A legal judge of the Supreme Court is not afraid of the muzzle regulations and challenges the status of neo-judges of the Supreme Court

Share

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

More

The old Supreme Court challenged the legality of the neo-judges in the Supreme Court. This is another such ruling issued despite the prohibition to examine their status. This ruling shows that the old Supreme Court judges will continue to apply the judgments of the ECtHR and the CJEU.



This ruling was issued individually by Bohdan Bieniek, an ‘old’ legal judge of the Supreme Court from the Labour and Social Insurance Chamber. The judge challenged the status of the neo-judge of the Supreme Court, Dr. Marcin Krajewski from the Civil Chamber. He ruled that Krajewski’s participation in benches would lead to the incorrect staffing of the court and would expose the State Treasury to compensation for defective judgments. Because he was appointed to the Supreme Court by the neo-NCJ, which itself was defectively appointed and is connected with politicians.

 

Furthermore, Judge Bieniek held that a Supreme Court bench that includes a neo-judge would breach Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which guarantees citizens the right to a hearing of an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. It also breaches Article 45 of the Constitution, which provides for the right to an independent and impartial court.

 

While challenging the legality of the neo-judge, Judge Bieniek referred to the still-applicable historic resolution of the full bench of the Supreme Court of January 2020, judgments of the ECtHR and the CJEU, as well as judgments of the Polish Supreme Administrative Court. These rulings challenged the legality of the neo-NCJ and the appointments it had given to neo-judges. This is because the courts and tribunals have acknowledged that the neo-NCJ, which contains judges associated with Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro and who was elected in the Sejm by Law and Justice (PiS) MPs, does not guarantee that the judges they promote will give fair trials to citizens.

 

This ruling is a signal that the ‘old’ judges of the Supreme Court will continue to apply the judgments of the ECtHR and the CJEU regarding the changes in the courts introduced by the PiS authorities.

 

Their application was explicitly prohibited for them by the Muzzle Act of 2020 which had been written by PiS. It prohibited judges from challenging the status of neo-judges, as well as challenging the status of institutions established or staffed by the PiS, such as the neo-NCJ and Julia Przyłębska’s Constitutional Tribunal.

 

However, this prohibition is unconstitutional. Meanwhile, in its interim measure of 14 July 2021, while suspending the illegal Disciplinary Chamber, the CJEU simultaneously suspended the provisions of the Muzzle Act allowing judges to be punished for challenging the status of neo-judges.

 

Judge Bohdan Bienek’s ruling is yet another ruling by the old Supreme Court challenging the status of neo-judges, which was issued in conflict with the provisions of the Muzzle Act. But he is not the only one in the Supreme Court to challenge the status of the neo-judges of the Supreme Court. Judges from the legal Criminal Chamber, Jarosław Matras and Michał Laskowski, among others, have been doing the same for the past year. Judge Matras has been issuing further such rulings. The latest is dated 6 September 2022. In it, he challenged the status of the neo-judge of the Supreme Court, Małgorzata Bednarek. She is a former prosecutor close to Zbigniew Ziobro, who, until recently, was a member of the liquidated Disciplinary Chamber. The status of the neo-judges is also being contested by legal judges from the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court.

 

How neo-judge Zaradkiewicz demanded a test of legal judges

Judge Bieniek issued his ruling in camera on 25 August 2022. That day, he examined the application of neo-judge Dr. Marcin Krajewski of the Civil Chamber, who wanted to be excluded from being a part of the so-called presidential test. This is a test of a judge’s independence and impartiality. It was introduced by the President’s amendment to the Act on the Supreme Court.

 

The test is supposed to demonstrate whether the way in which the judge was appointed and his conduct after the appointment can affect the outcome of the case which he is to examine. The test is supposed to be the implementation of the ECtHR and CJEU judgments. But it not only allows the impartiality of neo-judges to be tested (whereby their appointment by the neo-NCJ cannot be the only basis of this test), but it also opens the floodgates to challenge the status of legal judges.

 

And this is already happening. Because another neo-judge of the Supreme Court, Kamil Zaradkiewicz, took advantage of these regulations. He demanded such a test to be applied to three legal Supreme Court judges from the Labour and Social Insurance Chamber. This was about testing the Chamber’s president, Piotr Prusinowski (pictured at the top seated in the middle), Dr Dawid Miasik (pictured at the top seated on the right) and Jolanta Frańczak. They are all in the bench that is to examine a precedent-setting action to establish that Zaradkiewicz is not a Supreme Court judge.

 

Such an action was filed by Judge Waldemar Żurek of the Regional Court in Kraków. He is the former press officer of the old, legal NCJ, which PiS illegally dissolved during its term of office. Żurek has been defending the independence of the courts since the start of PiS’s rule, for which he is the most repressed judge in Poland. After all, one of his more than 20 disciplinary cases was initiated for suing Zaradkiewicz.

 

Judge Zurek sued Zaradkiewicz because he does not consider him to be a legal judge of the Supreme Court. This is because he received his nomination from the illegal neo-NCJ. Zaradkiewicz also collaborated with the current authorities. Before he was promoted to the Supreme Court, he worked in Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro’s ministry. In the Supreme Court, he briefly served as President Duda’s so-called commissioner, or, in other words, the interim president of the Supreme Court.

 

Żurek is not the only independent judge who has sued neo-judges of the Supreme Court to establish that they are not legal. There are several such actions. And they are waiting to be examined in the Labour and Social Insurance Chamber. The cases are awaiting the CJEU’s verdict, as preliminary questions have been asked about whether the Supreme Court can assess the status of the neo-judges itself.

 

There has been a battle over these actions all the time, because the illegal Disciplinary Chamber wanted to take them over. Zaradkiewicz also requested the actions to be transferred to that Chamber when he was a so-called commissioner. Zaradkiewicz’s application to conduct a test of the independence and impartiality of the bench that is to examine Żurek’s action may be an attempt to change the membership of the bench.

 

Judge Bieniek: a neo-judge cannot pass a legal judgment

 

Three five-person benches were drawn to conduct a test of the independence and impartiality of the bench ruling in Żurek’s action. Each will perform a test of one of the legal Supreme Court judges. Dr. Marcin Krajewski, namely a neo-judge, was placed on the bench to conduct the test of Judge Jolanta Frańczak. Other than him, three more legal judges, Michał Laskowski, Monika Koba, and Marek Pietruszyński, as well as another neo-judge, Tomasz Szanciło, were drawn to this bench.

 

Only Krajewski submitted a motion for removal. He referred to the fact that he is an acquaintance of Zaradkiewicz, who requested the test. Krajewski stated that he has known him for 25 years. They were studying for their doctorates together, worked together, and are in touch socially.

 

But, while examining his application, Supreme Court Judge Bohdan Bieniek removed him from the test for other reasons. He stated ex officio that Krajewski had been appointed by the neo-NCJ, the status of which had been contested by rulings of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the ECtHR, and the CJEU. Meanwhile, a bench that includes a neo-judge is defective and therefore a ruling issued by it can be contested. This will expose the State Treasury to the payment of compensation.

 

This means that Krajewski will be replaced by a previously drawn substitute judge. He happens to be an ‘old’, legal Supreme Court judge. However, there is still one more neo-judge, Tomasz Szanciło, in the bench, who is supposed to perform a test of independence and impartiality. The other members of the bench will therefore have to decide whether they will rule with him. If they decide to do so, they will legalize his status. However, it cannot be assumed that the legal judges of the Supreme Court will do this.

 

The status of neo-judges has rather been challenged previously by judges of the ordinary courts, for which they are being disciplined by Minister Ziobro’s disciplinary commissioners. That is, by chief disciplinary commissioner Piotr Schab and his deputies Przemysław Radzik and Michał Lasota. They are pursuing disciplinary cases against judges, even though the judges refer directly to ECtHR and CJEU rulings. Five judges have been suspended for this by the illegal Disciplinary Chamber, while a further group of independent judges are also under threat of such suspension.

 

The Supreme Court contested the status of the neo-NCJ and neo-judges in a resolution of the full court in January 2020. And while it still applies to judges, it has not been willingly applied by Supreme Court judges. This did not change until 2021, when the Criminal Chamber started to overturn judgments passed with the involvement of neo-judges from the ordinary courts and when neo-judges of the Supreme Court started to be removed from pending cases. The status of neo-judges of the Supreme Court also started to be contested in the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court.

 

Meanwhile, in 2022, a panel of seven judges of the Criminal Chamber issued a resolution in which they specified the principles of the test of a judge’s independence and impartiality. This is not the presidential test, but a test modeled on the principles set out in the ECtHR judgment regarding Iceland. And the Supreme Court has already conducted the first such test of independence of the neo-judge, Jerzy Daniluk, president of the Court of Appeal in Lublin. And it found that he did not satisfy the standard of independence and impartiality because he had linked his career to Minister Ziobro’s ministry and the neo-NCJ. And the Supreme Court overturned the judgment passed with his involvement.

 

Translated by Roman Wojtasz

 

The article was originally published in Polish at OKO.press on 6 September 2022.



Author


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


More

Published

September 14, 2022

Tags

Supreme CourtConstitutional TribunalDisciplinary ChamberPolandjudgesdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of Justice of the EUjudicial independenceEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaCourt of JusticeEuropean Court of Human RightsMinister of JusticeIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemAdam Bodnarmuzzle lawJarosław KaczyńskiNational Recovery PlanCJEUMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human Rightsneo-judgesCourt of Justice of the European UniondemocracyPrzemysław RadzikWaldemar ŻurekNational Council for Judiciarypresidential electionselectionselections 2023disciplinary commissionercriminal lawJulia PrzyłębskaPiotr SchabKamil Zaradkiewiczmedia freedomharassmentpreliminary rulingsHungarySupreme Administrative Courtelections 2020K 3/21Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickajudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme CourtŁukasz PiebiakprosecutorsPresidentRecovery FundBeata MorawiecPaweł JuszczyszynProsecutor GeneralMichał Lasotafreedom of expressionMaciej NawackiEuropean Arrest WarrantSejmprosecutionCOVID-19Regional Court in KrakówCriminal ChamberNational ProsecutorConstitutionPrime MinisterMinistry of JusticecourtsMałgorzata GersdorfMarek SafjanEU budgetdisciplinary liability for judgesMaciej FerekOSCEWojciech HermelińskiExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberIustitiacriminal proceedingsWłodzimierz WróbelVenice Commissionconditionality mechanismAleksander StepkowskiTHEMISLabour and Social Security ChamberStanisław BiernatPiScommission on Russian influenceStanisław PiotrowiczPresident of the Republic of PolandNCJimmunityconditionalityAnna DalkowskaJustice FundcorruptionLaw and JusticeNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europefreedom of assemblyKrystian MarkiewiczreformsReczkowicz and Others v. PolandKrzysztof Parchimowiczacting first president of the Supreme Court2017policeSenateAndrzej Zollmedia independenceSLAPPdefamationStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationLGBTJustice Defence Committee – KOSEwa ŁętowskaDidier ReyndersFreedom HouseAmsterdam District CourtMay 10 2020 electionsXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandOrdo IurisPresident of PolandAndrzej StępkaBroda and Bojara v PolandSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramPiotr GąciarekJarosław WyrembakPM Mateusz MorawieckiArticle 7Next Generation EUConstitutional Tribunal PresidentUrsula von der LeyenLex DudaTVPmediaLex Super OmniaProfessional Liability ChamberreformJarosław DudziczK 7/21National Reconstruction PlansuspensionparliamentChamber of Professional LiabilityEAWArticle 6 ECHRP 7/20Supreme Court PresidentLech GarlickiMichał WawrykiewiczabortionPiotr PrusinowskiNational Electoral Commissionelectoral codeJanusz NiemcewiczTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaStanisław RymarMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaKazimierz DziałochaBogdan ŚwięczkowskiNetherlandsAndrzej MączyńskiMarek MazurkiewiczvetoStefan JaworskiMirosław GranatOLAFBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaViktor OrbanJózef IwulskiMaciej MiteraSLAPPsjudcial independenceWojciech ŁączkowskiAdam JamrózPATFoxFerdynand RymarzKonrad WytrykowskiRafał Puchalskismear campaignmilestonesKrakówMarzanna Piekarska-Drążekstate of emergencyUkraineelectoral processBelaruscourt presidentsAdam SynakiewiczXero Flor v. PolandAstradsson v Icelandright to fair trialEdyta BarańskaJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraCentral Anti-Corruption BureauJakub IwaniecsurveillancePegasusDariusz DrajewiczJoanna Misztal-KoneckaCivil ChamberK 6/21Wojciech MaczugaSzymon Szynkowski vel SękDariusz ZawistowskiOKO.presselections integrityelections fairnessMarek ZubikBohdan ZdziennickiMirosław WyrzykowskiSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczPiotr TulejaJerzy StępieńAndrzej RzeplińskitransparencyMariusz KamińskiMaciej Taborowskiinsulting religious feelingsPaweł Filipekpublic mediaMariusz MuszyńskiKrystyna PawłowiczlexTuskcourt changesMarek PietruszyńskiMichał LaskowskiSupreme Audit Officeabuse of state resourcesLaw on the NCJEuropean ParliamentJarosław GowincoronavirusRussiaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczFree Courts11 January March in WarsawCCBEPiebiak gatehuman rightsrecommendationC-791/19Human Rights CommissionerMarcin WarchołLGBT ideology free zonesreportEuropean Association of JudgesPiotr Pszczółkowskiretirement agedecommunizationGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgesintimidation of dissentersdemocratic backslidingpublic opinion pollZiobroEU law primacyMarian BanaśThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europecriminal codeBelgiumlex NGOEwa Wrzosekcivil societytransferAdam Tomczyńskimedia pluralismBohdan Bieniek#RecoveryFilesFrans TimmermansLIBE Committeerepairing the rule of lawUS Department of StateMarcin KrajewskiKarolina Miklaszewska2018NGOFull-Scale Election Observation MissionODIHRNations in TransitStanisław ZabłockiPetros TovmasyanJerzy KwaśniewskiPiotr MazurekGrzegorz PudaNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeWiesław KozielewiczChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakCouncil of the EURafał LisakMichał DworczykWojciech Sadurskidefamatory statementsRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtC-619/18Rights and Values Programmejudgepress releaseAntykastalex WoślegislationCourt of Appeal in KrakówPutinismKaczyńskiPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderekct on the Protection of the PopulatioWorld Justice Project awardStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiEmilia SzmydtTomasz SzmydtE-mail scandalAndrzej SkowronKasta/AntykastaKatarzyna Chmuraadvocate generalGrzegorz FurmankiewiczMarek JaskulskiEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaSwieczkowskiDworczyk leaksMałgorzata FroncHater ScandalAleksandra RutkowskaGeneral Court of the EUArkadiusz RadwanLech WałęsaWałęsa v. Polandright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawpilot-judgmentDonald Tusk governmentRafał WojciechowskiDobrochna Bach-Goleckalex RaczkowskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActdisinformationCT Presidentfundamental rightsNational Broadcasting Councilelection fairnessequal treatmentcivil lawMarcin MatczakDariusz KornelukNational School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (KSSiP)codification commissiondelegationsWatchdog PolskaDariusz BarskiLasotapopulismState TribunalRadosław BaszukAction PlanJustice MinistryVěra JourováDonald Tuskjustice system reformAnti-SLAPP Directiveinsultgag lawsuitsstrategic investmentinvestmentlustrationJakub KwiecińskidiscriminationAct on the Supreme Courtelectoral commissionsEuropean Court of HuKrzysztof RączkaPoznańTomasz Koszewskitest of independenceSebastian MazurekElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikJoanna Scheuring-WielgusoppositionThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentAdam Gendźwiłłtransitional justiceDariusz DończykKoan LenaertsKarol WeitzZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaCourt of Appeal in WarsawOsiatyński'a ArchiveEUUS State DepartmentAssessment Actenvironmentextraordinary commissionWhite PaperKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiREuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFJustyna WydrzyńskaAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszJoanna KnobelCrimes of espionageJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiMarek Piertuszyńskihate speechhate crimesmedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandPrzemysław CzarnekJacek CzaputowiczMarcin RomanowskiElżbieta KarskaPrzemysła Radzikmedia lawRafał TrzaskowskiSobczyńska and Others v PolandTelex.huJelenForum shoppingFirst President of the Suprme CourtEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian KaletaOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeC-156/21C-157/21foreign agents lawArticle 2Rome IIJózsef SzájerChamber of Extraordinary VerificationKlubrádióequalityGazeta WyborczaLGBT free zonesPollitykaBrussels Ilegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekAK judgmentautocratizationMultiannual Financial FrameworkOpenbaar MinisterieRegional Court in Amsterdamabortion rulingArticle 10 ECHRprotestsinterim measuresLeszek MazurIrena MajcherAmsterdamLMmutual trustthe Regional Court in Warsawpublic broadcasterUnited NationsForum Współpracy Sędziówthe NetherlandsDenmarkact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsNorwegian fundsNorwayKraśnikOmbudsmanKarlsruheAusl 301 AR 104/19SwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońC-487/19GermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUIrelandMarek AstLSOright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman Giertychtrans-Atlantic valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinancelawyersMirosław Wróblewskirepressive actborderprimacyEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej RutkiewiczAct of 20 December 2019Amnesty InternationalJacek SasinEvgeni TanchevKochenovPechPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryFreedom in the WorldECJErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitFrackowiakDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandRzeszówKoen LenaertsharrassmentOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeinfringment actionHudocPKWKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr BurasLeon KieresIpsosEU valuesNational Prosecutor’s OfficeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOlsztyn courtPrzemysła CzarnekEducation MinisterENCJauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258postal voteTVNjournalistslexTVNEwa MaciejewskaGerard BirgfellerPolish mediaAlina CzubieniakSimpson judgmentpostal vote billclientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officeresolution of 23 January 2020Polish National FoundationLux VeritatisMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykIsrael