Case Note on P. v. Poland (Application No. 56310/15)
Facts of the Case
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in its judgment of February 13, 2025, found Poland in violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The case concerned an applicant, a middle school teacher, who maintained a personal blog between 2012 and 2013 on a website targeted at homosexual men. While some of his posts included references to his personal life and partner, others described his daily life, his dreams and feelings of love and loneliness, as well as his intimate thoughts and desires in respect of his partner. Access to the website was restricted to individuals aged 18 and over, ensuring that it was not intended for or accessible to students.
The disciplinary actions against the applicant arose following his participation in school trips, during which he brought his same-sex partner, introducing him as a cousin despite school rules prohibiting the presence of unauthorized individuals. The applicant explained that his partner’s presence was necessary to provide support due to sunburn. However, his partner did not interfere with any school activities, and the applicant fulfilled all his duties, including night shifts, without disruption. Furthermore, the partner left the trip location before the ceremony began.
Although the school principal acknowledged that she had previously suspected the applicant was homosexual and had no issue with it, she later discovered the blog and requested its deletion. The applicant immediately complied. Despite this, in July 2013, the school initiated a disciplinary investigation against the applicant, citing both his violation of school regulations regarding the trips and his online activity, which was deemed inconsistent with the moral standards and responsibilities of a teacher. The investigation was based on two main grounds: the violation of school regulations by bringing an unauthorized individual on a school trip and maintaining a personal blog that was considered inconsistent with the ethical and professional responsibilities of a teacher.
Complaint Before the ECtHR
In the same year, the disciplinary investigation was concluded, resulting in the applicant’s dismissal from duty. The applicant appealed this decision before the Polish courts, but the appeal was dismissed. In 2015, he filed an application with the ECtHR, alleging that his dismissal violated his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR and that he was discriminated against based on sexual orientation, in violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 (Right to Private Life).
On February 13, 2025, ECtHR ruled in favor of the applicant, finding that Poland had violated the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of ECHR. While the Court stated in its violation decision that there was no conclusive evidence proving that the applicant’s dismissal was primarily due to their sexual orientation, it also took into account the fact that the applicant’s blog depicted same-sex relationships when reaching its decision.
Involvement of Third Parties
The involvement of third parties, including ILGA-Europe, KPH (Campaign Against Homophobia), and PSAL (Polish Society of Anti-Discrimination Law), is particularly noteworthy in this case. These organizations not only presented relevant data but also emphasized the potential influence of negative societal attitudes toward LGBTIQ+ individuals in Poland on the decision-making process.
Main Findings by the ECtHR
On February 13, 2025, the ECtHR ruled in favor of the applicant, stating:
“94. Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that the domestic authorities did not provide ‘relevant and sufficient reasons’ for dismissing the applicant from his position. Even allowing for a certain margin of appreciation, it cannot be held that the applicant’s personal blogging activity threatened the protection of morals of minors in a manner justifying the sanction imposed on him. Therefore, the interference with his right to freedom of expression neither corresponded to a pressing social need, nor was it proportionate to the legitimate aim purportedly pursued. It thus was not ‘necessary in a democratic society.'”
“95. It follows that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.”
Concluding Remarks
While the court determined that the alleged violation was not explicitly linked to the applicant’s sexual orientation, the broader context of the ongoing challenges and discriminatory measures faced by LGBTIQA+ individuals in Poland, combined with the school’s ambiguous and discretionary justification for the teacher’s dismissal—namely, that “a teacher writing such a blog is not in line with the morality and ethics of the teaching profession”—illustrates the interconnected nature of these issues. In this context, it can be said that the involvement of third parties contributed valuable context and insights that informed the legal analysis and decision-making process.
- This analysis is based on the official publication from the ECtHR website.
Be First to Comment