Judgment Bilinski v. Poland - Transfer of judge between divisions of same court against his will

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 013 (2026)   15.01.2026   Judge’s inability to effectively challenge decision to transfer him between   divisions of the same court against his will breached the Convention   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Biliński v. Poland (application no. 13278/20), the   European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1   (access to court) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The case concerned the decision to transfer Mr Biliński, a judge, between two divisions of the same   court, against his will, and his subsequent appeal against that decision.   The Court found, in particular, that a judge’s right to protection against arbitrary transfers between   different courts also applied to arbitrary transfers between divisions of the same court dealing with   different areas of law. Taking into account, among other things, the fact that Mr Biliński had been   criticised by politicians for his rulings in politically sensitive cases and that his transfer had been   ordered by a judge who had previously served under the then Minister of Justice as a seconded   judge and had been appointed to the post of president of the applicant’s court by him, it was   legitimate for Mr Biliński to suspect that there had been an element of arbitrariness in his transfer.   The decision to transfer Mr Biliński had not been reviewed by a body exercising judicial functions or   by an ordinary court and, as such, his right of access to a court had been impaired.   Principal facts   The applicant, Łukasz Biliński, is a Polish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Warsaw.   In 2016 Mr Biliński was appointed as a district court judge assigned to a criminal division of the   Warsaw-Śródmieście District Court, where he dealt exclusively with administrative offences. His   rulings attracted significant media and public interest, and politicians from the ruling party publicly   criticised them.   In March 2019 the Minister of Justice abolished the division of the district court where Mr Biliński   was assigned and on 27 June 2019 the President of the District Court, Judge Mitera, informed   Mr Biliński that he would be provisionally transferred to another criminal division of the court,   pending an opinion by the Board of the Warsaw Regional Court. On 3 July 2019 Judge Mitera   decided to transfer Mr Biliński to the Family Division. The decision gave no legal grounds for the   transfer.   On 10 July 2019 Mr Biliński lodged an appeal with the National Council of the Judiciary (“the NCJ”)   against the transfer decision.   On 22 July 2019 the President of the Warsaw Regional Court annulled the decisions of 27 June and   3 July 2019 on Mr Biliński’s transfer. She found that those administrative actions had been taken   without obtaining the mandatory opinion of the Board of the Regional Court, and as such had been   unlawful. That decision was communicated to the President of the District Court.   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,   any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges   considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final   judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   On 25 July 2019 the NCJ dismissed Mr Biliński’s appeal against the transfer decision, but gave no   reasons.   At the time of the lodging of the most recent submissions before the Court, the applicant was still   assigned to the Family Division.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (access to court), the applicant complained, in particular, that he had been   deprived of an effective review of his involuntary transfer by an independent and impartial body.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 23 November 2019.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Ivana Jelić (Montenegro), President,   Erik Wennerström (Sweden),   Raffaele Sabato (Italy),   Davor Derenčinović (Croatia),   Alain Chablais (Liechtenstein),   Artūrs Kučs (Latvia),   Anna Adamska-Gallant (Poland),   and also Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   As to the admissibility of the case and in considering whether Article 6 applied to the proceedings   concerning Mr Biliński’s transfer, the Court observed that national law did not give the President of   the District Court complete freedom to transfer Mr Biliński against his will and to do so without   providing reasons. Referring to its own case-law and to that of the Court of Justice of the European   Union, the Court considered that, in order to protect judicial independence, the safeguards that   applied to involuntary transfers of members of the judiciary between two different courts, also   applied to involuntary transfers between two divisions of the same court dealing with different areas   of law.   In determining whether there was legitimate cause for Mr Biliński to suspect that there had been an   element of arbitrariness in his transfer, the Court concluded that there was. Among other things,   Mr Biliński had given rulings in several cases attracting public attention and criticism and the   President of the District Court, Judge Mitera, who had previously served under the then Minister of   Justice as a seconded judge, had proceeded with Mr Biliński’s transfer notwithstanding the fact that   the Board of the Warsaw Regional Court had not yet given its opinion on the transfer request.   Judges would be unable to uphold the rule of law and give effect to the Convention if national law   deprived them of the guarantees of the Convention Articles on matters directly affecting their   individual independence and impartiality.   ***   As to the merits of the case, the main issue was the lack of review, by an independent and impartial   body, of the transfer decision.   Where Article 6 § 1 was applied to proceedings affecting the conditions of employment of a judge,   the Convention required, at a minimum, one of two things: either the professional bodies entrusted   with determining such matters themselves satisfied the requirements of Article 6, or, if they did not,   2 the proceedings were subject to subsequent review by a judicial body exercising full jurisdiction and   offering the safeguards provided under that Article.   The Court reiterated that it had already found that the NCJ, at the time in question, did not offer   sufficient guarantees of independence from the legislative or executive powers and did not satisfy   the requirements of Article 6 § 1. As the domestic law expressly excluded judicial review of the   relevant NCJ resolutions, the Court concluded that Mr Biliński’s transfer between two divisions of   the District Court had not been reviewed by a body exercising judicial functions or by an ordinary   court.   In those circumstances Poland had impaired the very essence of Mr Biliński’s right of access to a   court and there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   There was no need to examine Mr Biliński’s remaining complaints.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Poland was to pay the applicant 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary   damage and EUR 6,000 in respect of costs and expenses.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int.   Follow the Court on Bluesky @echr.coe.int, X ECHR_CEDH, LinkedIn, and YouTube.   Contact ECHRPress to subscribe to the press-release mailing list.   Where can the Court’s press releases be found? HUDOC - Press collection   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.   Claire Windsor (tel: + 33 3 88 41 24 01)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   3