Cases of cross-border child abduction in times of populism: a Polish perspective

Abstract

This article analyses the case law in Poland on matters of the return of children wrongfully removed or retained within the framework of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction during the period of the “populist” government (2020–2022). It takes account of the legislative and judicial developments in the EU and the European Court of Human Rights and of the aims of the Hague Convention. It seeks to ascertain whether the influence of populist reforms and politicisation of the courts has become apparent in the case law of the Polish Supreme Court on international child abduction cases.

Keywords:

• child abduction
• Hague Convention
• Polish case law
• Brussels IIa and IIb Regulations
• risk of political influences based on nationalism and populism

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 103 States, including all EU Member States, are Parties to the Convention done under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid = 24 visited on 17 January 2023.

2 See esp P McEleavy, “The European Court of Human Rights and the Hague Child Abduction Convention: Prioritising Return or Reflection” (2015) 62 Netherlands International Law Review 365; L Walker and P Beaumont, “Shifting the Balance Achieved by the Abduction Convention: The Contrasting Approaches of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice” (2011) 7 Journal of Private International Law 231; and P Beaumont, K Trimmings, L Walker and J Holiday, “Child Abduction: Recent Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights” (2015) 64 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 39.

3 Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, [2003] OJ L338/1-29.

4 Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 of 25 June 2019 on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast), [2019] OJ L178/1-115. Cf. J. Gołaczyński, P. Rodziewicz and M. Zalisko, Jurysdykcja, uznawanie i wykonywanie orzeczeń w sprawach małżeńskich i w sprawach dotyczących odpowiedzialności rodzicielskiej oraz w sprawie uprowadzenia dziecka za granicę. Komentarz do Rozporządzenia Rady UE 2019/1111 (Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa 2021); O Bobrzyńska, “Nowa unijna regulacja spraw małżeńskich i rodzinnych – rozporządzenie Rady (UE) 2019/1111” (2020) 29 Kwartalnik Prawa Prywatnego 511.

5 See ECtHR of 14/01/2020, Rinau v. Lithuania, No. 10926/09, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i = 001-200336 visited on 31 August 2022; cf. CJEU of 11/07/2008, C-195/08 PPU, Rinau, EU:C:2008:406.

6 Viz. a possibility for a left-behind parent to request the return in proceedings in matters of parental responsibility and to enforce a judgment using the certificate referred to in Art 29(6) of the Brussels IIb Regulation – briefly referred to as an “overriding mechanism” or a “second chance procedure”; see infra, n 7.

7 Cf. Recital 44 and Art 22 Brussels IIb. The so-called “second chance procedure” (supra, n 6) leaves space to order the return in spite of the refusal by a court of another Member State under the Convention. This solution, although criticised, was maintained in the recast Regulation with some alterations; see T Kruger and L Samyn, “Brussels II bis: successes and suggested improvements” (2016) 12 Journal of Private International Law 158–9; P Beaumont, L Walker and J Holliday, “Conflicts of EU courts on child abduction: the reality of Article 11(6)-(8) Brussels IIa proceedings across the EU” (2016) 12 Journal of Private International Law 211; R Zegadło, “Postulaty zmian w rozporządzeniu Rady (WE) nr 2201/2003 dotyczącym jurysdykcji oraz uznawania i wykonywania orzeczeń w sprawach małżeńskich oraz w sprawach dotyczących odpowiedzialności rodzicielskiej”, in T Ereciński, P Grzegorczyk and K Weitz (eds), Sine ira et studio. Księga jubileuszowa dedykowana Sędziemu Jackowi Gudowskiemu (LexisNexis 2016), 754; J Pawliczak, “Zmiana unijnych przepisów o uprowadzeniu dziecka za granicę” (2021) Europejski Przegląd Sądowy 29–30.

8 D Martiny, “New efforts in judicial cooperation in European child abduction cases” (2021) Polski Proces Cywilny 509. The desire to speed up the proceedings is indicated not only in Art 24(1) of Brussels IIb, but above all by the recommendation to the Member States to consider limiting the number of available remedies against the return order to one; see recital 42 of Brussels IIa. The EU also actualised expectations towards courts, as the six-week period now applies to proceedings in each court tier from the time of the preliminary procedural steps (Art 24); cf. Pawliczak, Ibid, 26–7, and further sources cited therein.

9 See recitals 3, 54-55 of Brussels IIb.

10 Dz. U. [Dziennik Ustaw=Journal of Laws] of 1997 No. 78, item 483, as amended.

11 Dz. U. of 1993 No. 61, item 284, as amended.

12 Dz. U. of 1991 No. 120, item 26, as amended.

13 Cf. a more balanced approach after the ECtHR judgment in X v. Latvia; H Keller and C Heri, “Protecting the Best Interests of the Child: International Child Abduction and the European Court of Human Rights” (2015) 84 Nordic Journal of International Law 286–7.

14 Art 72(1) guarantees the protection of the rights of a child, whereas Art 9 implies a general duty to obey international law; cf. esp. decision of the Supreme Court of 6/10/2021, Case No. I NSNc 357/21, OSNKN 2021/4/33.

15 “Wrongful abduction/removal” also includes “retention” in the remainder of this paper.

16 O Momoh, “The Interpretation and Application of Article 13(1) b) of the Hague Child Abduction Convention in Cases Involving Domestic Violence: Revisiting X v Latvia and the Principle of “Effective Examination” (2019) 15 Journal of Private International Law 626.

17 For the broad definition of “violence”, cf. HCCH Permanent Bureau, 1980 Child Abduction Convention Guide to Good Practice: Part VI – Article 13(1)(b), The Hague 2020, 9 (hereinafter cited as the “HCCH Good Practice Guide”); K Trimmings and O Momoh, “Intersection between Domestic Violence and International Parental Child Abduction: Protection of Abducting Mothers in Return Proceedings” (2021) 35 International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 1.

18 Most of them correspond to the grave risk exception of Art 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Hague Convention; see eg T Van Hof and T Kruger, “Separation from the Abducting Parent and the Best Interests of the Child: A Comparative Analysis of Case Law in Belgium, France and Switzerland” (2018) 65 Netherlands International Law Review 131; C Mol and T Kruger, “International Child Abduction and the Best Interests of the Child: An Analysis of Judicial Reasoning in Two Jurisdictions” (2018) 14 Journal of Private International Law 421.

19 The abduction proceedings are summarised, and the courts in the State of refuge have been deliberately deprived, by the 1996 Hague Convention and the Brussels IIa and b Regulations, of jurisdiction to adjudicate on the merits of parental responsibility, so as to deprive the abductive parent of the benefit of his own conduct; cf MC Baruffi, “A Child-Friendly Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: Work in Progress in International Child Abduction Cases” (2018) 14 Journal of Private International Law 398.

20 In EU countries, the six-week time limit for the conclusion of a case (Art 11 of the Hague Convention) refers to each court tier (Art 24 Brussels IIb), as well as enforcement proceedings (Art 28(1) Brussels IIb). Exceeding that deadline amounts to a delay (Art 28(2) Brussels IIb).

21 Cf. Permanent Bureau of the HCCH, Questionnaire concerning the practical operation of the 1980 Convention: https://www.hcch.net/en/publications-and-studies/details4/?pid = 8520&dtid = 33 (last accessed on 5 March 2024, hereinafter referred to as the “Questionnaire” – together with the name of a country concerned). See also Prel. Doc. No 12 for the October 2023 Special Commission on the problems of delays available at https://assets.hcch.net/docs/f672f082-bed0-4679-9840-ad857d0d9411.pdf.

22 CJEU''s case law commented by F Gascón Inchausti and P Peiteado Mariscal, “International child abduction in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union: learning from the past and looking to the future” (2021) Polski Proces Cywilny 617–640.

23 As remarked by the ECtHR in a standard formula, eg in ECtHR judgment of 7/07/2020, Michnea v. Romania, No. 10395/19, § 46; of 1/03/2016, K.J. v Poland, No. 30813/14, § 63.

24 See Act of 24/05/2000 amending the Code of Civil Procedure, the Act on Registered Pledge and Pledge Register, the Act on Court Costs in Civil Matters and the Act on Court Bailiffs and Enforcement Procedure (Ustawa z dnia 24 maja 2000 r. o zmianie ustawy – Kodeks postępowania cywilnego, ustawy o zastawie rejestrowym i rejestrze zastawów, ustawy o kosztach sądowych w sprawach cywilnych oraz ustawy o komornikach sądowych i egzekucji; Dz. U. No. 48, item 554, as amended). The drafters too hastily prejudged that family and guardianship matters, including the 1980 Hague Convention, were “too trivial” for the Supreme Court; cf. SC judgments of 17/08/2001, I CKN 236/01; of 13/10/2004, I CZ 139/04; of 16/11/2004, III CZ 102/04; of 14/10/2010, I CSK 223/10; and J Pawliczak, “Skarga kasacyjna w sprawach o nakazanie powrotu dziecka na podstawie konwencji haskiej z 1980 r.”, (2022) PPC 321.

25 See decision of the S.C. of 26/09/2000, I CKN 776/00, OSNC 2001/3, item 38.

26 See decision of the S.C. of 2/06/2000, II CKN 959/00, LEX No. 51977.

27 S.C. decision of 1/12/2000, V CKN 1747/00, LEX No. 52467.

28 Cf. circumstances of the case heard by the S.C. by the decision of 8/11/2000 r., III CKN 1345/00, LEX nr 51866.

29 S.C. decision of 19/12/2000, III CKN 1254/00, LEX No. 51867.

30 See The Act of 26 January 2018 on the performance of certain activities of the central authority in family matters in the field of legal relations under European Union law and international agreements [Ustawa z dnia 26 stycznia 2018 r. o wykonywaniu niektórych czynności organu centralnego w sprawach rodzinnych z zakresu obrotu prawnego na podstawie prawa Unii Europejskiej i umów międzynarodowych] (Dz.U. z 26.02.2018 r., poz. 416). The legislation entered into force on 27 August 2018, thereby transferring cases in the first instance from the level of district courts to 11 regional courts, and making the Court of Appeal in Warsaw the unique higher court for the whole country, cf. J Pawliczak, “Reformed Polish Court Proceedings for the Return of a Child under the 1980 Hague Convention in the Light of the Brussels IIb Regulation” (2022) 17 Journal of Private International Law 560–586; M Białecki, “Przebieg postępowania w sprawach o wydanie dziecka w trybie Konwencji dotyczącej cywilnych aspektów uprowadzenia dziecka za granicę sporządzonej w Hadze 25.10.1980 r. przed sądem I instancji – zagadnienia wybrane” (2021) 46 Prawo w działaniu Sprawy cywilne 125–52.

31 There are 11 such courts in Białystok, Gdańsk, Katowice, Kraków, Lublin, Łódź, Poznań, Rzeszów, Szczecin, Warszawa and Wrocław.

32 Pawliczak, (n 30).

33 The same entities may challenge a final decision by an extraordinary complaint – a new legal remedy introduced along with the controversial reform of the Supreme Court at the end of 2017. It allows for the control of any final judgment handed down by a common or military court, if it infringes basic legal principles and can no longer be revoked or amended with other means (Art 89(1) of the Act of 8 December 2017 on the Supreme Court; consolidated text: Dz. U. of 2021, item 1904, as amended). The time limit is 5 years from the date on which the appealed decision becomes final, and if a cassation appeal has previously been filed – one year from the date of its hearing. Hearing extraordinary appeals was entrusted to one of the so-called “new” chambers of the Supreme Court, viz. the Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamber; more on the nature of this legal remedy, see T Zembrzuski, “Extraordinary Complaint in Civil Proceedings under the Polish Law” (2019) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe (AJEEL-Journal), http://www.ajeel-journal.com/extraordinary-complaint-in-civil-proceedings-under-polish-law (last accessed on 10 September 2022), 1.

34 Ustawa z dnia 7 kwietnia 2022 r. o zmianie ustawy – Kodeks postępowania cywilnego (Dz.U. of 2022 item No. 1098).

35 The Senate tried unsuccessfully to amend the Draft Bill, pointing at the risk connected with long deadlines for lodging an extraordinary appeal, see Resolution of the Senate (Uchwała Senatu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z dnia 28 kwietnia 2022 r. w sprawie ustawy o zmianie ustawy – Kodeks postępowania cywilnego z uzasadnieniem), Sejm Print No. 2216, 9th term of office, https://www.sejm.gov.pl/sejm9.nsf/druk.xsp?nr = 2216 (last accessed on 10 September 2022).

36 See Rządowy projekt ustawy o zmianie ustawy – Kodeks postępowania cywilnego, Sejm Print No. 2027, 9th term of office, https://www.sejm.gov.pl/Sejm9.nsf/druk.xsp?nr = 2027 (last accessed on 10 September 2022).

37 Judgment of 16/02/2023, C-638/22 PPU Rzecznik Praw Dziecka and Others, EU:C:2023:103.

38 Applied ratione temporis by the national court submitting the preliminary question.

39 C-638/22PPU Rzecznik Praw Dziecka, paras 80 and 81.

40 The difficulty in defining the concept of populism, or even its internal contradiction, is emphasised by many authors, see H Fernandes Câmara, “Populists and Authoritarians? Discussions about Uses of the Concept” (2021) 12 Revista Direito e Práxis, https://doi.org/10.1590/2179-8966/2020/50402,861.

41 J-W Müller, “Populism and Constitutionalism”, in C R Kaltwasser et al (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Populism, (Oxford University Press 2017) 592–3, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198803560.001.0001 (last accessed 20 September 2022).

42 J-W Müller, What Is Populism? (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016) s. 3.

43 N Urbinati, Democracy Disfigured. Opinion, Truth, and the People (2014), 147.

44 J Petrov, “The populist challenge to the European Court of Human Rights” (2020) 18 International Journal of Constitutional Law 483. On the other hand, of course, the takeover of state institutions by populists means their transformation into the “agents of the people.” Populism does not exclude legal institutions but undertakes a kind of morally driven “State colonization”; cf. Müller, (n 41) 597.

45 Ibid, 484–5.

46 For the examples from the recent Polish practice, see M Gersdorf and M Pilich, “Judges and Representatives of the People: A Polish Perspective” (2020) 16 European Constitutional Law Review, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019620000206, 366. It is worth emphasising that attempts to tighten political control over judges and courts are not limited only to the highest organs, such as the Supreme Court in particular, but directly affect judges of all levels through the exchange of judicial management and disciplinary measures. There are known cases of disciplinary accusations against judges for the content of their judgments; cf. J Kościerzyński (ed), Justice under pressure – repressions as a means of attempting to take control over the judiciary and the prosecution in Poland. Years 2015–2019, (Warsaw 2020).

47 One parallel, which might well illustrate this regularity, could be the case of a family judge of the District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) in Nisko (south-eastern Poland) publicly blamed in 2015 by rightist politicians, including the then Minister of Justice Mr Ziobro, for the alleged violation of parents” rights by placing children in foster care. Subsequent investigations showed no legal irregularities; see D Gajos-Kaniewska, KRS broni sędzi z Niska, “Rzeczpospolita” of 19.09.2015, https://www.rp.pl/sady-i-trybunaly/art4303351-krs-broni-sedzi-z-niska (last accessed on 20 September 2022).

48 Controversies around such a characterisation, cf. K Jaskulowski & P Majewski, “Populist in form, nationalist in content? Law and Justice, nationalism and memory politics” (2022) European Politics and Society https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2022.2058752, 1.

49 Interpelacja nr 31879 do ministra sprawiedliwości w sprawie ochrony praw polskich dzieci w postępowaniach transgranicznych prowadzonych na podstawie Konwencji haskiej oraz rozporządzenia WE nr 2201/2003 (Bruksela II bis) [Interpellation No. 31879 to the Minister of Justice on the protection of the rights of Polish children in cross-border proceedings under the Hague Convention and Regulation EC No. 2201/2003 (Brussels IIbis)], at https://www.sejm.gov.pl/Sejm8.nsf/InterpelacjaTresc.xsp?key = BDHBE8 (last accessed on 20 September 2022). It should be noted that the answer given to it has been surprisingly moderate; see Response to interpellation No. 31879 of 06/08/2019, at https://www.sejm.gov.pl/Sejm8.nsf/InterpelacjaTresc.xsp?key = BETHGA (last accessed on 20 September 2022).

50 Prokuratura Krajowa: Kolejne dziecko legalnie zostanie z matką w Polsce dzięki działaniom Prokuratora Generalnego [National Public Prosecutor's Office: Yet Another Child Will Legally Stay with His Mother in Poland thanks to the Actions of the Public Prosecutor General], https://www.gov.pl/web/prokuratura-krajowa/kolejne-dziecko-legalnie-zostanie-z-matka-w-polsce-dzieki-dzialaniom-prokuratora-generalnego (last accessed on 16 March 2024).

51 Sukces skargi kasacyjnej Rzecznika Praw Dziecka [Success of the Cassation Appeal of the Commissioner for the Rights of Child], https://brpd.gov.pl/2021/08/03/sukces-skargi-kasacyjnej-rzecznika-praw-dziecka/ (last accessed on 16 March 2024).

52 See the press release referring to the Deputy Minister''s statement, https://www.pap.pl/aktualnosci/news%2C1182601%2Cwojcik-senat-wymierzyl-cios-w-polskie-dzieci.html (last accessed on 16 March 2024).

53 See supra, n 36.

54 Cf. Komisja Europejska występuje przeciwko polskim dzieciom [The European Commission is against Polish children], 01/02/2023, https://www.gov.pl/web/sprawiedliwosc/komisja-europejska-wystepuje-przeciwko-polskim-dzieciom; TSUE odpowiedział na pytanie polskiego sądu. Wójcik: to atak na polskie dzieci [The CJEU answered the question of the Polish court. Wójcik: this is an attack on Polish children], 16/02/2023, https://polskieradio24.pl/5/1222/artykul/3120627,tsue-odpowiedzial-na-pytanie-polskiego-sadu-wojcik-to-atak-na-polskie-dzieci (last accessed on 16 March 2024).

55 Admittedly, no disciplinary proceedings against any judge in Poland have been reported so far. Still, such a risk before the last election of 15/10/2023 was not only hypothetical, given the well-established lack of an independent and impartial system of disciplinary liability of judges; see C-791/19, European Commission v Republic of Poland, EU:C:2021:596; L Pech, “Protecting Polish Judges from Political Control: A brief analysis of the ECJ''s infringement ruling in Case C-791/19 (disciplinary regime for judges) and order in Case C-204/21 R (muzzle law)” VerfBlog, 2021/7/20, https://verfassungsblog.de/protecting-polish-judges-from-political-control/, DOI: 10.17176/20210720-140052-0; K Gajda-Roszczynialska and K Markiewicz, “Disciplinary Proceedings as an Instrument for Breaking the Rule of Law in Poland” (2020) 12 Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 451–83, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-020-00146-y.

56 Petrov (n 44) 487.

57 ECtHR [GC] judgments: of 6/07/2010, Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland, No. 41615/07, § 139; of 26/11/2013, X. v Latvia, No. 27853/09, § 118 (in the latter case, an “in-depth” examination of circumstances justifying the possible non-return was replaced by an “effective” one).

58 L Silbermann, “A Brief Comment on Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland (2010), European Court of Human Rights” (2013) 18 The Judges' Newsletter 18; L Walker, “The Impact of the Hague Abduction Convention on the Rights of the Family in the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Committee: The Danger of Neulinger” (2010) 6 Journal of Private International Law 649. The President of the ECtHR tried to defend this ruling by the reference to the specific circumstances justifying a departure from the fundamental line of interpretation drawn by Maumousseau & Washington v. France; cf. J.-P. Costa, “The best interests of the child in the recent case-law of the European Court of Human Rights: Franco-British-Irish Colloque on family law”, https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Speech_20110514_Costa_Dublin_FRA.pdf (last accessed on 20 September 2022).

59 In particular, the ECtHR has repeatedly characterised an excessive length of proceedings as the infringement of Art 8 ECHR; see ECtHR judgments: G.S. v. Georgia, No. 2361/13; of 17/03/2022, Moga v Poland, No. 80606/17; of 1/04/2021, M.V. v Poland, No. 16202/14; of 1/03/2016, K.J. v Poland, No. 30813/14. Still, the attempts of removing discrepancies in the Strasbourg case law remain questionable; see McEleavy, (n 2) 398; Beaumont et al., (n 2) 39.

60 See eg T Ereciński, Pozycja ustrojowa Krajowej Rady Sądownictwa, in: A Dębiński et al. (eds), Ius et lex: księga jubileuszowa ku czci Profesora Adama Strzembosza (Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski, 2002), 266; L Garlicki, in: Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Komentarz, vol. IV (Wydawnictwo Sejmowe, 2005) Art. 187 No. 3; M Jabłoński, Uwagi o ewolucji gwarancji niezawisłości i niezależności sędziów i sądów powszechnych”, in: J Trzciński and B Banaszak (eds), Studia nad prawem konstytucyjnym, Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis. Prawo CCLVII (Uniwersytet Wrocławski, 1997), 124–5; D Górecki et al., Polskie prawo konstytucyjne (Wolters Kluwer Polska, 4th edn, 2012), 219; H Zięba-Załucka, Władza ustawodawcza, wykonawcza i sądownicza w Konstytucji Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (LexisNexis, 2002), 295–7; CT judgment of 18 July 2007, case No. K 25/07, OTK-A 2007, No. 7, item 80.

61 CT judgment of 20 June 2017, case No. K 5/17, OTK-A 2017, item 48 (sitting in the bench nominated solely by the coalition of the “United Right”).

62 European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Poland: Opinion No. 904/2017 On the Draft Act Amending the Act On the National Council of The Judiciary, On the Draft Act Amending The Act On the Supreme Court, Proposed By the President of Poland, And On the Act On the Organisation of Ordinary Courts, 11 December 2017, 5–7, http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile = CDL-AD(2017)031-e, Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/1520 of 26 July 2017 regarding the rule of law in Poland complementary to Recommendations (EU) 2016/1374 and (EU) 2017/146 (OJ L 228, 2.9.2017, p. 19), §§ 26–28, 45; Commission Recommendation (EU) 2018/103 of 20 December 2017 regarding the rule of law in Poland complementary to Recommendations (EU) 2016/1374, (EU) 2017/146 and (EU) 2017/1520 (OJ L 17, 23.1.2018, p. 50) §§ 27 ff; UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers on his mission to Poland, 05.04.2018, A/HRC/38/38/Add.1, https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G18/084/27/pdf/G1808427.pdf?OpenElement (last accessed on 20 September 2022).

63 CJEU judgments of 19 November 2019, Joined Cases C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, A.K. and Others, EU:C:2019:982, § 138; of 2 March 2021, C-824/18, A.B. and Others v. Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa, EU:C:2021:153; ECtHR judgments: of 15 March 2022, Grzęda v. Poland, No. 43572/18; of 22 July 2021, Reczkowicz v. Poland, No. 43447/19.

64 Gersdorf & Pilich, (n 46) 358, with further references.

65 See n 47.

66 S.C. judgment of 5 December 2019, III PO 7/18, OSNP 2020/4/38, https://ruleoflaw.pl/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/III-PO-0007_18_English.pdf (last accessed on 22 September 2022).

67 Irregularities have scrupulously been summarised especially in C-487/19, W.Ż., EU:C:2021:798, §§ 134 et seq.; cf. ECtHR judgment of 3 February 2022, Advance Pharma sp. z o.o v. Poland, No. 1469/20.

68 This problem has been raised by the ECHR quite recently as a “systemic dysfunction”; cf. ECtHR Registrar Press Release of 03.02.2022, Systemic dysfunction in judicial appointments procedure in Poland, ECHR 039 (2021), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=003-7249361-9866930&filename=Judgment%20Advance%20Pharma%20SP.%20z%20o.o%20v.%20Poland%20-%20Systemic%20dysfunction%20in%20judicial%20appointments%20procedure%20in%20Poland.pdf (last accessed on 22 September 2022).

69 Cassation appeal of the Commissioner for Rights of Children (RPD) in case No. I CSKP 109/21; cassation appeal of the Prosecutor General (PG) in case No. II CSKP 1196/22.

70 See the cassation appeals by RDP in cases No. I CSK 183/20 (S.C. decision of 17/12/2020) and I CSKP 38/21 (SC decision of 17/03/2021).

71 Cassation appeals filed by RPD in cases No. I CSKP 38/21 (S.C. decision of 17/03/2021) and No. I CSKP 109/21 (S.C. decision of 28/04/2021).

72 Possible grounds of the cassation appeal are limited. Even though it is possible to invoke both substantive and procedural law infringements, the subject matter of review is only the correctness of the application of the law by the lower court based on findings of fact established by the challenged final judgment. The Supreme Court cannot establish any facts on its own (cf. Article 398¹³ §2 of the Code of Civil Procedure).

73 „Orzecznictwo Sądu Najwyższego – Izba Cywilna [Supreme Court Reports – Civil Chamber]” (OSNC) 2021, issue 6, No. 45.

74 Cf. another decision of a bench composed of 'old' S.C. judges of 28.04. 2021 r., I CSKP 109/21. 

75 See https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pl/dictionary/polish-english/wnikliwy (last accessed on 7 October 2022); J. Wierciński, “Zakres badania zarzutu poważnego ryzyka szkody w sprawie o nakazanie powrotu dziecka uprowadzonego za granicę. Glosa do postanowienia SN z dnia 28 kwietnia 2021 r., I CSKP 109/21” (2022) Orzecznictwo Sądów Polskich 3.

76 Neulinger & Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], § 139.

77 See X. v. Latvia, G.S. v. Georgia, Andersen v. Latvia.

78 S.C. decision of 4/02/2022, II CSKP 1197/22, LEX No. 3303530.

79 S.C. decision of 4/02/2022, II CSKP 1199/22, LEX No. 3303537.

80 S.C. decision of 21/01/2022, II CSKP 1190/22, LEX No. 3303362.

81 S.C. decision of 17/03/2021r., OSNC 2021, issue 9, No. 60.

82 However, the extraordinary appeal was rejected as inadmissible by the decision of the Supreme Court of 6/04/2022, I NSNc 63/22 (see infra).

83 Cf. decisions of the S.C. of 17/03/2021 and of 06/04/2022.

84 S.C. decision of 28/04/2021, LEX No. 3174415. For critical remarks, cf. J. Wierciński, “Zakres badania zarzutu poważnego ryzyka szkody w sprawie o nakazanie powrotu dziecka uprowadzonego za granicę. Glosa do postanowienia SN z dnia 28 kwietnia 2021 r., I CSKP 109/21” (2022) Orzecznictwo Sądów Polskich 3.

85 Decision of the S.C. of 6/10/2021, I NSNc 357/21, OSNKN 2021/4/33, LEX No. 3174415.

86 I CSK 183/20, OSNC 2021, No. 6, item 45.

87 Whereas taking evidence, in a form of the expert witness opinion, may be necessary precisely only in order “[…] to investigate, using special knowledge, whether there is a “grave risk” within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b) of the Hague Convention. This proof should therefore be treated as subsidiary.”; see decision of 17/12/2020, I CSK 183/20; cf. HCCH Good Practice Guide, 24.

88 Z Kubicka-Grupa, “Zmiana prawomocnego orzeczenia zarządzającego powrót dziecka wydanego na podstawie postanowienia konwencji haskiej o cywilnych aspektach uprowadzenia dziecka za granicę. Glosa do uchwały Sądu Najwyższego z 22.11.2017 r.”, III CZP 78/17, PPC 2018, no. 3, 392–3; K Bagan-Kurluta, “Dobro dziecka w sprawach o uprowadzenie dziecka za granicę Zmiany w prawie i ich spodziewane skutki”, (2019) 25 Problemy Prawa Prywatnego Międzynarodowego, 20; E Wojtaszek-Mik, “Dobro dziecka a odmowa jego wydania na podstawie art. 13 ust. 1 lit. b Konwencji haskiej dotyczącej cywilnych aspektów uprowadzenia dziecka za granicę”, (2022) Prawo w działaniu. Sprawy cywilne, 60–4.

89 S.C. decision of 17/06/2021, I CSKP 360/21.

90 The parents, a Polish citizen and a Dutch citizen, settled with their daughter in Russia immediately after her birth in 2014. In 2016, the union broke up. The child was unlawfully retained by the mother in Poland in 2018.

91 See grounds of the S.C. decision of 17/06/2021.

92 I NSNc 277/21, LEX No. 3273454.

93 L Anannikova, “Wojna o Ines. Kto wychowa czterolatkę po śmierci matki?”, Gazeta Wyborcza of 02/07/2020, https://wyborcza.pl/duzyformat/7,127290,26093756,wojna-o-ines-kto-wychowa-czterolatke-po-smierci-matki.html (last accessed on 17 October 2022).

94 This provision does not contain clear directives addressed to the judge, providing only for a general obligation of public authorities of defending children against violence, cruelty, exploitation and actions which undermine their moral sense. Meanwhile, no such danger for the girl from her father had been established by the courts hearing the present case.

95 Upon closer consideration of this argument, it seems extremely debatable, considering that the father of the child is his or her "natural family" and in virtually every legal system parental responsibility precedes the care exercised by other relatives, such as a maternal grandmother. On the other hand, in the context of the norms of the Convention, it has no intrinsic meaning anyway.

96 In this context, cf. ECtHR [GC] of: 6/07/2010, Neulinger, § 139; X v. Latvia, §§ 106–8 (cited supra).

97 See the documents of the case No. SK 76/20, available at https://ipo.trybunal.gov.pl/ipo/. It is noteworthy that the ECtHR has already declared the current Polish Constitutional Tribunal''s personal composition as running counter the right to the fair trial set out in Art 6 ECHR; see judgment of 7/05/2021, Xero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. Poland, No. 4907/18, §§ 289–91; for the consequences of the latter, cf. A Ploszka, “It Never Rains but it Pours. The Polish Constitutional Tribunal Declares the European Convention on Human Rights Unconstitutional” (2022) Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-022-00174-w.

98 Abdelhakim Youssfi v. Poland, no. 12730/21; the application lodged in February 2021 was communicated to the Polish government on the 17th of November, 2021 (still pending).

99 LEX No. 3303300.

100 For a similar view, see S.C. decision of 02/06/2021, II CSKP 81/21 (LEX No. 3219734). Admittedly, it referred to the non-recognition of a foreign judgment on parental responsibility; however, the motives fit quite well with the Polish authorities” narrative about “protection of Polish children against coming back to a foreign country.”

101 Decision of S.C. of 14 April 2021, I NSNc 36/21, OSNKN 2021/3, item 22.

102 ECtHR of 21/05/2019, O.C.I. & Others v. Romania, no. 49450/17, § 35. The discussed S.C. decision also contributes to respecting the child's will in abduction cases, which should be duly taken into account, even though it does not amount to a veto; cf. cit. Blaga v. Romania, No. 54443/10, § 80.

103 S.C. decision of 22/10/2021, I CSKP 511/21, LEX No. 3258741.

104 S.C. decision of 18/05/2022, I NSNc 37/22, unreported.

105 S.C. decision of 06/04/2022, I NSNc 63/22, LEX No. 3332459.

106 See n 36.

107 The letter of formal notice pursuant to Art 258 TFEU was issued on 26 January 2023, INFR(2021)2001, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/EN/inf_23_142 (visited on 16 April 2023); the exact substantive law basis of the action by the Commission has not been made public so far.

108 See the governmental draft bill amending the Code of Civil Procedure: Rządowy projekt ustawy o zmianie ustawy – Kodeks postępowania cywilnego, Sejm Print No. 3636, https://www.sejm.gov.pl/sejm9.nsf/druk.xsp?documentId=28BADF8E4D5D4AC0C1258A5300265E43 (last accessed on 07 March 2024).

109 It is worth noting that the Prosecutor General and the Commissioner for the Child Rights do not intervene at all in those cases where the request for return was finally dismissed by the Court of Appeal in Warsaw in appeal proceedings. This means that cassation and extraordinary appeals are filed with the Supreme Court only to the extent to which a return has been ordered. On the other hand, in none of the cases under scrutiny, was the cassation or extraordinary appeal filed by the Ombudsman.

110 Cf conclusions from Croatia, M Župan, M Drventić & T Kruger, “Cross-Border Removal and Retention of a Child – Croatian Practice and European Expectation” (2020) 34 International Journal of Law, Policy and The Family 60.

111 As for instance in the recent Hungarian legal practice; see M Bencze, “Everyday Judicial Populism in Hungary”, (2022) 47 Review of Central and East European Law 37.

112 Z. Dąbrowska, Sondaż: Ksenofobia dzieli Polaków [Survey: Xenophobia Divides the Poles], “Rzeczpospolita” of 22.11.2017, https://www.rp.pl/spoleczenstwo/art10085191-sondaz-ksenofobia-dzieli-polakow (last accessed on 16 April 2023).

113 The need to ratify the Protocol is being discussed in Poland; see A. Mężykowska, “Wdrożenie do polskiego porządku prawnego postanowień Protokołu nr 16 do Konwencji o ochronie praw człowieka i podstawowych wolności”, (2018) 8 Polski Rocznik Praw Człowieka I Prawa Humanitarnego 91, https://doi.org/10.31648/prpc.1430. Nevertheless, nothing would prevent the content of the opinion from being taken into account in the Polish jurisprudence.