, 1998 judgment of the Court of Appeal in Łódź and the November 25, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeal in Szczecin ruled that the plaintiff’s freedom of conscience or religion had not been infringed upon. The Courts argued that there was no violation of the constitutional principle of impartiality of public authorities in matters of personal conviction, whether religious or philosophical, as “in Polish society the cross is treated not only as a symbol of the Catholic religion, but it also embodies universal values which derive from the Christian tradition and are also part of Polish material and spiritual culture”.
The same line of reasoning inspired the January 14, 2013 judgment of the Regional Court in Warsaw, following an action filed by a group of MP’s who demanded that a cross be removed from the Chamber of the Sejm (Low Chamber of the Polish Parliament). Most significantly, a December 3, 2009 Sejm resolution aimed at protecting freedom of conscience and at the promotion of values based on common European heritage. It emphasized, among other things, that “the cross is not only a religious symbol and a symbol of God’s love for the people, but in the public sphere it also reiterates readiness to sacrifice for one’s fellow man, whereby fostering respect for the dignity and rights of every human being”. The Polish Senate’s February 4, 2010 resolution contained similar wordings.
Another controversial topic is the offence of religious feelings, as exemplified by the case of Adam Darski (stage name: Nergal), who was accused of publicly insulting religion during a September 13, 2007 Behemoth concert. While on stage, he tore up a Bible while shouting “this is a Book of lies, fuck this shit, fuck this hypocrisy, eat this shit”. On August 18, 2011 the District Court in Gdynia found Darski not guilty, judging that the musician’s behaviour was “kind of an artistic performance”. Even if Darski argued that he had no intention to offend anyone’s feelings, the General Attorney opined that he might still be guilty even though not acting intentionally. Hereupon, the case was taken to the Supreme Court. The latter’s October 29, 2012 resolution did however not resolve the interpretative dilemma and, after having been taken to the Regional Court in Gdansk (February 11, 2014), the Darski case is now final.
A subsequent issue is religious education. In Poland, religious and ethics courses are optional, whereby the choice depends on parents or pupils, but also on pupil numbers. At present some 24 religious denominations organise religious education in public schools. Issues related to religious education have also occasionally been taken to court. The most significant episode in this context is the action launched by Mateusz Grzelak, who filed a case before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) following the absence, throughout the entire period of his schooling, of marks on religion/ethics in school reports. On June 15, 2010 the ECHR judged that this “amounted to a form of unwarranted stigmatisation”, in violation of Art. 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with Art. 9 (§ 101). The ECHR also observed that the provisions concerning religious and ethics courses in the Polish educational system were illusory and ineffective (§ 91). As a consequence, and as of September 1, 2014, the minimal number of pupils required to organize ethics courses has been reduced.
Animal rights have also been at the centre of Polish public debate, leading to a series of court procedures, notably regarding the practice of ritual slaughter. In its December 10, 2014 judgment, the Constitutional Tribunal stated that Art. 34 § 1 of the Act of August 21, 1997 on the protection of animals is inconsistent with Art. 53 § 1, 2 and 5 of the Constitution in connection with Art. 9 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as it does not allow the subjecting of animals to slaughter in accordance with special methods prescribed by religious rites. The same also counts for Art. 35 § 1 and 4 of the Act, which considers subjecting animals