issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 115 (2025)
09.05.2025
Judgments and decisions of 9 May 2025
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing three judgments1 and 12 decisions2:
one Chamber judgment is summarised below;
two Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and
The judgment summarised below is available only in English.
Sadomski v. Poland (application no. 56297/21)
The applicant, Jacek Roman Sadomski, is a Polish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Marki
(Poland). He is a judge.
In 2018 Mr Sadomski’s applied for a post as a judge of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of
Poland. The National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ) put forward 7 of the 27 candidates for appointment
by the President of the Republic but did not recommend the applicant. The case concerns the review
of that decision, which Mr Sadomski and the other candidates not recommended instigated before
the Supreme Administrative Court.
The Supreme Administrative Court ordered a stay in appointments to the posts in question.
Nevertheless, in October 2018 the candidates recommended by the NCJ were appointed by the
President. Mr Sadomski’s appeal was successful as the Supreme Administrative Court later annulled
the NCJ’s recommendation, but he was not able to have his application re-examined.
This case is related to the so-called rule-of-law crisis in Poland, which the Court examined in Advance
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Sadomski
alleges, in particular, that the judicial review in his case was inadequate to protect his rights, and that
the judgment in his favour had no practical effect for him.
Violation of Article 6 § 1
Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just
satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,
To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber
judgment’s 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. Under Article 28 of the Convention,
judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
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
2
Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.
