The Polish Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for the effects of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on pending or final cases examined by Polish courts. Therefore, the question whether a judgment of the ECHR stating an infringement of Article 6 sec. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights should lead to the reopening of civil proceedings is a contentious and hotly debated topic in Polish legal literature. This issue has also been addressed by the Polish Supreme Court on several occasions, most notably by a panel of seven judges in a judgment of 30 November 2010, III CZP 16/10.
THE LACK OF GROUNDS FOR REOPENING
The Polish Supreme Court has stated that a final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights finding an infringement of the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 6 sec. 1 of the Convention, does not constitute grounds to reopen civil proceedings according to the Polish Code of Civil Procedure. Even though the ruling is unlikely to end discussion concerning this issue in the literature, one might expect that the courts of general jurisdiction will follow suit.
As regards the background of this issue, pursuant to Article 46 sec. 1 of the European Convention, all contracting parties “undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties”. Therefore, once a violation of the Convention is stated, it is expected that a contracting party will assume its responsibility, cease the violation and take measures to redress the consequences of the violation by means of restitutio in integrum (full reparation), if possible. Nonetheless, neither the Convention, nor the ECHR case law requires a national court to reopen civil proceedings. It should also be noted that ECHR judgments do not have a direct impact on the existence of final judgments passed by Polish courts.
REASONING OF THE COURT
This approach is well-founded because of the specifics of proceedings in civil cases. Firstly, the personal scope of proceedings before the ECHR and the national court is different, because the former comprises merely an applicant and a state.
Even though the president of the ECHR may invite any person concerned to submit written comments or take part in the proceedings, there is no obligation on his or her part to do so. Therefore, there is a risk that the other party or participant to the original case might not be guaranteed the right to be heard in the proceedings before the ECHR. Reopening the proceedings in such circumstances would raise well-founded doubts as far as the rights of interested parties who did not participate in the proceedings before the ECHR are concerned. Besides the background mentioned above, the Polish Supreme Court also emphasised the significance of the stability of final judgments in civil cases. Once a judgment becomes final, both parties should be expected to pursue their engagements in the firm belief that their legal situation has been decisively established and that it will not be subject to change.
Having said that, the Polish Supreme Court noted that in some cases the infringement of Article 6 sec. 1 of the Convention might autonomously converge with reasons that pave the way to reopening proceedings pursuant to the already existing provisions of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure.
About the author
