Krzyształ
J. Serafińczyk
A. Sawicki
J. Wejgt
T. Rosiński
J. Rychlewski
M. Pajor
A. Kosiński
D. Lesiewicz
R. Kalinowski
J. Kogutkiewicz
Z. Kapituła-Wrona
A. Kalisz
J. Kowalczyk
B. Kobus
J. Sala
H. Janicki
M. Skraba
B. SzymczykMaciejewska
K. Stefański
L. Sznerch
L. Dubiniecki
S. Duda
H. Górska
M. Dulski
I. Urbaniak
Z. Gieruszka
E. Dorman
D. Duda
H. Dudkiewicz
E. Ogidel
E. Rudnicka Sipajlo
K. Szewczyk
H. Taciak
R. Tomasik
S. Wierzchowska
I. Wróblewska
R. Goryszewski
M. Grejner
J. Zarek
K. Zagubień
M. Wiśniewska
Name of
Representative
D. Sucholewski
App. No.
Case Name
870.
871.
872.
873.
874.
875.
876.
877.
878.
879.
880.
881.
882.
883.
884.
885.
886.
887.
888.
889.
890.
891.
892.
893.
894.
895.
896.
897.
42797/11
42807/11
42845/11
42846/11
42950/11
43051/11
43105/11
43194/11
43283/11
43391/11
43577/11
43617/11
43770/11
43791/11
44045/11
44048/11
44053/11
44251/11
44434/11
44650/11
44809/11
45098/11
45463/11
45853/11
45860/11
45877/11
45977/11
46255/11
898.
899.
900.
901.
902.
903.
904.
905.
906.
907.
908.
909.
910.
911.
912.
913.
914.
915.
916.
46321/11
46546/11
46818/11
46825/11
47077/11
47439/11
47770/11
47805/11
47878/11
47886/11
47898/11
47947/11
47967/11
48024/11
48061/11
48769/11
49339/11
49347/11
49359/11
MUSIAŁOWICZ v. Poland
CHWIEJCZAK v. Poland
LASEK v. Poland
WESOŁOWSKI v. Poland
DOMAŃSKI v. Poland
SOBIERSKA v. Poland
ZIMOLĄG v. Poland
KRIEGER v. Poland
RYDLEWSKI v. Poland
SROKA v. Poland
OSTROWSKI v. Poland
CIEMPKA v. Poland
BĄCZKIEWICZ v. Poland
BARANOWSKI v. Poland
KOŁACZYK v. Poland
KAJRYS v. Poland
KAPITUŁA v. Poland
GASEK v. Poland
CHOJNOWSKI v. Poland
CZAJKOWSKI v. Poland
JAWORSKI v. Poland
GIERUS v. Poland
TROJNAR v. Poland
GÓRECKA v. Poland
GOLICZ v. Poland
NEUMAN v. Poland
CHMIELOWIEC v. Poland
RODAK VEL WODECKI v.
Poland
PIECEWICZ v. Poland
PRUS v. Poland
PASZKIEWICZ v. Poland
MICHALCZUK v. Poland
CHWESIUK v. Poland
URBAŃCZYK v. Poland
JANUSZ v. Poland
SOBCZYK v. Poland
BARCHAN v. Poland
BŁASZCZYK v. Poland
LEWIŃSKI v. Poland
DUDEK v. Poland
SZUSTER v. Poland
TRAWCZYŃSKI v. Poland
ŁAWNICZAK v. Poland
CHUDZIK v. Poland
MATYNIA v. Poland
GLABUS v. Poland
Date of
lodging
07/07/2011
21/06/2011
28/06/2011
27/06/2011
08/07/2011
04/07/2011
11/07/2011
05/07/2011
11/07/2011
12/07/2011
30/06/2011
11/07/2011
29/06/2011
05/07/2011
04/07/2011
04/07/2011
11/07/2011
15/07/2011
12/07/2011
15/07/2011
24/06/2011
18/07/2011
18/07/2011
19/07/2011
18/07/2011
21/07/2011
21/07/2011
21/07/2011
18/07/2011
21/07/2011
20/07/2011
13/07/2011
20/07/2011
25/07/2011
19/07/2011
25/07/2011
27/07/2011
23/07/2011
26/07/2011
22/07/2011
20/07/2011
25/07/2011
20/07/2011
25/07/2011
01/08/2011
22/07/2011
28/07/2011
Introduced by
I. Musiałowicz
P. Chwiejczak
Z. Lasek
Z. Wesołowski
W. Domański
E. Sobierska
J. Zimoląg
J. Krieger
R. Rydlewski
E. Sroka
W. Ostrowski
K. Ciempka
R. Bączkiewicz
Z. Baranowski
K. Kołaczyk
J. Kajrys
A. Kapituła
Z. Gasek
B. Chojnowski
H. Czajkowski
J. Jaworski
K. Gierus
W. Trojnar
B. Górecka
T. Golicz
M. Neuman
M. Chmielowiec
W. Rodak Vel
Wodecki
P. Piecewicz
R. Prus
B. Paszkiewicz
M. Michalczuk
B. Chwesiuk
S. Urbańczyk
M. Janusz
A. Sobczyk
A. Barchan
J. Błaszczyk
S. Lewiński
W. Piotrowski
R. Dudek
K. Szuster
W. Trawczyński
S. Ławniczak
M. Chudzik
L. Matynia
A. Glabus
79
Name of
Representative
D. Sucholewski
80
App. No.
Case Name
917.
918.
919.
920.
921.
922.
923.
924.
925.
926.
927.
928.
929.
930.
931.
932.
933.
934.
935.
936.
937.
938.
939.
940.
941.
942.
943.
944.
945.
946.
947.
948.
949.
950.
49528/11
49897/11
49904/11
50001/11
50157/11
50165/11
50698/11
50746/11
50999/11
51009/11
51018/11
51491/11
51620/11
51657/11
51658/11
51674/11
51684/11
51685/11
51693/11
51697/11
51700/11
51720/11
51729/11
51804/11
52152/11
52174/11
52584/11
53017/11
53020/11
53367/11
53488/11
53499/11
54091/11
54146/11
951.
952.
953.
954.
955.
956.
957.
958.
959.
960.
961.
962.
963.
54152/11
54324/11
54332/11
54756/11
54759/11
54815/11
55053/11
55067/11
55072/11
55138/11
55517/11
55544/11
55595/11
KOSECKI v. Poland
JAŃCZYK v. Poland
JANECZEK v. Poland
DEBUDAJ v. Poland
CHMIELOWSKI v. Poland
BRALSKI v. Poland
ŁASOCHA v. Poland
SITEK v. Poland
NIŻNIK v. Poland
MIKOŁAJEW v. Poland
MUSIAŁOWICZ v. Poland
MARCINIAK v. Poland
GRABOWSKA v. Poland
PRONIEWICZ v. Poland
DOBROTOWSKI v. Poland
OLESZCZUK v. Poland
OLESZCZUK v. Poland
KALINIEWSKA v. Poland
OKULSKA v. Poland
GRELA v. Poland
WRÓBEL v. Poland
WĘGIEREK v. Poland
WOSZCZYNA v. Poland
SIERPIŃSKI v. Poland
STEMPLEWSKI v. Poland
BOROWSKA v. Poland
KUTA v. Poland
MAŁECKI v. Poland
MACH v. Poland
GOLA v. Poland
ZWIECH v. Poland
ZWIECH v. Poland
DRABOWICZ v. Poland
WODZICKA-KAROLAK v.
Poland
IMIOŁEK v. Poland
ŻMIJEWSKI v. Poland
BUDKA v. Poland
UNGERT v. Poland
GUT v. Poland
LESIAK v. Poland
RYCHLIK v. Poland
PUZDER v. Poland
RYCHLIK v. Poland
DOBROTOWSKI v. Poland
WOJTYŚ v. Poland
HĄCIA v. Poland
MILCZARSKI v. Poland
Date of
lodging
02/08/2011
01/08/2011
26/07/2011
27/07/2011
28/07/2011
05/08/2011
02/08/2011
08/08/2011
08/08/2011
08/08/2011
09/08/2011
05/08/2011
11/08/2011
09/08/2011
08/08/2011
09/08/2011
09/08/2011
27/07/2011
11/08/2011
11/08/2011
10/08/2011
10/08/2011
05/08/2011
11/08/2011
28/07/2011
04/08/2011
09/08/2011
11/08/2011
18/08/2011
16/08/2011
08/08/2011
04/08/2011
22/08/2011
16/08/2011
11/08/2011
16/08/2011
16/08/2011
26/08/2011
19/08/2011
16/08/2011
17/08/2011
23/08/2011
17/08/2011
22/08/2011
23/08/2011
23/08/2011
29/08/2011
Introduced by
S. Kosecki
M. Jańczyk
W. Janeczek
G. Debudaj
P. Chmielowski
Z. Bralski
S. Łasocha
I. Sitek
J. Niżnik
A. Mikołajew
R. Musiałowicz
L. Marciniak
E. Grabowska
J. Proniewicz
J. Dobrotowski
S. Oleszczuk
M. Oleszczuk
W. Kaliniewska
H. Okulska
H. Grela
S. Wróbel
Z. Węgierek
C. Woszczyna
Z. Sierpiński
J. Stemplewski
G. Borowska
T. Kuta
K. Małecki
H. Mach
S. Gola
T. Zwiech
J. Zwiech
A. Drabowicz
K. Wodzicka-Karolak
H. Imiołek
M. Żmijewski
L. Budka
M. Ungert
B. Gut
J. Lesiak
G. Rychlik
H. Puzder
M. Rychlik
J. Dobrotowski
E. Wojtyś
Z. Hącia
M. Milczarski
Name of
Representative
D. Sucholewski
964.
965.
966.
56015/11 SOBIESIAK v. Poland
56054/11 FRYZIAK v. Poland
56280/11 MUSIAŁ and Others v. Poland
Date of
lodging
27/08/2011
22/08/2011
31/08/2011
967.
968.
969.
970.
971.
972.
973.
974.
975.
976.
977.
978.
979.
980.
981.
56344/11
56903/11
56980/11
57288/11
57578/11
57692/11
57790/11
58165/11
58207/11
58349/11
58362/11
58412/11
58550/11
58563/11
58696/11
KARKOCHA v. Poland
CHLEBOWSKI v. Poland
MROZIŃSKI v. Poland
MALUCH v. Poland
KOŁACZ v. Poland
MALSKI v. Poland
JANICKI v. Poland
GAWLIK v. Poland
CZAJKA v. Poland
CIEŚLAK v. Poland
CHROBOT v. Poland
DUNAJEWSKI v. Poland
BIENIASZ v. Poland
BOLON v. Poland
POLNIAK and Others v. Poland
19/08/2011
25/08/2011
30/08/2011
06/09/2011
07/09/2011
08/09/2011
09/09/2011
24/08/2011
02/09/2011
08/09/2011
06/09/2011
08/09/2011
08/09/2011
09/09/2011
03/09/2011
982.
983.
984.
985.
986.
987.
988.
989.
990.
991.
992.
58799/11
58910/11
58933/11
58993/11
59522/11
59720/11
59778/11
60267/11
60403/11
60531/11
60552/11
NASTALEK v. Poland
ZGÓDKA v. Poland
POŁOSAK v. Poland
ŻACZEK v. Poland
MIERZEJSKI v. Poland
BŁONAROWICZ v. Poland
WOJCIECHOWSKI v. Poland
ŻAKOWSKI v. Poland
KOZAK v. Poland
ŁAPIŃSKA v. Poland
PRYT v. Poland
12/09/2011
12/09/2011
30/08/2011
05/09/2011
02/09/2011
20/09/2011
09/09/2011
19/09/2011
22/09/2011
21/09/2011
23/09/2011
App. No.
Case Name
Introduced by
J. Sobiesiak
E. Fryziak
J. Baniak
Z. Bieniek
R. Denkowski
M. Markiewicz
W. Mrówka
S. Musiał
P. Nawrot
S. Orliński
H. Rabikowska
A. Zalewski
L. Karkocha
A. Chlebowski
J. Mroziński
J. Maluch
D. Kołacz
M. Malski
M. Janicki
Z. Gawlik
A. Czajka
H. Cieślak
J. Chrobot
Z. Dunajewski
W. Bieniasz
J. Bolon
A. Polniak
A. Bartkiewicz
J. Borowiecki
L. Dąbrowska
A. Kluczyński
T. Mierzejewski
W. Rylski
R. Sołyga
A. Stakuć
M. Styczyński
W. Zborowski
W. Nastałek
J. Zgódka
E. Połosak
E. Żaczek
J. Mierzejski
S. Błonarowicz
W. Wojciechowski
L. Żakowski
R. Kozak
W. Łapińska
J. Pryt
81
Name of
Representative
D. Sucholewski
B. Świątkiewicz
D. Sucholewski
B. Świątkiewicz
82
App. No.
Case Name
993.
994.
995.
996.
997.
998.
999.
1000.
1001.
1002.
1003.
1004.
1005.
60607/11
60614/11
61811/11
61993/11
62003/11
62006/11
62022/11
62052/11
62086/11
62146/11
62237/11
62241/11
62832/11
BARANOWSKI v. Poland
BYSZEK v. Poland
NALEWAJ v. Poland
MACEWICZ v. Poland
MACEWICZ v. Poland
WASIAK v. Poland
KOBYLARZ v. Poland
TUCHOLSKI v. Poland
MAKOWSKI v. Poland
TABOREK v. Poland
TRZMIELEWSKI v. Poland
TUROTSZY v. Poland
TURCZYNOWSCY v. Poland
Date of
lodging
22/09/2011
12/09/2011
26/09/2011
27/09/2011
27/09/2011
22/09/2011
27/09/2011
20/09/2011
26/09/2011
27/09/2011
28/09/2011
28/09/2011
12/09/2011
1006.
1007.
1008.
1009.
1010.
1011.
1012.
1013.
1014.
1015.
1016.
1017.
1018.
1019.
1020.
1021.
1022.
1023.
1024.
1025.
1026.
1027.
1028.
1029.
1030.
1031.
1032.
62900/11
62990/11
63071/11
63077/11
63081/11
63259/11
63371/11
63407/11
63758/11
63814/11
63815/11
64022/11
64026/11
64042/11
64563/11
64572/11
64934/11
65049/11
65121/11
65376/11
65479/11
65901/11
66615/11
66817/11
66887/11
67258/11
67859/11
SOLAN v. Poland
GÓRSKI v. Poland
MAZEWSKI v. Poland
MARCHWICKI v. Poland
MARKOWSKI v. Poland
LEWANDOWSKA v. Poland
KACZOROWSKA v. Poland
BOROWIK v. Poland
WĘGIELSKI v. Poland
WOLNIEWICZ v. Poland
WOLNIEWICZ v. Poland
GĄSIOROWSKI v. Poland
MIZGAŁA v. Poland
MIRCZYŃSKI v. Poland
PYKACZ v. Poland
PANEK v. Poland
BODNAR v. Poland
MADANY v. Poland
CICHY v. Poland
SACEWICZ v. Poland
KUŁAGA v. Poland
KATOLIK v. Poland
OLSZÓWKA v. Poland
KOWALSKI v. Poland
BAZANT v. Poland
BIELICKI v. Poland
HANDEL v. Poland
06/10/2011
29/09/2011
05/10/2011
05/10/2011
04/10/2011
12/09/2011
06/10/2011
02/10/2011
06/10/2011
29/09/2011
29/09/2011
07/10/2011
08/10/2011
10/10/2011
03/10/2011
11/10/2011
05/10/2011
07/10/2011
12/10/2011
14/10/2011
13/10/2011
12/10/2011
17/10/2011
20/10/2011
20/10/2011
22/10/2011
19/10/2011
Introduced by
R. Baranowski
A. Byszek
S. Nalewaj
J. Macewicz
B. Macewicz
W. Wasiak
R. Kobylarz
Z. Tucholski
G. Makowski
T. Taborek
H. Trzmielewski
A. Turotszy
M. Turczynowska
J. Turczynowski
J. Solan
J. Górski
L. Mazewski
H. Marchwicki
H. Markowski
H. Lewandowska
K. Kaczorowska
P. Borowik
Z. Węgielski
M. Wolniewicz
M. Wolniewicz
J. Gąsiorowski
M. Mizgała
K. Mirczyński
Z. Pykacz
B. Panek
Z. Bodnar
M. Madany
Z. Cichy
B. Sacewicz
Z. Kułaga
T. Katolik
R. Olszówka
H. Kowalski
R. Bazant
J. Bielicki
A. Handel
Name of
Representative
M. Gąsiorowska
D. Sucholewski
M. Gąsiorowska
B. Świątkiewicz
App. No.
Case Name
1033. 67979/11 SAMOREK and Others v.
Poland
1034.
1035.
1036.
1037.
1038.
1039.
1040.
1041.
1042.
1043.
1044.
1045.
1046.
1047.
1048.
1049.
1050.
1051.
1052.
1053.
1054.
1055.
1056.
1057.
1058.
1059.
1060.
1061.
1062.
1063.
1064.
1065.
1066.
1067.
1068.
1069.
68163/11
68172/11
68839/11
68841/11
69006/11
69032/11
69197/11
69238/11
69361/11
69384/11
69389/11
69505/11
69747/11
70061/11
70109/11
70399/11
70785/11
71498/11
71753/11
72413/11
72465/11
72530/11
72590/11
72608/11
72618/11
72678/11
72715/11
72755/11
72790/11
72796/11
72817/11
72819/11
72913/11
73115/11
73582/11
73638/11
PAWLUS v. Poland
PIETRZAK v. Poland
JĘDRZEJAK v. Poland
DĘBSKA v. Poland
OLEJNICZAK v. Poland
OZIĘBŁO v. Poland
ŚLIWA v. Poland
BIELICKI v. Poland
KUBIK v. Poland
GIEDREWICZ v. Poland
DMITRUK v. Poland
MICHALIK v. Poland
MIERZWA v. Poland
LEŻAŃSKA-FRYŁOW v. Poland
BUCHALSKI v. Poland
MURAWSKI v. Poland
HARASIMIUK v. Poland
MIELNICZUK v. Poland
POLKOWSKI v. Poland
WOLIŃSKI v. Poland
BUGAŁA v. Poland
BOGUSZ v. Poland
BANASIK v. Poland
DOMAGAŁA v. Poland
ADAMCZYK v. Poland
SAWICKI v. Poland
SIERANT v. Poland
SIERANT v. Poland
SĘKOWSKI v. Poland
ŚMIAŁKOWSKI v. Poland
PIETROW v. Poland
PIÓRKOWSKI v. Poland
OSÓBKA v. Poland
WŁODARSKI v. Poland
KOBUSIŃSKA v. Poland
BOGUSŁAWSKI v. Poland
Date of
Introduced by
lodging
24/10/2011 T. Baranowski
J. Cyranka
T. Gałęzowski
S. Giza
S. Iwaniak
M. Matwiejczuk
R. Pakuła
L. Samorek
L. Terlecki
W. Wójtowicz
E. Wrótniak
M. Żerebiec
18/10/2011 J. Pawlus
19/10/2011 J. Pietrzak
28/10/2011 K. Jędrzejak
17/10/2011 M. Dębska
27/10/2011 K. Olejniczak
27/10/2011 K. Oziębło
24/10/2011 W. Śliwa
02/11/2011 J. Bielicki
23/10/2011 D. Kubik
25/10/2011 J. Giedrewicz
02/11/2011 F. Dmitruk
21/10/2011 Z. Michalik
04/11/2011 J. Mierzwa
02/11/2011 L. Leżańska-Fryłow
08/11/2011 J. Buchalski
07/11/2011 J. Murawski
28/10/2011 J. Harasimiuk
14/11/2011 E. Mielniczuk
11/11/2011 A. Polkowski
16/11/2011 Z. Woliński
10/11/2011 R. Bugała
12/11/2011 A. Bogusz
17/11/2011 S. Banasik
16/11/2011 M. Domagała
16/11/2011 S. Adamczyk
16/11/2011 A. Sawicki
15/11/2011 L. Sierant
15/11/2011 G. Sierant
15/11/2011 K. Sękowski
15/11/2011 Z. Śmiałkowski
16/11/2011 J. Pietrow
16/11/2011 W. Piórkowski
17/11/2011 L. Osóbka
28/10/2011 J. Włodarski
14/11/2011 A. Kobusińska
21/11/2011 H. Bogusławski
83
Name of
Representative
D. Sucholewski
M. Gąsiorowska
D. Sucholewski
84
App. No.
Case Name
1070. 74216/11 GŁADKI and Others v. Poland
1071.
1072.
1073.
1074.
1075.
1076.
1077.
1078.
1079.
1080.
1081.
1082.
1083.
1084.
1085.
1086.
1087.
1088.
1089.
1090.
1091.
1092.
1093.
1094.
1095.
1096.
1097.
1098.
1099.
1100.
1101.
1102.
1103.
1104.
1105.
1106.
74379/11
74423/11
74679/11
74705/11
74735/11
74749/11
74985/11
75122/11
75263/11
75330/11
75545/11
75653/11
75772/11
75821/11
75840/11
75850/11
75853/11
76121/11
76125/11
76246/11
76263/11
76270/11
76316/11
76429/11
76796/11
76817/11
76818/11
76823/11
76878/11
76964/11
77021/11
77169/11
77933/11
77971/11
78240/11
78250/11
TAŃSKA v. Poland
KOZŁOWSKA v. Poland
OSIŃSKA v. Poland
MIKOŁAJCZYK v. Poland
STOCHNIAŁ v. Poland
KASPRZAK v. Poland
MIERZOWIEC v. Poland
KUBŚ v. Poland
BIAŁY v. Poland
WEKSEJ v. Poland
KUREK v. Poland
WIERTELAK v. Poland
PILITOWSKI v. Poland
GARLICKI v. Poland
ADAMOWSKI v. Poland
SZYMKIEWICZ v. Poland
GRONOWICZ v. Poland
NIEKRASZ v. Poland
TATARCZUK v. Poland
BURDA v. Poland
BICKI v. Poland
KAMIŃSKA v. Poland
BIAŁA v. Poland
WOLIŃSKI v. Poland
LEŚNIEWSKA v. Poland
ŁUKOWSKI v. Poland
RUTKOWSKI v. Poland
PRZYGODA v. Poland
MAJEWSKI v. Poland
MAŚLISZ v. Poland
WOŁYNEK v. Poland
ZIÓŁKOWSKI v. Poland
ZABIELSKI v. Poland
SIMIONKOWSKI v. Poland
DAROSZEWSKI v. Poland
DAROSZEWSKA v. Poland
Date of
Introduced by
lodging
25/11/2011 L. Bąbel
W. Fijałkowski
S. Gładki
A. Murzynowski
A. Olszowy
G. Skorek-Urywkow
W. Szczepanik
Z. Waldon
G. WilińskaKopańska
G. Zalewska
24/11/2011 B. Tańska
24/11/2011 G. Kozłowska
28/11/2011 H. Osińska
25/11/2011 L. Mikołajczyk
24/11/2011 B. Stochniał
28/11/2011 D. Kasprzak
28/11/2011 A. Mierzowiec
29/11/2011 A. Kubś
26/11/2011 Z. Biały
02/12/2011 M. Weksej
01/12/2011 J. Kurek
28/11/2011 S. Wiertelak
01/12/2011 A. Pilitowski
28/11/2011 K. Garlicki
01/12/2011 J. Adamowski
05/12/2011 E. Szymkiewicz
30/11/2011 L. Gronowicz
26/11/2011 M. Niekrasz
28/11/2011 P. Tatarczuk
12/12/2011 S. Burda
25/11/2011 E. Bicki
05/12/2011 K. Kamińska
25/11/2011 B. Biała
29/11/2011 R. Woliński
05/12/2011 K. Leśniewska
07/12/2011 J. Łukowski
08/12/2011 J. Rutkowski
07/12/2011 W. Przygoda
09/12/2011 C. Majewski
08/12/2011 J. Maślisz
09/12/2011 W. Wołynek
06/12/2011 J. Ziółkowski
12/12/2011 J. Zabielski
08/12/2011 K. Simionkowski
14/12/2011 Z. Daroszewski
14/12/2011 W. Daroszewska
Name of
Representative
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
1107.
1108.
1109.
1110.
1111.
1112.
1113.
1114.
1115.
1116.
1117.
1118.
1119.
1120.
1121.
1122.
1123.
1124.
1125.
1126.
1127.
1128.
1129.
1130.
1131.
1132.
1133.
1134.
1135.
1136.
1137.
1138.
1139.
1140.
1141.
1142.
1143.
1144.
1145.
1146.
1147.
1148.
1149.
1150.
1151.
1152.
1153.
1154.
App. No.
Case Name
78413/11
78454/11
78545/11
78562/11
78567/11
271/12
474/12
605/12
831/12
834/12
844/12
858/12
947/12
953/12
981/12
982/12
985/12
989/12
1230/12
1588/12
1631/12
1768/12
1824/12
2197/12
2298/12
2647/12
2729/12
2821/12
2826/12
2847/12
3679/12
4086/12
4254/12
4717/12
4788/12
5121/12
5295/12
5321/12
5348/12
5567/12
5572/12
5695/12
5838/12
6043/12
6436/12
6442/12
6756/12
6903/12
ROSOŁEK v. Poland
KAMIŃSKI v. Poland
CZEKAJ v. Poland
CIELESZYŃSKA v. Poland
CIELESZYŃSKI v. Poland
PIETRYK v. Poland
JĘDRAL v. Poland
PIECHOWIAK v. Poland
GOMOŁA v. Poland
DMITROCA v. Poland
KANTEK v. Poland
SZERNER v. Poland
DĄBKOWSKI v. Poland
GREGORCZYK v. Poland
MAKOWSKI v. Poland
NOGALA v. Poland
ZAWADA v. Poland
TRZECIAK v. Poland
KOSKO v. Poland
SOBOLEWSKI v. Poland
RYGLICKI v. Poland
MITEK v. Poland
OLSZEWSKI v. Poland
MILKO v. Poland
WASZCZENIUK v. Poland
ZAWADA v. Poland
GRODZKI v. Poland
GAWEŁ v. Poland
GRZELAK v. Poland
KRZYWICKA v. Poland
SOBOLEWSKI v. Poland
TOPOLSKI v. Poland
WARZECHA v. Poland
TUCHOWSKI v. Poland
HUNDZ v. Poland
ZABAWSKI v. Poland
NAWOLSKI v. Poland
KOWALSKI v. Poland
POSIEJ v. Poland
BIAŁEK v. Poland
NOWAK v. Poland
MORGUNOV v. Poland
MASEWICZ v. Poland
CUPRYŚ v. Poland
ŚLIFIERZ v. Poland
Date of
lodging
06/12/2011
12/12/2011
14/12/2011
14/12/2011
14/12/2011
12/12/2011
15/12/2011
12/12/2011
29/12/2011
08/12/2011
03/11/2011
15/12/2011
19/12/2011
13/12/2011
22/12/2011
03/12/2011
27/12/2011
21/12/2011
22/12/2011
29/12/2011
22/12/2011
02/01/2012
31/12/2011
03/01/2012
04/01/2012
29/12/2011
22/12/2011
27/12/2011
22/12/2011
03/01/2012
10/01/2012
02/01/2012
13/01/2012
09/01/2012
03/01/2012
16/01/2012
18/01/2012
12/01/2012
15/01/2012
13/01/2012
20/01/2012
19/01/2012
17/01/2012
19/01/2012
23/01/2012
24/01/2012
20/01/2012
19/01/2012
Introduced by
E. Rosołek
Z. Kamiński
J. Czekaj
U. Cieleszyńska
R. Cieleszyński
T. Pietryk
B. Jędral
C. Piechowiak
A. Gomoła
E. Dmitroca
E. Kantek
Z. Szerner
A. Dąbkowski
L. Gregorczyk
M. Makowski
B. Nogala
B. Kwiatkowski
F. Zawada
T. Trzeciak
G. Kosko
J. Sobolewski
Z. Ryglicki
S. Mitek
B. Olszewski
P. Milko
M. Waszczeniuk
J. Zawada
E. Grodzki
M. Gaweł
E. Grzelak
J. Krzywicka
E. Sobolewski
Z. Topolski
R. Warzecha
A. Nowakowski
E. Tuchowski
W. Hundz
W. Zabawski
A. Nawolski
M. Kaźmierczak
M. Kowalski
G. Posiej
D. Białek
K. Nowak
J. Morgunov
D. Masewicz
W. Cupryś
M. Ślifierz
85
Name of
Representative
D. Sucholewski
M. Gąsiorowska
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
86
App. No.
1155. 7497/12
1156. 7652/12
1157. 7713/12
Case Name
1158.
1159.
1160.
1161.
1162.
1163.
1164.
1165.
1166.
1167.
1168.
1169.
1170.
1171.
1172.
1173.
1174.
1175.
1176.
1177.
1178.
1179.
1180.
1181.
1182.
1183.
7765/12
7870/12
8203/12
8474/12
8646/12
8677/12
8724/12
8801/12
8875/12
8877/12
9208/12
9400/12
9663/12
9948/12
9958/12
10608/12
10623/12
10747/12
10937/12
10942/12
11004/12
11301/12
11307/12
11371/12
11383/12
11956/12
BĄCZKOWSKI v. Poland
TOCZEK v. Poland
POSZEPCZYŃSKA-PAWLAK v.
Poland
SZYJA v. Poland
MAŁEK v. Poland
GADZAŁA v. Poland
CZAPKO v. Poland
BAMBUROWICZ v. Poland
TREPKA v. Poland
BARCZYK v. Poland
REMBOWSKI v. Poland
REMBOWSKA v. Poland
GAIK v. Poland
GÓRECKI v. Poland
WALCZAK v. Poland
SZUBELAK v. Poland
SZYKOWNY v. Poland
ZABŁOCKI v. Poland
URBAŃSKI v. Poland
EGER v. Poland
ŚWIERKOT v. Poland
SZUCKI v. Poland
KAMIENIAK v. Poland
KRUSZEWSKI v. Poland
MATCZAK v. Poland
SAJDAK v. Poland
JANKOWSKA v. Poland
1184.
1185.
1186.
1187.
1188.
1189.
1190.
1191.
12106/12
12137/12
12188/12
12236/12
12238/12
12243/12
12326/12
13006/12
1192.
1193.
1194.
1195.
1196.
1197.
1198.
1199.
13184/12
13438/12
13866/12
14004/12
14026/12
14305/12
14694/12
14944/12
Date of
lodging
26/01/2012
24/01/2012
31/01/2012
Introduced by
31/01/2012
27/01/2012
02/02/2012
25/01/2012
06/02/2012
02/02/2012
06/02/2012
26/01/2012
25/01/2012
25/01/2012
07/02/2012
01/02/2012
30/01/2012
08/02/2012
03/02/2012
08/02/2012
08/02/2012
14/02/2012
13/02/2012
14/02/2012
08/02/2012
13/02/2012
17/02/2012
07/02/2012
13/02/2012
15/02/2012
S. Bączkowski
M. Toczek
K. PoszepczyńskaPawlak
F. Matuszewski
K. Szyja
M. Małek
J. Gadzała
J. Czapko
M. Bamburowicz
A. Trepka
F. Barczyk
M. Rembowski
E. Rembowska
R. Gaik
B. Górecki
A. Walczak
K. Szubelak
H. Szykowny
J. Zabłocki
A. Urbański
A. Eger
Z. Świerkot
T. Szucki
S. Kamieniak
J. Kozłowski
E. Kruszewski
E. Matczak
G. Sajdak
U. Jankowska
MAZUREK v. Poland
ZDUNEK v. Poland
KOTNIS v. Poland
RADOSZ v. Poland
RAK v. Poland
RECŁAW v. Poland
GASIK v. Poland
LANGE v. Poland
22/02/2012
23/02/2012
20/02/2012
15/02/2012
17/02/2012
02/02/2012
21/02/2012
15/02/2012
J. Mazurek
D. Zdunek
S. Kotnis
R. Radosz
M. Rak
J. Recław
A. Gasik
P. Lange
RYFA v. Poland
WOŹNICKI v. Poland
HERMAN v. Poland
SOKOŁOWSKA v. Poland
AMBROŻY v. Poland
KOSIAK v. Poland
JUSZCZAK v. Poland
BALCEROWIAK v. Poland
24/02/2012
25/02/2012
27/02/2012
01/03/2012
02/03/2012
05/03/2012
08/03/2012
07/03/2012
K. Ryfa
S. Woźnicki
S. Herman
G. Sokołowska
U. Ambroży
M. Kosiak
M. Juszczak
D. Balcerowiak
Name of
Representative
D. Sucholewski
A. ŚwiątkiewiczPałosz
D. Sucholewski
1200.
1201.
1202.
1203.
1204.
1205.
1206.
1207.
1208.
1209.
App. No.
Case Name
15119/12
15145/12
15204/12
15258/12
15390/12
15817/12
16133/12
16563/12
16937/12
17053/12
GALANT v. Poland
TARASZKIEWICZ v. Poland
NAKONIECZNY v. Poland
WÓJTOWICZ v. Poland
MICHALIK v. Poland
KOSACKI v. Poland
KUDRA v. Poland
HAJWOS v. Poland
CHOJNACKI v. Poland
STARZYŃSKA v. Poland
Date of
lodging
08/03/2012
09/03/2012
06/03/2012
28/02/2012
29/02/2012
08/03/2012
27/02/2012
14/03/2012
04/03/2012
12/03/2012
Introduced by
K. Galant
J. Taraszkiewicz
R. Nakonieczny
H. Wójtowicz
S. Michalik
J. Kosacki
W. Kudra
P. Hajwos
M. Chojnacki
W. Starzyńska
1210. 17086/12 FILA v. Poland
12/03/2012 T. Fila
1211.
1212.
1213.
1214.
1215.
1216.
1217.
1218.
1219.
1220.
1221.
1222.
1223.
1224.
1225.
1226.
12/03/2012
12/03/2012
19/03/2012
26/03/2012
22/03/2012
22/03/2012
27/03/2012
27/03/2012
19/03/2012
26/03/2012
27/03/2012
29/03/2012
26/03/2011
30/03/2012
02/04/2012
03/04/2012
17222/12
18335/12
18462/12
19152/12
19381/12
19387/12
19988/12
20002/12
20018/12
20293/12
20816/12
21047/12
21093/12
21211/12
21689/12
21787/12
ZŁOTNICKI v. Poland
GÓRECKI v. Poland
NOWAK v. Poland
PĘCZKOWSKI v. Poland
KUZIOŁA v. Poland
KUZIOŁA v. Poland
JACKOWSKA v. Poland
JACKOWSKI v. Poland
GRZYB v. Poland
JÓZEFECKI v. Poland
KRAM v. Poland
KARP v. Poland
KNIAZIUK v. Poland
GIERLICKI v. Poland
POŁOWNIAK v. Poland
T. Złotnicki
J. Górecki
T. Nowak
M. Pęczkowski
A. Kuzioła
A. Kuzioła
M. Jackowska
M. Jackowski
L. Grzyb
J. Józefecki
R. Wiśniewski
J. Kram
A. Karp
M. Kniaziuk
M. Gierlicki
J. Połowniak
1227. 21818/12 SAWCZUK v. Poland
03/04/2012 B. Sawczuk
1228. 21826/12 SURMACZ v. Poland
1229. 22543/12 ALEKSIUK v. Poland
02/04/2012 J. Surmacz
05/04/2012 M. Aleksiuk
1230. 22700/12 ASFAL v. Poland
29/03/2012 I. Asfal
1231. 23288/12 FRANEK v. Poland
1232. 23498/12 ADAMCZYK v. Poland
1233. 23672/12 BRUJEWICZ v. Poland
23/03/2012 S. Franek
12/04/2012 Z. Adamczyk
03/04/2012 W. Brujewicz
1234.
1235.
1236.
1237.
1238.
1239.
1240.
03/04/2012
10/04/2012
12/04/2012
05/04/2012
16/04/2012
02/04/2012
15/04/2012
23775/12
23879/12
24356/12
24361/12
24443/12
24926/12
24946/12
SOKOŁOWSKI v. Poland
SKOLMOWSKI v. Poland
ZIENKIEWICZ v. Poland
BUDZISZEWSKI v. Poland
KALISTA v. Poland
GIERLICKA v. Poland
SAGAN v. Poland
S. Sokołowski
Z. Skolmowski
M. Zienkiewicz
Z. Budziszewski
J. Kalista
A. Gierlicka
J. Sagan
87
Name of
Representative
D. Sucholewski
Z. DaniszewskaDek
88
1241.
1242.
1243.
1244.
1245.
1246.
1247.
1248.
1249.
1250.
1251.
1252.
1253.
1254.
1255.
1256.
1257.
1258.
1259.
1260.
1261.
1262.
1263.
1264.
1265.
1266.
1267.
1268.
1269.
1270.
1271.
1272.
1273.
1274.
1275.
1276.
1277.
1278.
1279.
1280.
1281.
1282.
1283.
1284.
1285.
1286.
1287.
App. No.
Case Name
25060/12
25118/12
25272/12
26140/12
26192/12
26322/12
26404/12
26643/12
27124/12
27334/12
27345/12
27743/12
27948/12
29249/12
29342/12
29587/12
30351/12
31304/12
31414/12
31490/12
32376/12
32664/12
33151/12
33473/12
33532/12
34213/12
34317/12
34511/12
34545/12
34637/12
35457/12
35752/12
36099/12
36100/12
36534/12
37596/12
37889/12
38036/12
38596/12
38605/12
38893/12
38897/12
38900/12
38903/12
39139/12
39595/12
39657/12
JACKOWSKI v. Poland
HRUSZKA v. Poland
SZYMAŃSKI v. Poland
MALUTA v. Poland
MICHALIK v. Poland
BORCZ v. Poland
ŚLEDŹ v. Poland
KRÓL v. Poland
HYZOPSKI v. Poland
ŚLIWIŃSKI v. Poland
KULESZA v. Poland
PAJĄK v. Poland
POLAŃSKI v. Poland
BRANDT v. Poland
CERN v. Poland
OSUCH v. Poland
TUSZYŃSKA v. Poland
NOSEK v. Poland
KRUPA v. Poland
PAPIER v. Poland
PERCZAK v. Poland
GUDEL v. Poland
PYTEL v. Poland
GOSTYŃSKI v. Poland
BURZYŃSKI v. Poland
GIĘTKOWSKA v. Poland
WASIAK v. Poland
WALCZAK v. Poland
CHRZANOWSKI v. Poland
KOŁODYŃSKI v. Poland
GAŁAN v. Poland
OLSZACKI v. Poland
KAŁUŻNA v. Poland
KACZMAREK v. Poland
ROMANOWICZ v. Poland
PRZESMYCKI v. Poland
MACIOŁ v. Poland
GĄGOLA v. Poland
WASZKIEWICZ v. Poland
OŻÓG v. Poland
RAMOTA v. Poland
SZCZEPAŃSKI v. Poland
KŁOS-REICH v. Poland
RAMOTA v. Poland
RACZYŃSKI v. Poland
PAGACZ-KLIMIŃSKA v. Poland
JAROS v. Poland
Date of
lodging
19/04/2012
17/04/2012
06/04/2012
19/04/2012
19/04/2012
27/04/2012
23/04/2012
26/04/2012
24/04/2012
19/04/2012
20/04/2012
20/04/2012
02/05/2012
09/05/2012
25/04/2012
07/05/2012
14/05/2012
16/05/2012
15/05/2012
17/05/2012
14/05/2012
15/05/2012
28/05/2012
09/05/2012
21/05/2012
17/04/2012
18/05/2012
24/05/2012
10/05/2012
01/06/2012
24/05/2012
26/05/2012
04/06/2012
04/06/2012
08/06/2012
06/06/2012
21/05/2012
17/05/2012
06/06/2012
13/06/2012
11/06/2012
30/05/2012
14/06/2012
11/06/2012
15/06/2012
18/06/2012
20/06/2012
Introduced by
H. Jackowski
W. Hruszka
H. Szymański
R. Maluta
E. Michalik
J. Borcz
W. Śledź
S. Król
W. Hyzopski
S. Śliwiński
M. Kulesza
Z. Pająk
T. Polański
M. Brandt
W. Cern
L. Osuch
L. Tuszyńska
R. Nosek
T. Krupa
G. Papier
M. Perczak
J. Gudel
W. Pytel
T. Gostyński
P. Burzyński
E. Giętkowska
W. Wasiak
E. Walczak
Z. Chrzanowski
A. Kołodyński
R. Gałan
J. Olszacki
A. Kałużna
J. Kaczmarek
H. Romanowicz
N. Przesmycki
A. Macioł
E. Gągola
A. Waszkiewicz
J. Ożóg
T. Ramota
A. Szczepański
W. Kłos-Reich
K. Ramota
J. Raczyński
K. Pagacz-Klimińska
A. Jaros
Name of
Representative
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
S. Pikulski
1288.
1289.
1290.
1291.
1292.
1293.
1294.
1295.
1296.
1297.
App. No.
Case Name
40006/12
40137/12
40184/12
41450/12
41466/12
41733/12
41735/12
42745/12
42747/12
42886/12
FIRSOWICZ v. Poland
GUŁAJ v. Poland
PECZENIUK v. Poland
STAŚKIEWICZ v. Poland
JAŚKOWSKI v. Poland
CISOWSKA-MAKSIM v. Poland
CZARNOWSKI v. Poland
PROKOPOWICZ v. Poland
FULKO v. Poland
MICHALSKI v. Poland
Date of
lodging
19/06/2012
15/06/2012
15/06/2012
26/06/2012
25/06/2012
28/06/2012
23/06/2012
03/07/2012
27/06/2012
16/05/2012
Introduced by
B. Firsowicz
K. Gułaj
J. Peczeniuk
J. Staśkiewicz
H. Jaśkowski
S. Cisowska-Maksim
C. Czarnowski
W. Prokopowicz
E. Fulko
S. Michalski
1298. 43455/12 POLITEWICZ v. Poland
1299. 43578/12 FAŁKOWSKI v. Poland
02/07/2012 K. Politewicz
29/06/2012 E. Fałkowski
1300.
1301.
1302.
1303.
09/07/2012
25/06/2012
29/06/2012
29/06/2012
43682/12
43801/12
43944/12
43969/12
BOROWSKI v. Poland
GAJECKI v. Poland
DĄBROWSKI v. Poland
J. Borowski
B. Gajecki
E. Lewandowski
L. Dąbrowski
1304. 44608/12 KOWALSKA-BOSSART v.
Poland
1305. 44884/12 TURBIŃSKI v. Poland
1306. 44980/12 KOSIOREK v. Poland
06/07/2012 G. Kowalska-Bossart
1307. 45732/12 ZWIĄZEK BYŁYCH
FUNKCJONARIUSZY SŁUŻB
OCHRONY PAŃSTWA v.
Poland
1308. 46054/12 GRELA-JURA v. Poland
1309. 46145/12 BOROWCZAK v. Poland
1310. 46312/12 MUSIAŁ v. Poland
1311. 46398/12 CHMIELEWSKI v. Poland
1312. 46441/12 TROJANOWSKI v. Poland
1313. 47238/12 HAJPEL v. Poland
1314. 47337/12 BIELIŃSKI v. Poland
1315. 47548/12 ULANICKA v. Poland
1316. 47646/12 SUDRA v. Poland
1317. 48230/12 PALCZAK v. Poland
1318. 48255/12 TROĆ v. Poland
09/07/2012
1319. 48715/12 NADOLSKA v. Poland
19/07/2012 H. Nadolska
1320. 48720/12 NYK v. Poland
18/07/2012 W. Nyk
1321. 48742/12 CHMIELEWSKI v. Poland
1322. 49388/12 STACHOWIAK v. Poland
23/07/2012 Z. Chmielewski
18/07/2012 E. Stachowiak
12/07/2012 K. Turbiński
12/07/2012 E. Kosiorek
16/07/2012
17/07/2012
04/07/2012
11/07/2012
10/07/2012
05/07/2012
16/07/2012
20/07/2012
04/07/2012
25/07/2012
10/07/2012
Związek Byłych
Funkcjonariuszy
Służb Ochrony
Państwa
M. Grela-Jura
H. Borowczak
J. Musiał
W. Chmielewski
J. Trojanowski
I. Hajpel
J. Bieliński
J. Ulanicka
K. Sudra
R. Palczak
T. Troć
89
Name of
Representative
D. Sucholewski
K. WojcieszukKwiatkowska
M. Gąsiorowska
90
App. No.
1323.
1324.
1325.
1326.
1327.
1328.
1329.
1330.
1331.
1332.
1333.
50310/12
50377/12
50742/12
50854/12
51156/12
51338/12
51383/12
51464/12
51469/12
51585/12
52003/12
1335.
1336.
1337.
1338.
1339.
1340.
1341.
1342.
52061/12
52283/12
52514/12
52827/12
52838/12
52871/12
52879/12
53195/12
Case Name
CZARNOWSKI v. Poland
GAUZA v. Poland
WNUK v. Poland
KELER v. Poland
JAKUBOWSKI v. Poland
LELUK v. Poland
KUPNIEWSKI v. Poland
RUCZAJ v. Poland
RUBCZEWSKI v. Poland
HAPONIUK v. Poland
MATUSZAK- MAJCHRZAK v.
Poland
1334. 52060/12 CZECH v. Poland
KUDŁA v. Poland
CHLEBUS v. Poland
PUDZIANOWSKI v. Poland
SZESTAKOWSKI v. Poland
SZNEIDROWSKI v. Poland
ROSOŁOWSKI v. Poland
GONSIEROWSKI v. Poland
GOLISZ v. Poland
Date of
lodging
02/08/2012
26/07/2012
04/08/2012
02/08/2012
02/08/2012
06/08/2012
07/08/2012
02/08/2012
02/08/2012
26/07/2012
10/08/2012
Introduced by
K. Czarnowski
J. Gauza
Z. Wnuk
W. Keler
Z. Jakubowski
J. Leluk
W. Kupniewski
K. Ruczaj
J. Rubczewski
M. Haponiuk
G. MatuszakMajchrzak
01/08/2012 M. Czech
03/08/2012
07/08/2012
09/08/2012
03/08/2012
06/08/2012
01/08/2012
13/07/2012
10/08/2012
D. Kudła
J. Chlebus
Z. Pudzianowski
L. Szestakowski
A. Szneidrowski
W. Rosołowski
A. Gonsierowski
M. Golisz
1343. 53260/12 ZALEWSKI v. Poland
1344. 53390/12 WILCZYŃSKI v. Poland
13/08/2012 Z. Zalewski
10/08/2012 M. Wilczyński
1345. 53404/12 CZAJKOWSKI v. Poland
10/08/2012 A. Czajkowski
1346.
1347.
1348.
1349.
1350.
1351.
1352.
1353.
1354.
1355.
16/08/2012
16/08/2012
14/08/2012
16/08/2012
14/08/2012
14/08/2012
16/08/2012
13/08/2012
13/08/2012
06/08/2012
53629/12
53635/12
53640/12
53658/12
53734/12
53796/12
53948/12
53994/12
54159/12
54178/12
CYGANEK v. Poland
RYSZKOWSKA v. Poland
WOŁOCH v. Poland
KOMISAREK v. Poland
JĘCHOREK v. Poland
MOJESZCZYK v. Poland
FRĄCKOWIAK v. Poland
BIRUT v. Poland
RUTKOWSKI v. Poland
BOGUSZ v. Poland
C. Cyganek
J. Ryszkowska
W. Wołoch
A. Komisarek
E. Jęchorek
D. Mojeszczyk
K. Frąckowiak
H. Birut
Z. Rutkowski
H. Bogusz
1356. 54375/12 WITEK v. Poland
06/08/2012 Z. Witek
1357. 54392/12 WOJTIUK v. Poland
1358. 54990/12 WALCZYK v. Poland
1359. 55245/12 MIESZKOWSKA-DUTKA v.
Poland
1360. 55422/12 PIĘTEK v. Poland
1361. 56415/12 DZIAŁA v. Poland
1362. 57230/12 ŁUKASIŃSKI v. Poland
16/08/2012 A. Wojtiuk
20/08/2012 T. Walczyk
16/08/2012 K. MieszkowskaDutka
20/08/2012 B. Piętek
16/08/2012 W. Działa
22/08/2012 M. Łukasiński
Name of
Representative
P. Sowisło
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
A. AdamskaMakowska
A. AdamskaMakowska
A. AdamskaMakowska
D. Sucholewski
1363.
1364.
1365.
1366.
1367.
1368.
1369.
1370.
1371.
1372.
1373.
1374.
1375.
1376.
1377.
1378.
1379.
1380.
1381.
1382.
1383.
1384.
1385.
1386.
1387.
1388.
1389.
1390.
1391.
1392.
1393.
1394.
1395.
1396.
1397.
1398.
1399.
1400.
1401.
1402.
1403.
1404.
1405.
1406.
1407.
1408.
1409.
1410.
App. No.
Case Name
57285/12
57324/12
57481/12
58267/12
58276/12
58348/12
58927/12
59047/12
59235/12
59441/12
59597/12
59874/12
59888/12
60018/12
60065/12
60294/12
60430/12
61323/12
61407/12
61691/12
61944/12
61980/12
62305/12
62389/12
62422/12
62450/12
62454/12
62543/12
62843/12
62856/12
62907/12
63094/12
63127/12
63230/12
63252/12
63334/12
63766/12
63990/12
64018/12
64033/12
64047/12
64167/12
65184/12
65426/12
65519/12
65533/12
65534/12
65543/12
PONIECKI v. Poland
BURZYCKI v. Poland
ŁUKOSZYK v. Poland
JANKOWSKI v. Poland
MAZUR v. Poland
CHUDOWICZ v. Poland
BARA v. Poland
JASZCZOWSKI v. Poland
MACKIEWICZ v. Poland
GRZYBOWSKA v. Poland
OLKOWSKI v. Poland
ŁYSONIEK v. Poland
LATEK v. Poland
BORCZ v. Poland
KUPCZAK v. Poland
KRAŚNICKI v. Poland
SZUMIELEWICZ v. Poland
BOSIACKI v. Poland
BUŁATOWICZ v. Poland
HAJGENBART v. Poland
OLEKSIUK v. Poland
PŁACHTA v. Poland
CHEŁMECKA v. Poland
JANUS v. Poland
DOBEK v. Poland
NOWICKI v. Poland
CZYŻEWSKI v. Poland
MIERNICKI v. Poland
ZAMARO v. Poland
MAZURKIEWICZ v. Poland
JURCZAK v. Poland
MAŁECKA v. Poland
KORCZAK v. Poland
OKRĄGŁY v. Poland
KUBIS v. Poland
RZEMEK v. Poland
KRÓLIKOWSKI v. Poland
BONIECKI v. Poland
BIERNACKI v. Poland
DEC v. Poland
SPYCHALSKI v. Poland
PASZKOWSKA v. Poland
MAŃKOWSKA v. Poland
JURKIEWICZ v. Poland
JAROSZ v. Poland
SUCHODOŁA v. Poland
Date of
lodging
28/08/2012
28/08/2012
24/08/2012
28/08/2012
23/08/2012
29/08/2012
05/09/2012
17/08/2012
06/09/2012
30/08/2012
28/08/2012
27/08/2012
28/08/2012
12/09/2012
04/09/2012
11/09/2012
17/09/2012
10/09/2012
19/09/2012
18/09/2012
20/09/2012
20/09/2012
15/09/2012
20/09/2012
14/09/2012
10/09/2012
20/09/2012
05/09/2012
24/09/2012
20/09/2012
24/09/2012
27/09/2012
18/09/2012
12/09/2012
12/09/2012
13/09/2012
27/09/2012
11/09/2012
20/09/2012
19/09/2012
19/09/2012
25/09/2012
04/10/2012
04/10/2012
03/10/2012
23/09/2012
01/10/2012
08/10/2012
Introduced by
W. Poniecki
G. Burzycki
H. Łukoszyk
J. Jankowski
H. Mazur
K. Chudowicz
M. Bara
Z. Jaszczowski
M. Mackiewicz
J. Grzybowska
M. Olkowski
J. Łysoniek
E. Latek
S. Borcz
R. Kupczak
J. Kraśnicki
Z. Szumielewicz
L. Bosiacki
C. Bułatowicz
E. Hajgenbart
Z. Oleksiuk
G. Płachta
I. Chełmecka
W. Janus
W. Dobek
J. Nowicki
M. Czyżewski
J. Miernicki
B. Zamaro
M. Stefański
W. Mazurkiewicz
Z. Jurczak
T. Małecka
H. Zieliński
K. Korczak
J. Okrągły
M. Kubis
R. Rzemek
L. Królikowski
M. Boniecki
W. Biernacki
Z. Dec
B. Spychalski
M. Paszkowska
E. Mańkowska
R. Jurkiewicz
Z. Jarosz
P. Suchodoła
91
Name of
Representative
T. Srogosz
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
M. Gąsiorowska
P. Sowisło
P. Sowisło
92
App. No.
Case Name
1411.
1412.
1413.
1414.
1415.
1416.
1417.
1418.
1419.
1420.
1421.
1422.
1423.
1424.
1425.
1426.
1427.
1428.
1429.
1430.
1431.
1432.
65895/12
66028/12
66357/12
66380/12
66403/12
66842/12
66985/12
67047/12
67354/12
67560/12
68176/12
68321/12
68448/12
68786/12
69028/12
69433/12
69435/12
69656/12
69661/12
69699/12
70017/12
70087/12
OCHMAŃSKI v. Poland
MAJ v. Poland
PYPCZYŃSKI v. Poland
JURGA v. Poland
SZCZYGIEŁ v. Poland
LUBIEJEWSKI v. Poland
KIERZKOWSKA v. Poland
CIELECKI v. Poland
STANISŁAWSKI v. Poland
BOGDAŃSKI v. Poland
PAWELEC v. Poland
STĘPNICKI v. Poland
MAŁKIEWICZ v. Poland
GÓRNIAK v. Poland
PIETKIEWICZ v. Poland
UKLEJA v. Poland
STĘPNIAK v. Poland
SYLWESTRZAK v. Poland
KLIMEK v. Poland
WILK v. Poland
PIETREWICZ v. Poland
Date of
lodging
05/10/2012
05/10/2012
10/10/2012
04/10/2012
08/10/2012
12/10/2012
03/10/2012
08/10/2012
12/10/2012
11/10/2012
16/10/2012
11/10/2012
10/10/2012
16/10/2012
23/10/2012
22/10/2012
22/10/2012
11/10/2012
22/10/2012
23/10/2012
15/10/2012
17/10/2012
1433.
1434.
1435.
1436.
1437.
1438.
1439.
1440.
1441.
1442.
1443.
1444.
1445.
1446.
1447.
70282/12
70593/12
71009/12
71286/12
71313/12
71319/12
72104/12
72224/12
72416/12
72437/12
72881/12
72937/12
73526/12
73767/12
74090/12
BORODA v. Poland
WIŚNIOWSKI v. Poland
MARCHWIŃSKI v. Poland
JODŁOWSKI v. Poland
LUTEK v. Poland
JANISZEWSKI v. Poland
JURKOWSKI v. Poland
BRAUN-LICHTBLAU v. Poland
WĘGLARZ v. Poland
WROTNY v. Poland
REĆKO v. Poland
ROSICKI v. Poland
JAGUSIAK v. Poland
STANKIEWICZ v. Poland
25/10/2012
24/10/2012
19/10/2012
31/10/2012
29/10/2012
25/10/2012
02/11/2012
05/11/2012
06/11/2012
29/10/2012
08/11/2012
25/10/2012
14/09/2012
19/11/2012
26/10/2012
B. Boroda
K. Wiśniowski
W. Marchwiński
R. Jodłowski
J. Lutek
R. Janiszewski
D. Jurkowski
B. Braun-Lichtblau
M. Węglarz
T. Wrotny
L. Rećko
L. Rosicki
M. Pruszyński
R. Jagusiak
J. Stankiewicz
1448.
1449.
1450.
1451.
1452.
74167/12
74184/12
74621/12
74666/12
74703/12
ŚNIEŻAWSKI v. Poland
GÓRSKI v. Poland
ŚLEPKO v. Poland
BOROWSKI v. Poland
SUPRUN v. Poland
12/11/2012
16/11/2012
20/11/2012
20/11/2012
06/11/2012
M. Śnieżawski
R. Górski
K. Ślepko
Z. Borowski
R. Suprun
Introduced by
J. Wiśniewski
L. Ochmański
G. Maj
Z. Pypczyński
Z. Jurga
R. Szczygieł
F. Lubiejewski
G. Kierzkowska
L. Cielecki
I. Stanisławski
J. Bogdański
H. Pawelec
K. Stępnicki
W. Małkiewicz
K. Górniak
T. Pietkiewicz
K. Ukleja
M. Stępniak
P. Sylwestrzak
T. Klimek
S. Wilk
L. Pietrewicz
Name of
Representative
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
1454. 74843/12 KUCHARSKA v. Poland
1455. 75111/12 GRODECKI v. Poland
1456. 75457/12 KAJKO v. Poland
Date of
Introduced by
lodging
20/11/2012 M. Cichoń
W. Florczyk
Z. Gibaszewski
W. Górka
G. Kopeć
A. Płaszczyński
W. Stępień
F. Szostek
W. Tacij
R. Wałek
09/11/2012 J. Kucharska
13/11/2012 J. Grodecki
09/11/2012 M. Kajko
1457. 75472/12 SZCZĘŚNIAK v. Poland
15/11/2012 Z. Szczęśniak
1458. 75508/12 STANISŁAWSKI v. Poland
1459. 75710/12 DĄBKOWSKA v. Poland
13/11/2012 H. Stanisławski
26/11/2012 K. Dąbkowska
1460. 75713/12 CZERNIEJEWSKI v. Poland
1461. 75788/12 PŁONKA v. Poland
1462. 75850/12 WIŚNIEWSKA-MILEWICZ v.
Poland
1463. 76008/12 SZPAKOWSKI v. Poland
1464. 76015/12 ŚNIEŻAWSKI v. Poland
1465. 76075/12 KOZEK v. Poland
1466. 76116/12 NOWICKI v. Poland
1467. 76415/12 JASIŃSKI v. Poland
1468. 76887/12 KOWALSKA v. Poland
1469. 77620/12 CIENKOWSKI v. Poland
1470. 77704/12 PEEK v. Poland
1471. 77944/12 LISZEWSKI v. Poland
1472. 78118/12 MAGRYŚ v. Poland
1473. 78264/12 GRZYBOWSKI v. Poland
1474. 78280/12 PLICHTA v. Poland
1475. 78424/12 MIELNICKI v. Poland
1476. 78477/12 WIŚNIEWSKI v. Poland
1477. 78507/12 WELCZ v. Poland
1478. 78640/12 KURCZYCH v. Poland
1479. 79208/12 SACZKO v. Poland
1480. 79563/12 CZABATOR v. Poland
1481. 80555/12 IWANICKI v. Poland
1482. 80609/12 SZOK v. Poland
20/11/2012 A. Czerniejewski
26/11/2012 A. Płonka
22/11/2012 K. WiśniewskaMilewicz
27/11/2012 R. Szpakowski
27/11/2012 S. Śnieżawski
22/11/2012 B. Kozek
20/11/2012 J. Nowicki
22/11/2012 E. Jasiński
23/11/2012 G. Kowalska
26/11/2012 I. Cienkowski
29/11/2012 B. Peek
23/11/2012 W. Liszewski
01/12/2012 F. Magryś
30/11/2012 K. Grzybowski
30/11/2012 C. Plichta
03/12/2012 R. Mielnicki
29/11/2012 J. Wiśniewski
30/11/2012 T. Welcz
03/12/2012 E. Kurczych
03/12/2012 A. Saczko
03/12/2012 E. Czabator
06/12/2012 J. Iwanicki
30/11/2012 J. Szok
1483. 80640/12 ŁOWCZYNOWSKI v. Poland
1484. 80680/12 RONKOWSKI v. Poland
10/12/2012 C. Łowczynowski
24/11/2012 W. Ronkowski
1485. 80686/12 WOJTAS v. Poland
19/11/2012 B. Wojtas
App. No.
Case Name
1453. 74726/12 STĘPIEŃ and Others v. Poland
93
Name of
Representative
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
K. WojcieszukKwiatkowska
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
94
1486. 80944/12 OKS v. Poland
Date of
Introduced by
lodging
03/12/2012 W. Oks
1487. 80975/12 GÓRALCZYK v. Poland
19/11/2012 W. Góralczyk
1488.
1489.
1490.
1491.
81055/12
85/13
91/13
749/13
KAMIŃSKI v. Poland
OLSZEWSKI v. Poland
FLOREK v. Poland
PAWLAK v. Poland
10/12/2012
17/12/2012
08/12/2012
14/12/2012
J. Kamiński
K. Olszewski
R. Florek
W. Pawlak
1492.
1493.
1494.
1495.
1496.
1497.
1498.
1499.
1500.
1501.
1502.
1503.
919/13
1059/13
1141/13
1209/13
1359/13
1418/13
1546/13
1777/13
1781/13
1787/13
1924/13
1997/13
JAKIELASZEK v. Poland
BACIA v. Poland
GOŁASZEWSKA v. Poland
BOCZEK v. Poland
BORYSIUK v. Poland
MODZELEWSKA v. Poland
ROSOWIECKA v. Poland
KOŁODZIEJCZYK v. Poland
RACHWAL v. Poland
GRABARCZYK v. Poland
ŚWITACZ v. Poland
07/12/2012
12/12/2012
21/12/2012
13/12/2012
07/12/2012
28/12/2012
17/12/2012
12/12/2012
29/12/2012
17/12/2012
10/12/2012
18/12/2012
1504.
1505.
1506.
1507.
1508.
1509.
1510.
1511.
1512.
1513.
1514.
1515.
1516.
1517.
1518.
2183/13
2524/13
2800/13
2924/13
3154/13
4266/13
4933/13
5333/13
5414/13
5983/13
6038/13
6046/13
6065/13
6730/13
7236/13
CHMIELOWSKI v. Poland
WASIAK v. Poland
CHYTROŃ v. Poland
BUGAJ-STAWNY v. Poland
OLEKSIAK v. Poland
PAWLUCZUK v. Poland
PAŚNIKOWSKI v. Poland
OSTROWSKI v. Poland
SZAFRAŃSKI v. Poland
JEFIMIUK v. Poland
PACEWICZ v. Poland
PONICHTERA v. Poland
OSKROBA v. Poland
MICHALCZAK v. Poland
MACHNICKA v. Poland
12/12/2012
17/12/2012
28/12/2012
02/01/2013
14/12/2012
10/12/2012
08/01/2013
08/01/2013
07/01/2013
15/01/2013
15/01/2013
09/01/2013
11/01/2013
02/01/2013
04/01/2013
E. Jakielaszek
K. Bacia
A. Gołaszewska
L. Boczek
W. Borysiuk
A. Modzelewska
L. Rosowiecka
I. Kołodziejczyk
T. Rachwal
Z. Grabarczyk
J. Świtacz
W. Gwardiak
D. Hackiewicz
K. Sadowski
M. Szewczuk
R. Zieliński
R. Chmielowski
A. Wasiak
Z. Chytroń
J. Bugaj-Stawny
E. Oleksiak
J. Pawluczuk
A. Paśnikowski
M. Ostrowski
W. Szafrański
R. Jefimiuk
M. Pacewicz
B. Ponichtera
J. Oskroba
P. Michalczak
G. Machnicka
1519. 7353/13
1520. 7858/13
1521. 7963/13
MYSIUKIEWICZ v. Poland
RYCERZ v. Poland
GRACZKOWSKI v. Poland
16/01/2013 T. Mysiukiewicz
23/01/2013 A. Rycerz
09/01/2013 M. Graczkowski
1522. 8047/13
1523. 8081/13
LEGIĘDŹ v. Poland
JACKOWSKI v. Poland
22/01/2013 J. Legiędź
21/01/2013 J. Jackowski
App. No.
Case Name
Name of
Representative
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
P. Sowisło
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
1524. 8098/13
PUTKOWSKI v. Poland
Date of
Introduced by
lodging
11/01/2013 Z. Putkowski
1525. 8180/13
1526. 8186/13
KOTARSKA v. Poland
07/01/2013 M. Kotarska
04/01/2013 Z. Kaźmierczak
1527.
1528.
1529.
1530.
8198/13
8752/13
8773/13
8777/13
KORAB v. Poland
SZKUDLAREK v. Poland
ŻEBROWSKI v. Poland
14/01/2013
23/01/2013
22/01/2013
10/01/2013
K. Korab
M. Szkudlarek
J. Żebrowski
M. Lewandowski
1531.
1532.
1533.
1534.
1535.
1536.
1537.
1538.
1539.
1540.
8781/13
9212/13
9220/13
9435/13
9516/13
9791/13
9897/13
10203/13
10283/13
10442/13
ZIEMNICKI v. Poland
CHOMKA v. Poland
CZURAK v. Poland
NAHARNOWICZ v. Poland
CZAJKOWSKA v. Poland
KOŁTUN v. Poland
URBANIAK v. Poland
WARCHOŁ v. Poland
JANUS v. Poland
PRZEWUSKA v. Poland
18/01/2013
24/01/2013
29/01/2013
25/01/2013
30/01/2013
29/01/2013
30/01/2013
01/02/2013
01/02/2013
25/01/2013
S. Ziemnicki
T. Chomka
E. Czurak
C. Naharnowicz
A. Czajkowska
T. Kołtun
M. Urbaniak
J. Warchoł
L. Janus
M. Przewuska
1541.
1542.
1543.
1544.
1545.
1546.
1547.
1548.
1549.
1550.
1551.
1552.
1553.
1554.
11543/13
11584/13
11588/13
11769/13
12208/13
12333/13
12593/13
12606/13
12781/13
12799/13
12895/13
13143/13
13149/13
13489/13
KĘDZIA v. Poland
CELI v. Poland
RUCIŃSKA v. Poland
GRZELKA v. Poland
BISKUP v. Poland
MICHALIK v. Poland
JAGIEŁOWICZ v. Poland
KOWAL v. Poland
KWIT v. Poland
FABIŚ v. Poland
KUBIŃSKI v. Poland
KLATT v. Poland
KRAWCZYK v. Poland
07/02/2013
04/02/2013
06/02/2013
01/02/2013
09/01/2013
11/02/2013
01/02/2013
13/02/2013
11/02/2013
31/01/2012
04/02/2013
22/01/2013
13/02/2013
06/02/2013
J. Kędzia
A. Celi
K. Nowakowski
G. Rucińska
H. Grzelka
S. Biskup
J. Michalik
T. Jagiełowicz
B. Kowal
L. Kwit
B. Fabiś
B. Kubiński
A. Klatt
T. Krawczyk
1555.
1556.
1557.
1558.
13565/13
13604/13
13620/13
13631/13
GAJ v. Poland
LASKOWSKI v. Poland
MAKIEŁA v. Poland
DROSZCZ v. Poland
14/02/2013
30/01/2013
04/02/2013
06/02/2013
J. Gaj
R. Laskowski
E. Makieła
D. Droszcz
1559.
1560.
1561.
1562.
1563.
1564.
1565.
13884/13
14691/13
14746/13
15214/13
15218/13
15885/13
15920/13
OBERDAK v. Poland
PAZDYGA v. Poland
PIŃKOWSKI v. Poland
SURMIONEK v. Poland
SYROCKA v. Poland
OLCHOWY v. Poland
POPA v. Poland
04/02/2013
20/02/2013
20/02/2013
07/02/2013
12/02/2013
23/02/2013
22/02/2013
A. Oberdak
J. Pazdyga
L. Pińkowski
R. Surmionek
I. Syrocka
J. Olchowy
P. Popa
App. No.
Case Name
95
Name of
Representative
D. Sucholewski
S. Pikulski
D. Sucholewski
J. Ginko
J. Ginko
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
P. Sowisło
S. Pikulski
S. Pikulski
96
1566. 16120/13 GRELA v. Poland
Date of
Introduced by
lodging
15/02/2013 J. Grela
1567. 16435/13 PADUSZYŃSKI v. Poland
1568. 16461/13 WRÓBLEWSKA v. Poland
1569. 16517/13 CZARNAS v. Poland
26/02/2013 R. Paduszyński
25/02/2013 E. Wróblewska
22/02/2013 T. Czarnas
1570. 16520/13 WOJCIECHOWSKA v. Poland
22/02/2013 K. Wojciechowska
1571.
1572.
1573.
1574.
1575.
1576.
1577.
1578.
1579.
1580.
1581.
1582.
1583.
1584.
1585.
1586.
1587.
1588.
17042/13
17044/13
17383/13
17562/13
17655/13
17780/13
17819/13
17869/13
17879/13
17943/13
17956/13
17958/13
17975/13
18240/13
18249/13
18441/13
19255/13
19550/13
KLIMKOWSKI v. Poland
KROPIDŁOWSKI v. Poland
HAJGENBART v. Poland
IWASZKIEWICZ v. Poland
OLESZCZAK v. Poland
ŻODZIK v. Poland
SOBIESZCZAŃSKI v. Poland
MICHALSKI v. Poland
MINISZEWSKI v. Poland
LEŚNIEWSKA v. Poland
ZAGAJEWSKI v. Poland
PAPIER v. Poland
SZUR v. Poland
LACH v. Poland
ŚCIBISZ v. Poland
PŁACZEK v. Poland
DOMARADZKA v. Poland
KUPTEL v. Poland
25/02/2013
18/02/2013
22/02/2013
04/03/2013
06/03/2013
25/02/2013
26/02/2013
05/03/2013
05/03/2013
25/02/2013
24/02/2013
26/02/2013
25/02/2013
01/03/2013
04/03/2013
22/02/2013
05/03/2013
26/02/2013
W. Klimkowski
A. Kropidłowski
L. Hajgenbart
J. Iwaszkiewicz
W. Oleszczak
J. Żodzik
F. Sobieszczański
J. Michalski
A. Miniszewski
M. Leśniewska
J. Zagajewski
Z. Papier
L. Szur
S. Lach
A. Ścibisz
S. Płaczek
M. Domaradzka
S. Kuptel
1589.
1590.
1591.
1592.
1593.
1594.
1595.
1596.
1597.
1598.
1599.
1600.
1601.
1602.
1603.
1604.
1605.
1606.
1607.
1608.
1609.
19629/13
19885/13
20171/13
20411/13
20470/13
20475/13
20609/13
20622/13
21590/13
21843/13
21853/13
21879/13
21893/13
23080/13
23104/13
23110/13
23216/13
23280/13
23281/13
23371/13
23507/13
GRABEK v. Poland
MIELCZAREK v. Poland
NIECZYPOR v. Poland
PERŻYŁO v. Poland
ORNOWSKA v. Poland
FLOR v. Poland
SZEWCZYK v. Poland
SZEWCZYK v. Poland
SZALUNAS v. Poland
JASKO v. Poland
REMBIEWSKI v. Poland
STOKOWSKA v. Poland
LEŚNIEWSKI v. Poland
PIESTO v. Poland
DACZKOWSKI v. Poland
KOWALCZYK v. Poland
GRABOWSKI v. Poland
KOŚCIELNIAK v. Poland
ZEMA v. Poland
GRZYBOWSKA v. Poland
04/03/2013
06/03/2013
08/03/2013
11/03/2013
04/03/2013
07/03/2013
08/03/2013
07/03/2013
12/03/2013
20/03/2013
20/03/2013
20/03/2013
22/03/2013
19/03/2013
22/03/2013
21/03/2013
22/03/2013
26/03/2013
20/03/2013
26/03/2013
15/03/2013
M. Grabek
L. Mielczarek
J. Nieczypor
W. Perżyło
H. Ornowska
G. Flor
J. Szewczyk
J. Szewczyk
A. Szalunas
H. Jasko
A. Rembiewski
E. Stokowska
W. Leśniewski
J. Piesto
A. Kozłowski
J. Daczkowski
K. Kowalczyk
M. Grabowski
P. Kościelniak
M. Zema
G. Grzybowska
App. No.
Case Name
Name of
Representative
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
S. Pikulski
M. Gąsiorowska
D. Sucholewski
Z. DaniszewskaDek
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
D. Sucholewski
1610.
1611.
1612.
1613.
1614.
1615.
App. No.
Case Name
23946/13
24492/13
25118/13
25477/13
25713/13
25726/13
SIEK v. Poland
BARTNICKI v. Poland
UCHMAN v. Poland
KNITTER v. Poland
NOWAK v. Poland
JOBSKI v. Poland
Date of
lodging
21/03/2013
03/04/2013
03/04/2013
04/04/2013
05/04/2013
29/03/2013
Introduced by
J. Siek
R. Bartnicki
J. Uchman
F. Knitter
R. Nowak
W. Jobski
1616. 25939/13 GAWART v. Poland
29/03/2013 E. Gawart
1617. 26386/13 KOWALCZYK v. Poland
03/04/2013 A. Kowalczyk
1618. 26488/13 KRYSIAK v. Poland
1619. 26649/13 SZYCHULSKI v. Poland
12/04/2013 J. Krysiak
29/03/2013 K. Szychulski
1620. 26660/13 SARBICKI v. Poland
1621. 26761/13 WISŁAWSKA v. Poland
1622. 26770/13 NIZIO and Others v. Poland
1623. 27746/13 ZIELONKA v. Poland
1624. 28667/13 TABISZ v. Poland
1625. 28858/13 BRZDEK v. Poland
08/04/2013 M. Sarbicki
15/04/2013 E. Wisławska
12/04/2013 T. Janecki
W. Kozlowska
R. Kozlowski
R. Krawiec
L. Kukulski
A. Malarz
Z. Nizio
W. Piasecki
S. Ratajczak
W. Sołtysiak
15/04/2013 Z. Zielonka
13/04/2013 M. Tabisz
15/04/2013 W. Brzdek
1626. 29017/13 TURBIARZ v. Poland
1627. 29275/13 PAWLIK v. Poland
1628. 29828/13 RYBAKOWSKA-SOBIESZEK v.
Poland
15/04/2013 W. Turbiarz
23/04/2013 S. Pawlik
03/04/2013 J. RybakowskaSobieszek
97
Name of
Representative
D. Sucholewski

fourth section decision the facts

Transcription

Similar documents

Prezentacja nowego produktu

ZILUKS IN POLAND Dear Diary, Last week I was in Poland. It is an

etwinning Parceiro da Polónia

Page 12

establishing a branch and representative office in poland

Polish Film Festival Flyer 8_5x5_5

Lemko Oral History Project Underway - US

by Mazurkas Travel - Mazurkas Travel Poland

PBM 2/2014 - Polish Business Magazine

2011 - American Institute of Polish Culture