3,000 Polish judges want the dismissal of the National Council of the Judiciary

Share

Journalist covering law and politics for OKO.press. Previously journalist at Gazeta Wyborcza, Rzeczpospolita, Polska The Times, Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.

More

3007 judges (91 p/c of all those who took part in the vote) are convinced that the new National Council of the Judiciary (KRS) is not performing the tasks it should and 2881 of them believe it should resign. These are the results of a referendum in as many as 139 courts to date. The referendum is underway in the remaining courts. Poland has ca 10 000 judges



The results of the referendum are disastrous for the new KRS, which the judges call a ‘neo-KRS’. Almost one third of all Polish judges have already voted, as there are about 10,000 of them. The referendum is not yet closed.

 

The judges not only want the resignation of the ‘representatives of the judges’ in the new KRS. As many as 90.1% of the voters in the referendum believe the new KRS is not fulfilling its responsibilities, as specified in Article 186, section 1 of the Constitution: ‘The National Council of the Judiciary shall safeguard the independence of the courts and judges’.

The results of the vote are available on the website of the Polish Judges Association ‘Iustitia’. The referendum is organised by the Judges’ Cooperation Forum. This is an informal association of polish judges, performing tasks previously performed by the National Council of the Judiciary.

https://archiwumosiatynskiego.pl/images/2019/01/1A.png

 

RESULTS of the referendum – judges’ opinions on the activities of the National Council of the Judiciary, as at 27 December 2018 (notice 10)

 

Question 1. Do you believe that the current National Council of the Judiciary is properly performing its obligations as defined by Article 186, section 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland?

 

yes            no         no opinion

 

percentage of those who voted:

 

4.9%     90.9%      4.2%

 

numbers of judges who voted: 3,308

 

161       3,007        140

 

Question 2. Do you believe that judges – members of the National Council of the Judiciary should resign from their posts?

 

yes          no          no opinion

 

87.3%    4.6%     8.1%

 

numbers of judges who voted: 3,308

 

2,881     152       267

 

Courts in which voting has ended: 139

 

Reasons for asking for the judges’ opinions on the activities of the judges who are members of the National Council of the Judiciary: § 5 section IV of Rules of Judicial Ethics: A judge should require other judges to behave impeccably and observe the principles of professional ethics, as well as to react properly to misconduct.

 

It is common knowledge that PiS acted in breach of the Constitution when it dissolved the independent KRS and appointed a new one, in which the majority of the 15 posts guaranteed for judges were given to judges cooperating with the Ministry of Justice headed by Zbigniew Ziobro.

 

Furthermore, in conflict with the Constitution, they were chosen by the Sejm and not by the judges themselves, as previously.

 

Judges believe the election was illegal. The new KRS is a body carrying out political orders from the PiS authorities which does not protect the judges or their independence.

 

The clear reaction of the judges was not hampered by disciplinary proceedings initiated against the most active of them by the Disciplinary Commissioner appointed by Minister Ziobro.

 

Related content: List of judges prosecuted by the Disciplinary Commissioner for the ordinary courts

 

Courts pass resolutions against the National Council of the Judiciary.

 

The judges are expressing their disapproval of the new KRS in multiple resolutions passed by individual courts, where the judges refused to provide opinions about candidates for judiciary promotion to be approved by the new KRS. They declared that the contests for new positions are fictional. OKO.press published information about these resolutions.

 

There were also resolutions defending independence and criticising the new KRS. Such resolutions were passed by judges from Kraków, who were the first to act to defend the independence of the judiciary from the new President of the court.

 

Similar resolutions were also passed by judges from other courts, including in smaller towns. Importantly, also the largest court in Poland, the District Court in Warsaw, is speaking out bluntly to defend the judiciary from subordination to the PiS authorities.

 

Two courts passed resolutions with very strong messages just before Christmas.

 

Lublin: Judges are required to respond to threats.

 

In Lublin, the resolutions were passed by the judges of the Regional Court and Assembly of Representatives of Judges of the Region of the Regional Court in Lublin. Judges from Lublin expressed their support for judges threatened by disciplinary action for defending their independence.

 

‘We thank the judges who are taking part in the public discourse and defending the foundation of the rule of law. The right of judges to speak publicly about the functioning of the judiciary is a reflection of the constitutional principle of freedom of speech, confirmed by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

 

Furthermore, we are convinced that, according to the oath sworn at the beginning of their service, judges are obliged to highlight the threats to independence of courts and judges and to warn against such threats, no matter which political party is in power in the parliament or government.

 

Describing judges who criticise certain legislative solutions or actions of institutions which affect the functioning of judiciary as ‘parties to a political dispute’ is unethical and offensive’. The full wording of the resolutions is available here.

 

Warsaw: the disciplinary proceedings will be verified in the future

 

The Assembly of Representatives of Judges of the Regional Court in Warsaw also unanimously passed resolutions. One resolution states directly that the Disciplinary Commissioner, Piotr Schab, and his deputies Przemysław Radzik and Michał Lasota, all appointed by Minister Ziobro, pose a threat to the independence of judges and compromise the interests of the judiciary by their actions taken against judges.

 

‘The Assembly of Representatives of Judges of the Region of the Regional Court in Warsaw ascertain that any actions of judges actively involved in the scheme to subordinate the courts and judges to political control and taking repressive actions against judges for:

 

  • their adjudication

 

  • their participation in public debates

 

  • their defence of the independence of the courts and judges

 

will have to be examined and evaluated in diligent disciplinary proceedings based on provisions complying with the Constitution and guaranteeing a full right of defence.

 

It is never too late to withdraw from actions breaching judicial ethics and serving the political plans of the minister of justice”.

 

Warsaw’s judges also resolved that:

 

  • they will refrain from providing opinions on the promotion of judges to the new KRS until the Court of Justice of the European Union reviews the requests for preliminary rulings;

 

  • they will reiterate the basic values that should guide all judges.

 

The Assembly of Representatives of Judges of the Region of the Regional Court in Warsaw reminds all judges that, before taking up office, they swore an oath to faithfully serve the Republic of Poland and to abide by the principles of dignity and integrity in all their actions. This oath is binding on all judges, including those fulfilling their regular responsibilities and those delegated to administrative tasks in the ministry of justice or organisational units supervised by the minister of justice, regardless of the position held. Additionally, appointment to the position of a disciplinary commissioner does not release them from the oath, emphasised the resolution of judges from Warsaw.

 

The full wording of the resolutions is available here.

 

And Duda keeps repeating: ‘Judges are a degenerated milieu’

 

Over the past year, judges have shown that they are united in defending their independence and in setting an example for other judges, especially those in smaller towns. PiS has no intention of giving up the subordination of the judiciary to its own will, despite recent concessions made to Brussels on the Supreme Court.

 

This attitude may be evidenced by the interview with Andrzej Duda on Sunday, 30 December 2018. In response to the journalist’s question about further changes in the courts, he stated that the milieu of judges is ‘extremely influential’.

 

‘Those remarkable political demonstrations of the milieus of judges show how degenerated those milieus are (…) They act in a way in which judges should never indulge. […] Of course, a judge has a right to his or her political views, but these should be personal opinions, not taken to streets, demonstrated in the media and elsewhere,’ attacked the President.

 

Przyłębska to the rescues

 

The new KRS hopes that its legality will be confirmed by the Constitutional Tribunal, now dominated by PiS, as the Council itself requested the Tribunal to verify the lawfulness of its election. The acting Chairperson of the Constitutional Tribunal was assigned to chair the hearing of this case.

 

The Legislative Committee of the Sejm approved an opinion supporting the lawfulness of the new KRS with votes of PiS MPs on Friday 28 December.

 

The hearing at the Constitutional Tribunal was planned for 3 January 2019, but in the evening of 31 December 2018, judge Jarosław Dudzicz, a member of the KRS, tweeted the following notice:

 

‘With regard to the petition filed by the #KRS with the #TK, I was notified today that the hearing at the #TK planned for 03/01/2019, 12 o’clock has been cancelled. Information on the new date of the hearing will be sent in a separate communication’



Author


Journalist covering law and politics for OKO.press. Previously journalist at Gazeta Wyborcza, Rzeczpospolita, Polska The Times, Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.


More

Published

January 2, 2019

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandZbigniew Ziobrorule of lawEuropean CommissionjudgesCourt of Justice of the EUNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaIgor TuleyaEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary systemMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiWaldemar Żurekdemocracymuzzle lawpresidential electionsPiotr SchabjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020Kamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerBeata MorawiecPrzemysław RadzikFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsMichał LasotaEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiPrime MinisterJulia Przyłębskamedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19electionsNational Recovery PlanNational Council for JudiciaryPresidentSupreme Administrative Courtfreedom of expressionŁukasz PiebiakCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawDagmara Pawełczyk-Woickadisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanMałgorzata GersdorfAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynAnna DalkowskaNational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamberconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetWłodzimierz WróbelCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorStanisław PiotrowiczJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisK 7/21May 10 2020 electionsLex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandSejmXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v Polandmedia independenceIustitiaJarosław DudziczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczArticle 6 ECHRTHEMISEAWUrsula von der LeyenChamber of Professional LiabilitymediaimmunityCouncil of Europe2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaRegional Court in KrakówRecovery FundP 7/20Justice Fundneo-judgesPiSC-791/19National Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Piotr PszczółkowskiPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaProfessional Liability ChamberJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikorasuspensionJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesReczkowicz and Others v. PolandUkraineKrystian MarkiewiczKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczDariusz DrajewiczRafał PuchalskidefamationcourtsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekEwa WrzosekEU law primacyTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej Miterademocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetoJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJrecommendationTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiHuman Rights CommissionerMarek MazurkiewiczCCBEAndrzej MączyńskiThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław Rymarpublic opinion pollFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskireportBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersEuropean ParliamentOKO.pressZiobroMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskitransferPiotr GąciarekKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiPiebiak gatehuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyKrakówcoronavirusXero Flor v. PolandEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej Rutkiewiczresolution of 23 January 2020Mirosław WróblewskiCivil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaLeon Kieresright to protestSławomir JęksaPKWWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMariusz Kamińskiinfringment actionsurveillanceEU valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauENCJJacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiIsraelŁukasz Radkeforeign agents lawpolexitDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościLGBT free zonesAct sanitising the judiciaryequalityMarek AstMaciej FerekChamber of Extraordinary VerificationEdyta Barańskahate crimesCourt of Appeal in Krakówhate speechPutinismcriminal codeKaczyńskiGrzęda v Polandright to fair trialPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasŻurek v PolandMałgorzata Wąsek-WiaderekSobczyńska and Others v Polandct on the Protection of the PopulatioparliamentlegislationRafał Trzaskowskilex Wośmedia lawRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtPrzemysła RadzikAntykastaSenateStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczMarcin WarchołKatarzyna ChmuraElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiGrzegorz FurmankiewiczJacek CzaputowiczMarek JaskulskiPrzemysław CzarnekJoanna Kołodziej-Michałowiczlegislative practiceEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaENAPaweł StyrnaZbigniew BoniekKasta/AntykastaAndrzej SkowronŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoOmbudsmanMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiKraśnikEmilia SzmydtNorwayTomasz SzmydtNorwegian fundssmear campaignNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał DworczykC-487/19media pluralism#RecoveryFilesArticle 10 ECHRmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentRegional Court in Amsterdamrepairing the rule of lawharassmentOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentBohdan BieniekSimpson judgmentMarcin KrajewskiForum Współpracy SędziówMałgorzata Dobiecka-Woźniakelectoral processChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairspublic broadcasterWiesław KozielewiczNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeGrzegorz PudaPiotr MazurekJerzy Kwaśniewskimutual trustPetros Tovmasyancourt presidentsLMelections 2023ODIHRIrelandFull-Scale Election Observation MissionNGOIrena MajcherWojciech MaczugaAmsterdamKarolina MiklaszewskaRafał LisakMałgorzata FroncJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiSebastian Mazurekthe Regional Court in WarsawElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikUnited NationsLeszek Mazurpopulisminterim measuresautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingequal treatmentabortionprotestsfundamental rightsthe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońCT PresidentGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justice2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUmedia taxStanisław Zabłockiadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióSLAPPLIBE CommitteeStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationFrans TimmermansGazeta WyborczaUS Department of StatePollitykaBrussels IRome IISwieczkowskiArticle 2Forum shoppingadvocate generalDariusz ZawistowskitransparencyEuropean Economic and Social Committeepress releaseSebastian KaletaRights and Values ProgrammeC-156/21C-157/21C-619/18Marek Piertuszyńskidefamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardNational Prosecutor’s Officeintimidation of dissentersWojciech SadurskiBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberjudgeTribunal of StatePechOlsztyn courtKochenovPrzemysła CzarnekEvgeni TanchevEducation MinisterFreedom in the WorldECJIpsosFrackowiakOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeretirement ageAmnesty InternationalHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr Bogdanowicztrans-Atlantic valuesPiotr BurasLSOauthoritarian equilibriumlawyersArticle 258Act of 20 December 2019clientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officerepressive actPolish National FoundationLux VeritatisKoen LenaertsMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykharrassmentMarian BanaśAlina CzubieniakSupreme Audit OfficeTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediapostal voteRzeszówborderpostal vote billprimacy