12 Dec Custodial penalty for protesting during a trial violated the European Convention on Human Right

In the case of Słomka v. Poland (application no. 68924/12, 06.12.2018) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Right, and a violation of Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention.

The case concerned the applicant’s 14-day custodial sentence for contempt of court after shouting slogans during the trial of communist-era generals who ordered martial law in the 1980s.

Mr Słomka is a former opposition activist. He was in court when on 12 January 2012 the trial judges were to deliver their judgment in the case of three high-ranking members of the Military Council of National Salvation, which imposed martial law in 1981. After the judges had arrived in the courtroom, Mr Słomka jumped behind the judges’ table and shouted, “This is a mockery of justice!” Mr Słomka was removed, but returned later and continued shouting out statements in the same vein. The presiding judge decided to read the verdict out in a neighbouring room. Later that day Mr Słomka was sentenced in his absence to 14-days’ imprisonment for contempt of court. Several days later he was arrested and taken to the Warsaw Remand Centre.

The applicant complained under Article 6 and Aricle 10 the European Court of Human Rights

The Court held that the applicant’s actions had aimed at criticising the judiciary and a perceived lack of justice, rather than at insulting the judges. He had been sentenced to a custodial penalty by those same judges, without an opportunity to present his arguments. A subsequent appeal decision had not remedied the procedural shortcomings. The circumstances of the case raised an objectively justified fear of a lack of impartiality and there had been a violation of Article 6. The Court noted that  the judgment had breached Article 6 and considered that the restriction had not been accompanied by effective and adequate safeguards. There had therefore been a violation of Article 10 as the interference had not been necessary in a democratic society.

References from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights