Europe’s human rights court finds fault with Polish tribunal
Law Firm Marketing
The European Court of Human Rights said Friday that Poland’s top court violated a local company’s right to fair trial because a judge on the review panel handling its case had been irregularly appointed to the tribunal.
Law experts in Poland and critics of the right-wing government have long argued that some of the judges of the Constitutional Tribunal were appointed in violation of the law and that their rulings should therefore be considered void.
The European court said the company was denied the right to be heard by a lawfully-appointed court because there were irregularities in the appointment of one of the panel’s judges, Mariusz Muszynski, to the tribunal. It said Poland’s parliament and President Andrzej Duda had no right to appoint Muszynski and some other judges to the tribunal.
Constitutional Tribunal head Julia Przylebska, a government loyalist, reacted by saying the European court “lawlessly interfered into the competence” of Poland’s parliament and president and that its ruling has no effect on Poland’s legal system.
Poland’s government appointed Przylebska, Muszynski and other loyalists to the tribunal in 2015, ignoring the fact that some of the positions had already been filled by the previous administration. The government’s bid to take political control of the tribunal and of the Supreme Court is a major point of friction with the European Union ? to which Poland belongs ? which says it’s a violation of democratic rules.
Government critics said Friday’s decision cast doubt on every ruling with the participation of judges appointed in that way ? including a key, controversial decision that allowed a further tightening of Poland’s strict anti-abortion law and sparked mass protests in the country.
The grass-producing company turned to the European court saying its rights had been violated after Poland’s courts and the Constitutional Tribunal refused it the full compensation it had sought for damage caused by wild boars.
The European court ordered Poland to pay the company the rough equivalent of 3,400 euros ($4,100) for court costs but said the amount of compensation was the competence of Poland’s courts.
Related listings
-
Republicans face court setbacks, Trump law firm steps down
Law Firm Marketing 11/14/2020Republicans suffered setbacks to court challenges over the presidential election in three battleground states on Friday while a law firm that came under fire for its work for President Donald Trump’s campaign withdrew from a major Pennsylvania ...
-
Court rejects Trump bid to end young immigrants’ protections
Law Firm Marketing 06/16/2020The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected President Donald Trump’s effort to end legal protections for 650,000 young immigrants, the second stunning election-season rebuke from the court in a week after its ruling that it’s illegal to fire p...
-
Supreme Court rejects challenge to limits on church services
Law Firm Marketing 05/27/2020A divided Supreme Court on Friday rejected an emergency appeal by a California church that challenged state limits on attendance at worship services that have been imposed to contain the spread of the coronavirus. Over the dissent of the four mo...
Workers’ Compensation Subrogation of Administrative Fees and Costs
When a worker covered by workers’ compensation makes a claim against a third party, the workers’ compensation insurance retains the right to subrogate against any recovery from that third party for all benefits paid to or on behalf of a claimant injured at work. When subrogating for more than basic medical and indemnity benefits, the Texas workers’ compensation subrogation statute provides that “the net amount recovered by a claimant in a third‑party action shall be used to reimburse the carrier for benefits, including medical benefits that have been paid for the compensable injury.” TX Labor Code § 417.002.
In fact, all 50 states provide for similar subrogation. However, none of them precisely outlines which payments or costs paid by a compensation carrier constitute “compensation” and can be recovered. The result is industry-wide confusion and an ongoing debate and argument with claimants’ attorneys over what can and can’t be included in a carrier’s lien for recovery purposes.
In addition to medical expenses, death benefits, funeral costs and/or indemnity benefits for lost wages and loss of earning capacity resulting from a compensable injury, workers’ compensation insurance carriers also expend considerable dollars for case management costs, medical bill audit fees, rehabilitation benefits, nurse case worker fees, and other similar fees. They also incur other expenses in conjunction with the handling and adjusting of workers’ compensation claims. Workers’ compensation carriers typically assert, of course, that, they are entitled to reimbursement for such expenditures when it recovers its workers’ compensation lien. Injured workers and their attorneys disagree.