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 TribunalPolandjudgesdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean Commissionjudicial independenceEuropean UnionMałgorzata ManowskaAndrzej DudaCourt of JusticeIgor TuleyaEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary systemMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiMateusz MorawieckiCJEUmuzzle lawNational Recovery PlanAdam BodnarCommissioner for Human RightsdemocracyWaldemar ŻurekPrzemysław Radzikcriminal lawpresidential electionselectionsKamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerPiotr Schabmedia freedomneo-judgeselections 2023Julia PrzyłębskajudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme Courtpreliminary rulingsSupreme Administrative CourtHungaryelections 2020K 3/21Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaNational Council for JudiciaryharassmentProsecutor GeneralprosecutorsŁukasz PiebiakMichał LasotaBeata MorawiecPaweł JuszczyszynCourt of Justice of the European UnionPrime MinisterPresidentConstitutionCOVID-19European Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiCriminal ChamberRegional Court in KrakówRecovery FundExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberEU budgetfreedom of expressionprosecutiondisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanMałgorzata GersdorfSejmcourtsMaciej Ferekfreedom of assemblyconditionalityLaw and JusticeNCJMinistry of JusticeJustice FundNational ProsecutorPiSStanisław PiotrowiczAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPresident of the Republic of PolandIustitiaTHEMISimmunityAnna DalkowskaNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsStanisław Biernatconditionality mechanismWłodzimierz WróbelLabour and Social Security Chambercommission on Russian influence2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiNational Electoral CommissionJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsPresident of PolandLGBTXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. Polandmedia independenceKrystian MarkiewiczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczMichał WawrykiewiczArticle 6 ECHREAWUrsula von der LeyenTVPmediaLex Super OmniaLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaDidier ReyndersStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationAndrzej StępkaPiotr GąciarekcorruptionP 7/20K 7/21Lex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanProfessional Liability ChambersuspensionparliamentJarosław DudziczChamber of Professional Liabilityelectoral codePiotr Prusinowskidemocratic backslidingdecommunizationLaw on the NCJrecommendationHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europepublic opinion pollreportEuropean ParliamentZiobrointimidation of dissenterstransferretirement agePiebiak gatehuman rightsEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawcoronavirusC-791/19Piotr PszczółkowskiGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaJarosław GowinLGBT ideology free zonescriminal codeSenateZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczMarcin WarchołdefamationFree CourtsEwa WrzosekEU law primacyAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej MiteraViktor OrbanOLAFNext Generation EUvetoabortionJózef IwulskiTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiMarek MazurkiewiczAndrzej MączyńskiJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław RymarFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskiBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikSLAPPOKO.pressDariusz ZawistowskiMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiMarian BanaśSupreme Audit OfficeAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyKrakówXero Flor v. PolandAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Civil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaPegasusMariusz KamińskisurveillanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraEdyta Barańskaright to fair trialUkraineKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecDariusz DrajewiczRafał Puchalskismear campaignmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentMarzanna Piekarska-Drążekelectoral processWojciech Maczugapublic medialexTuskcourt changeselections integrityelections fairnessabuse of state resourcesPATFoxpopulismequal treatmentfundamental rightsCT PresidentEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justice2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUStanisław ZabłockiLIBE CommitteeFrans TimmermansUS Department of StateSwieczkowskiadvocate generalpress releaseRights and Values ProgrammeC-619/18defamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardWojciech SadurskijudgePechKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakAmnesty Internationaltrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote billresolution of 23 January 2020Leon KieresPKWinfringment actionEU valuesENCJIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawPrzemysła RadzikElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsC-487/19Article 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentSimpson judgmentForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited NationsLeszek Mazurinterim measuresautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingproteststhe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europemedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióGazeta WyborczaPollitykaBrussels IRome IIArticle 2Forum shoppingtransparencyEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian KaletaC-156/21C-157/21Marek PiertuszyńskiNational Prosecutor’s OfficeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOlsztyn courtPrzemysła CzarnekEducation MinisterIpsosOlimpia Barańska-MałuszeHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr Burasauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258clientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's OfficePolish National FoundationLux VeritatisMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykTVNjournalistslexTVNPolish mediaRzeszówborderprimacyEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej RutkiewiczMirosław Wróblewskiright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMichał WośMinistry of FinanceJacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryMarek AstCourt of Appeal in KrakówPutinismKaczyńskiPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderekct on the Protection of the Populatiolegislationlex WośRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtAntykastaStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczKatarzyna ChmuraGrzegorz FurmankiewiczMarek JaskulskiJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaKasta/AntykastaAndrzej SkowronŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiEmilia SzmydtTomasz SzmydtE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał Dworczykmedia pluralism#RecoveryFilesrepairing the rule of lawBohdan BieniekMarcin KrajewskiMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsWiesław KozielewiczNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeGrzegorz PudaPiotr MazurekJerzy KwaśniewskiPetros Tovmasyancourt presidentsODIHRFull-Scale Election Observation MissionNGOKarolina MiklaszewskaRafał LisakMałgorzata FroncJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiSebastian MazurekElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikSzymon Szynkowski vel SękJoanna Scheuring-Wielgusinsulting religious feelingsoppositionAdam GendźwiłłDariusz Dończyktest of independenceTomasz KoszewskiJakub KwiecińskidiscriminationAct on the Supreme Courtelectoral commissionsEuropean Court of HuKrzysztof RączkaPoznańKoan LenaertsKarol WeitzKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiRThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFJustyna WydrzyńskaAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszJoanna KnobelCrimes of espionageextraordinary commissionZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaCourt of Appeal in WarsawOsiatyński'a ArchiveUS State DepartmentAssessment Actenvironmentinvestmentstrategic investmentgag lawsuitslex RaczkowskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActdisinformationNational Broadcasting Councilelection fairnessDobrochna Bach-GoleckaRafał WojciechowskiAleksandra RutkowskaGeneral Court of the EUArkadiusz RadwanLech WałęsaWałęsa v. Polandright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawpilot-judgmentDonald Tusk governmentSLAPPscivil lawRadosław BaszukAction PlanJustice MinistryVěra JourováDonald Tuskjustice system reform