Key facts of the case:
The subject of the hearing before the Supreme Administrative Court was a cassation complaint brought by TM. The applicant contested the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court in Warsaw dated 19 November 2003 (ref. II SA 1509/02). In this judgment, the Court dismissed TM's request to resume the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court which ended in the judgment of 12 February 2002. The proceedings concerned a complaint against the decision of the Prosecutor General of [...] October 2000 No [...] on the confirmation of circumstances causing the loss of rights to retirement of a judge. The court dismissed the cassation complaint to ascertain that a judgement is in violation of the law.
As a basis of his claim, the applicant pointed out both procedural and substantive law, combining their infringement with a violation of Article 47 and Article 41 paragraph. 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The applicant argues that the use of Polish law has led to a biased and unfair trial before the Supreme Administrative Court, and earlier before public administration. (…) According to Article 41 paragraph 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union. According to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article. Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by the law. Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented. Legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice. It follows from the above quoted provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights that they establish the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial (Article 47) and right to good administration (Article 41 paragraph 1). In the assessment of the Supreme Administrative Curt, in case OSK 78/04 the court did not violate the applicant's right to court. The applicant took an active part in the proceedings, filed motions for evidence, spoke in the case having as a party access to case files, participated in the hearing. Dismissal by the Court of the position presented by the applicant does not constitute grounds for believing that there the right to a fair trial was violated.