003-8224114-11556612

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 12 decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   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   Pharma sp. z o.o. v. Poland (application no. 1469/20) and Grzęda v. Poland (no. 43572/18).   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,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on https://www.echr.coe.int/home.   To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on   X (Twitter) @ECHR_CEDH and Bluesky @echr.coe.int.   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   Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.   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.   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)   Neil Connolly (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   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.   2