ECHR: two left-wing politicians against Catholic Poland

The ECLJ is intervening in two cases against Poland, brought by representatives of the Polish atheist left. In the first case, the applicant argues that the defacement of a religious statue is a matter of freedom of expression; in the second, an activist claims the right to be admitted to a religious institution while contesting its religious foundations. Explanations.

Dariusz Czerski is an activist with the Civic Coalition (Koalicja Obywatelska) and Marek Jopp is a member of The New Left (Nowa Lewica). These political movements form a coalition supporting the current Polish government led by Donald Tusk. Each has brought a case before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Their appeals, which are pending, will be examined in the coming months or weeks[1].

Two appeals hostile to the Church

Dariusz Czerski was sentenced in 2021 to 60 hours of community service for damaging a statue of John Paul II in Poland. He claimed to be opposing pedophilia in the Church, even though John Paul II was never complicit in any acts of pedophilia. Forty-two other similar actions followed Mr. Czerski's, specifically targeting the worship of John Paul II: acts of vandalism, theft of relics, disruption of a Mass, desecration of a host, physical assaults, and even the burning of a shrine. Mr. Czerski considers that his conviction violated his freedoms of thought and expression (Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention).

Marek Jopp's application is very different, but is characterized by the same hostility towards the Church. Mr. Jopp applied in 2017 for training at a private Catholic institution, stating in his application that he was “non-believer.” He refused to send a letter of recommendation from his parish priest, which was required for the application, because he believes that a Catholic institution should not be concerned with the religious practices of its students. Mr. Jopp's application was rejected, and he then took the institution to the administrative courts. The courts declared that they had no jurisdiction under Polish law. In his pending application to the ECHR, Mr. Jopp invokes his freedom of thought (Art. 9), his right to education (Art. 2 Prot. No. 1), and the prohibition of discrimination (Art. 14).

Essential information deliberately concealed from the Court

The European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) has been authorized by the Court to intervene in these two pending cases. We have filed written observations, which are available on our website (Czerski v. Poland and Jopp v. Poland). These demonstrate that both applications are inadmissible, primarily on procedural grounds. Indeed, by failing to refer the matter to the Polish Supreme Court, Mr. Czerski did not comply with his obligation to exhaust domestic remedies[2].

As for Mr. Jopp, he deliberately concealed from the ECHR the parallel proceedings he had initiated before the Polish civil courts. These proceedings are nevertheless decisive, as he won his case. These courts found that Mr. Jopp had been discriminated against and ordered the institution to pay him compensation. Mr. Jopp was ultimately able to attend the same private Catholic institution. Concealing these facts is an attempt to mislead the Court. Given that Mr. Jopp has already obtained recognition and compensation for his injury, his application to the ECHR is abusive[3].

A misunderstanding of freedom of thought and expression

Fundamentally, the applications of Mr. Czerski and Mr. Jopp reflect a misunderstanding of freedom of thought and expression. These freedoms do not protect the right to vandalize public monuments as a means of political action[4]. It was Mr. Czerski's behavior that was punished, not his message. He chose a means that disturbed public order, gratuitously offended Catholics, and affected “deeply rooted social values” in Poland[5]. Mr. Czerski had many other means at his disposal to express his views on John Paul II or against pedophilia.

In the case of Mr. Jopp, there is no right to join a private Catholic institution while claiming to have no faith or religious practice. In the case law of the ECHR, freedom of thought does not guarantee “any right to dissent within a religious organization.” As a “non-believer,” Mr. Jopp had the choice of enrolling in many other public and non-denominational institutions. In our observations, we demonstrated that the principle of “autonomy of religious organizations”[6] applies to schools[7] and we recalled the case law of the ECHR according to which a State may legitimately “give the majority religion of the country a predominant visibility in the school environment”[8].

A series of anti-religious applications communicated by the ECHR

In recent months, the Court has communicated a series of applications with the same anti-religious hostility as those of Mr. Czerski and Mr. Jopp. The ECLJ has been authorized to intervene in two other cases. One, brought by the Union of Atheists, considers that the presence of Christian icons in Greek courts violates freedom of thought and calls into question the state's duty of impartiality (Union of Atheists v. Greece[9]). The other is a request for an advisory opinion from the Ukrainian Supreme Court on the case of a former nun. She wishes to return to live in the convent she left in 2017, on the grounds of her right to respect for her home (Art. 8)[10].

Some of these applications should not have been communicated, either because they were frivolous or abusive (Jopp v. Poland), or because they raise legal questions that the ECHR has already answered in its case law (Union of Atheists v. Greece[11]). The Court's decision to communicate them paves the way for a proliferation of anti-Christian appeals.

____________

[1] Dariusz Czerski v. Poland, application no. 55654/21, communicated on October 11, 2024; Marek Jopp v. Poland, application no. 54711/18, communicated on March 17, 2025.

[2] See the demonstration in our observations (§ 1), based in particular on the following cases: Kemmache v. France (No. 3), No. 17621/91, November 24, 1994, § 44; Scordino v. Italy (No. 1) (dec.), No. 36813/97, March 27, 2003; Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, no. 17849/91, November 20, 1995, §§ 26-27; S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, July 1, 2014, § 61.

[3] See the demonstration in our observations (§ I-4), based in particular on the following cases: Sónia Maria Martins Alves v. Portugal, no. 56297/11, January 21, 2014, § 8; Kérétchachvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, May 2, 2006, I.2.c.; Bekauri v. Georgia, no. 14102/02, April 10, 2012, § 23; Mitrović v. Serbia, no. 52142/12, March 21, 2017, §§ 33-34; Zličić v. Serbia, no. 73313/17, January 26, 2021, § 56.

[4] See the demonstration in our observations (§ 2.1.), based on a comparison with the case of Handzhiyski v. Bulgaria, no. 10783/14, April 6, 2021.

[5] Handzhiyski v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 56; Akdaş v. Turkey, no. 41056/04, February 16, 2010, § 30.

[6] See, in particular: Sindicatul Păstorul v. Romania [GC], no. 2330/09, January 31, 2012, in particular § 74; Fernández-Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, June 12, 2014, in particular §§ 127-129; Károly Nagy v. Hungary [GC], 56665/09, September 14, 2017; Ţîmpău v. Romania, no. 70267/17, December 5, 2023, in particular §§ 187-188, 216.

[7] See the demonstration on this subject in our observations (§ III-9), with reference to the case of Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, no. 39128/05, October 20, 2009, § 41.

[8] Lautsi and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 30814/06, March 18, 2011, § 71.

[9] Union of Atheists v. Greece and Union of Atheists and Others v. Greece, applications nos. 19150/20 and 11122/25, communicated on July 7, 2025.

[10] Request for an advisory opinion, Ukrainian Supreme Court, P16-2025-001, communicated on September 16, 2025.

[11] Lautsi and Others v. Italy [GC], cited above.