Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-txr5j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-09T02:13:59.626Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ECHR Rules on Illegal Ban of Warsaw Equality Parade: The Case of Bączkowski and Others v. Poland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Sina Van den Bogaert

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

On 3 May 2007, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (hereinafter “the Court”) rendered a judgment in the case Bączkowski and Others v. Poland The Court stated that Poland violated Article 11 (freedom of association and assembly), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 11 and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 8 , Issue 9 , 01 September 2007 , pp. 889 - 902
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Bączkowski and Others v. Poland, App. No. 1543/06, Eur. Ct. H.R. 2007.Google Scholar

2 Amnesty Int'l, Poland: LGBT rights under attack, Nov. 25, 2005 (statement expressing concern about the climate of intolerance in Poland against the LGTB community). available at http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR370022005?open&of=ENG-POL. See also Letter from Alvaro Gil-Robles, High Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, to the Polish Government, (June 20, 2007) (The High Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe referring to the problems encountered by LGTB people in Poland and to the unlawful ban of both the marches in Warsaw and Poznań in its Memorandum to the Polish Government of 20 June 2007). Available at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1155005&BackColorInternet=DBDCF2&BackColorIntranet=FDC864&BackColorLogged=FDC864.Google Scholar

3 http://www.legislationline.org/news.php?tid=200&jid=39.Google Scholar

4 Direland, http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/11/gay_poland_prot.html.Google Scholar

5 Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, http://www.hfhrpol.waw.pl/en/index.html.Google Scholar

6 Polish Official Journal, No. 98, item 602, (1997) (Pol.) (Dziennik Ustaw z 1997, Nr 98, poz. 602).Google Scholar

7 This is exactly 30 days before the planned date of the assembly, in accordance with Article 7(1) of the Assemblies Act (Prawo o Zgromadzeniach) stipulating that a request to hold an assembly must be submitted not earlier than 30 days and not later than 3 days before the planned date of the assembly.Google Scholar

8 Bączkowski and Others v. Poland, App. No. 1543/06, para. 27, Eur. Ct. H.R. 2007.Google Scholar

9 Such as the appellate procedure on which the 1997 Road Traffic Act is silent.Google Scholar

10 Polish Official Journal, No. 98, item 1071, (2000) (Pol.) (Dziennik Ustaw z 2000, Nr 98, poz. 1071).Google Scholar

11 Kodeks Postępowania Administracyjnego (Pol. – Administrative Procedural Code) art. 127, para. 2, and art 17.1.Google Scholar

12 Please note that since the refusal to hold the stationary assemblies was based on the provision of the 1990 Assemblies Act, the appellate procedure for the applicants were different from the appellate procedure against the refusal of the march, which was based on the provisions of the 1997 Road Traffic Act.Google Scholar

13 Polish Official Journal, No. 51, item 297, (1990) (Pol.) (Dziennik Ustaw z 1990, Nr 51, poz. 297).Google Scholar

14 Polish police forces under the competence of the government, and not under the competence of the Mayor. In June 2005 at the time of the ban on the march in Warsaw, the government in power was a left-wing government, whilst Mr. Kaczyński, who banned the march, is a member of the “Law and Justice” party, which is a conservative catholic party. This might explain why the police did protect the march in spite of the ban by Mr. Kaczyński. The march in Poznań, in contrast, to which the police reacted violently, on the contrary, took place in November 2005, after the 23 October 2005 election of President Mr. Kaczyński.Google Scholar

15 Council of Europe documents use the English term ‘Court’ when referring to the highest judicial organ in Poland. English documents available at official Polish websites, such as the Constitutional Tribunal Act, use the term ‘Tribunal’ which is closer to the original Polish version of Trybunał. We have chosen to use the term Court, since this is the term used in the judgments of the European Court of Human Right. Only when referring to the Constitutional Tribunal Act, we chose to use the term Tribunal. See Constitutional Tribunal Act (1997) (Pol.). available at http://www.trybunal.gov.pl/eng/Legal_Basis/Act_Trib97.htm.Google Scholar

16 Article 57 of the Constitution reads: “The freedom of peaceful assembly and participation in such assemblies shall be ensured to everyone. Limitations upon such freedoms may be imposed by statute.”Google Scholar

17 Trybunał Konstytucyjny (Polish Constitutional Court), K 21/05, para. 9 (Jan. 18, 2006), http://www.trybunal.gov.pl/eng/summaries/documents/K_21_05_GB.pdf (Requirement to obtain permission for an assembly on a public road, para. 9 of the unofficial English summary of judicial decisions).Google Scholar

18 Bączkowski and Others v. Poland, App. No. 1543/06, para. 45-48 and 67, Eur. Ct. H.R. 2007.Google Scholar

19 As opposed to the Criminal Code (Kodeks Karny) which deals with crimes regarded as a matter of criminal law.Google Scholar

20 Polish Official Journal, No. 12, item 114, (1971) (Pol.) (Dziennik Ustaw z 1971, Nr 12, poz. 114).Google Scholar

21 Szott-Medyńska v. Poland, App. No. 47414/99, Eur. Ct. H.R. 2003.Google Scholar

22 Bączkowski and Others v. Poland, App. No. 1543/06, para. 49-54, Eur. Ct. H.R. 2007.Google Scholar

23 Id. at para. 80.Google Scholar

24 Id. at para. 70-71.Google Scholar

25 Id. at para. 76 and 80-84.Google Scholar

26 Bączkowski and Others v. Poland, App. No. 1543/06, para. 27, Eur. Ct. H.R. 2007 (The English translation of the interview with Mr Kaczyński in “Gazeta Wyborcza” of 20 May 2005 is entirely reproduced under the “circumstances of the case).Google Scholar

27 Bączkowski and Others v. Poland, App. No. 1543/06, para. 98-99, Eur. Ct. H.R. 2007.Google Scholar

28 I will elaborate on this in a subsequent section.Google Scholar

29 Konstytucja (Pol. – Constitution) art. 79, para. 1.Google Scholar

30 Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz (GG – Federal Constitutional Court Act) art. 90, para. 2.Google Scholar

31 Alfred Dietel, Kurt Gintzel and Michael Kniesel, Demonstrations- und Versammlungsfreiheit: Kommentar zum Gesetz über Versammlungen und Aufzüge, 161 (2004).Google Scholar

32 Polish Official Journal, No. 102, item 643, (1997) (Pol.) (Dziennik Ustaw z 1997, Nr 102, poz. 643). available at http://www.trybunal.gov.pl/eng/Legal_Basis/Act_Trib97.htm.Google Scholar

33 The problem lies also in the fact, that Article 7 of the 1990 Assemblies Act stipulated, that a request to hold an assembly must be submitted to the municipality not earlier than thirty days before the planned date of the demonstration. See supra note 7.Google Scholar

34 Szott-Medyńska and Others v. Poland, App. No. 47414/99, Eur. Ct. H.R. 2003.Google Scholar

35 X. v. Germany, App. No. 8499/99, Eur. Ct. H.R. (1980). Castells v. Spain, App. No. 11798/85, para. 24-32, Eur. Ct. H.R. (1992).Google Scholar

36 Brudnicka v. Poland, App. No. 54723/00, Eur. Ct. H.R. 2003.Google Scholar

37 Szott-Medyńska and Others v. Poland, App. No. 47414/99, Eur. Ct. H.R. 2003.Google Scholar

38 Id.Google Scholar

39 Bączkowski and Others v. Poland, App. No. 1543/06, para. 95, Eur. Ct. H.R. 2007.Google Scholar

40 Id. at para. 97.Google Scholar

41 Id. at para. 99-100.Google Scholar