ECtHR: Żurek v. Poland (Application No. 39650/18, 16 June 2022)

Constitutional Crisis and the Judge's Freedom of Expression




Constitutional Crisis, Human Rights, Post-analytical Philosophy, Legal modalities, Freedom of Expression of a Judge, ECtHR


The article is devoted to the analysis of the judge's freedom of expression in a constitutional crisis, using the ECtHR case of Żurek v. Poland as an illustration. The argument begins with a discussion of the facts of the case and the judgment. At this point, I argue that the category of discriminatory legalism is relevant to the facts of the case. Further, two interrelated problems are addressed, which are considered to be particularly relevant for the expression of the judge in the course of the constitutional crisis. These are: 1) the relevance of Article 10 in relation to speaking in one's professional (here: judicial) capacity, and 2) an attempt to determine whether the judge's opposition to a constitutional crisis is an exercise of his or her freedom or a duty. On both issues, I also present the position of Judge Wojtyczek, who challenged the majority views in his separate opinion (partly dissenting, partly concurring). I believe that the disagreement between Wojtyczek and the majority goes to fundamental philosophical-legal issues and can be described as a friction between the analytical and post-analytical approaches to law.

Author Biography

Mateusz Wojtanowski, University of Wrocław

Faculty of Theory and Philosophy of Law
University of Wrocław
Plac Uniwersytecki 1
50-137 Wrocław, Poland


Bator, A. (2019). Post-analytical theory and philosophy of law. New problems, new research perspectives? In: Bator, A. and Pulka Z. (eds.), A post-analytical approach to philosophy and theory of law (pp. 11–38). Berlin: Peter Lang,

Bix, B. (1993). Law, Language and Legal Determinacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bodnar, A. (2020). „Dla moich przyjaciół: wszystko. Dla moich wrogów: prawo”. Podejście do prawa w dobie kryzysu praworządności [“For my friends, everything; for my enemies: the law”. An approach to law in times of crisis of the rule of law]. In: Szczepanowska-Kozłowska K. (ed.), Profesor Marek Safjan znany i nieznany. Księga jubileuszowa z okazji siedemdziesiątych urodzin [Professor Marek Safjan, known and unknown. Commemorative book on the occasion of his seventieth birthday] (accessed through LEGALIS database). Warszawa: C.H.Beck.

Bodnar, A. (2022), A real milestone, I will never give up (Internet blog). Available at: (24.08.2023).

Graver, H. P. (2018). Why Adolf Hitler Spared the Judges: Judicial Opposition Against the Nazi State. German Law Journal, 19(4), 846–878,

Jabłoński P. and Kaczmarek P. (2019). The Limits of Juristic Power from the Perspective of the Polish Sociological Tradition, Berlin: Peter Lang.

Kakhidze T., Jimsheleishvili M. and Chitashvili I. (Transparency International Georgia) (2021). Limits of Freedom of Expression of Judges, Tbilisi.

Kozlová, A. (2023). Poland’s Rule of Law Breakdown Continued: Judge Żurek’s Battle for Judicial Independence Within the European Human Rights Framework, Review of Central and East European Law, 48, 63–88,

Leloup M. and Kosař, D. (2022). Sometimes Even Easy Rule of Law Cases Make Bad Law. ECtHR (GC) 15 March 2022, No. 43572/18, Grzęda v Poland, European Constitutional Law Review, 18(4), 753–779,

Mańko, R. (2019). Delimiting Central Europe as a Juridical Space: A Preliminary Exercise in Critical Legal Geography, Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Iuridica, 89, 63-80,

Matthes, C-Y. (2022). Judges as activists: how Polish judges mobilise to defend the rule of law. East European Politics, 38(3), 468–487,

Parau, C. E. (2012). The Drive for Judicial Supremacy. In: Seibert-Fohr A. (ed.), Judicial Independence in Transition (pp. 619–666), Heidelberg: Springer,

Pech, L. (2023). The European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over national judiciary-related measures (Study Requested by the AFCO Committee),

Pech, L., Wachowiec, P. and Mazur D. (2021). Poland’s Rule of Law Breakdown: A Five‑Year Assessment of EU’s (In)Action. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 13, 1–43,

Prebensen, S. C. (1998). The margin of appreciation and Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention, Human Rights Law Journal, 19, 13–17.

Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sadurski W. (2019). Poland’s Constitutional Breakdown. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Seibert-Fohr A. (2021). Judges’ Freedom of Expression and Their Independence: An Ambivalent Relationship. In: M. Elósegui, A. Miron, I. Motoc (eds.), The Rule of Law in Europe. Recent Challenges and Judicial Responses, Cham: Springer.

Stambulski, M. (2019). The Concept of Law in the Analytical and Post-Analytical Theory. In: Bator, A. and Pulka Z. (eds.), A post-analytical approach to philosophy and theory of law (pp. 57–74). Berlin: Peter Lang,

Sulikowski, A. (2012). Konstytucjonalizm a nowoczesność. Dyskurs konstytucyjny wobec tryumfu i kryzysu moderny [Constitutionalism and modernity. Constitutional discourse in the face of the triumph and crisis of modernity], Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.

Sulikowski, A. (2023). Postliberal Constitutionalism. The Challenge of Right Wing Populism in Central and Eastern Europe, Abingdon: Routledge 2023,

Veitch, S. (2018). Duty free. In: Matthews D., Veitch S. (eds.), Law, Obligation, Community, Abingdon: Routledge 2018,

Veitch, S. (2021). Obligations. New Trajectories in Law, Abingdon: Routledge 2021,

Weyland, K. (2013). Latin America’s Authoritarian Drift: The Threat From the Populist Left. Journal of Democracy, 24(3), 18-32,

Wojtanowski M. (2022). Judges’ Freedom of Expression and the Reasonable Observer Test in International Soft Law. Relevant Documents, the Operationalization of the Test and the Scale of Expectations Placed on It. Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne studia nad prawem, 14(4), 167–183,

CJEU, judgement of 6 October 2021, W. Ż., C-487/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:798.

ECtHR, Daktaras v. Lithuania, app. no. 42095/98, 10 November 2000.

ECtHR, Kudeshkina v. Russia, app. no. 29492/05, 14 September 2009.

ECtHR, Baka v. Hungary (GC), app. no. 20261/12, 23 June 2016.

ECtHR, Szanyi v. Hungary, app. no. 35493/13, 8 November 2016.

ECtHR, Grzęda v. Poland (GC), app. no. 43572/18, 15 March 2022.

ECtHR, Żurek v. Poland, app. no. 39650/18, 16 June 2022.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, López Lone et al. v. Honduras, 5 October 2015.

Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (1985).

CCJE, Opinion no. 3 (2002) on the principles and rules governing judges’ professional conduct, in particular ethics, incompatible behaviour and impartiality.

CCJE, Opinion no. 18 (2015) on the position of the judiciary and its relation with the other powers of state in a modern democracy.

CCJE Opinion No. 25 (2022) on freedom of expression of judges.

ENCJ, Sofia Declaration on judicial independence and accountability (2013).

IAJ, Universal Charter of the judge (2017).

Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Report on freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly of judges (2019).

The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002).

The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1953).

The Constitution of the Republic of Poland (1997).

UNODC, Commentary on the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2007).




How to Cite

Wojtanowski, M. (2023). ECtHR: Żurek v. Poland (Application No. 39650/18, 16 June 2022): Constitutional Crisis and the Judge’s Freedom of Expression. Bratislava Law Review, 7(2), 213–226.

Funding data