Commission to combat new disciplinary regime

Share

Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland

More

Today, the European Commission has launched an infringement procedure by sending a Letter of Formal Notice to Poland regarding the new disciplinary regime for judges. The Polish government has 2 months to reply.



** Below is the press relase issued by the Commission on 3 April 2019. The article will be updated **

 

Today, the European Commission has launched an infringement procedure by sending a Letter of Formal Notice to Poland regarding the new disciplinary regime for judges. The Polish government has 2 months to reply.

 

The new disciplinary regime undermines the judicial independence of Polish judges by not offering necessary guarantees to protect them from political control, as required by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

 

Firstly, the Commission is of the opinion that Poland failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union read in connection with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which enshrine a right to an effective remedy before an independent and impartial court.

 

Polish law allows to subject ordinary court judges to disciplinary investigations, procedures and ultimately sanctions, on account of the content of their judicial decisions. Also, the new disciplinary regime does not guarantee the independence and impartiality of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court which reviews decisions taken in disciplinary proceedings against judges. This Disciplinary Chamber is composed solely of new judges selected by the National Council for the Judiciary whose judges-members are now appointed by the Polish parliament (Sejm).

 

Furthermore, the new disciplinary regime does not ensure that a court “established by law” will decide in first instance on disciplinary proceedings against ordinary court judges, as it empowers the President of the Disciplinary Chamber to determine, on an ad-hoc basis and with an almost unfettered discretion, the disciplinary court of first instance to hear a given case. Moreover, the new disciplinary regime for judges restricts procedural rights of defendants in disciplinary proceedings. The new regime no longer guarantees that cases are dealt with within a reasonable time, allowing the Minister of Justice and the President of the Republic to keep charges permanently pending over judges through disciplinary officers appointed by them. Also, the new regime affects judges’ right of the defence.

 

Finally, the Commission considers that Poland failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which enshrines the right of courts to request preliminary rulings from the European Court of Justice. As developments in Poland show, the new disciplinary regime allows for judges to be subject to disciplinary proceedings for the content of their judicial decisions. This includes decisions to refer questions to the Court of Justice. As judges are not shielded from being exposed to disciplinary sanctions for exercising this right enshrined in Article 267 TFEU, the new regime creates a chilling effect for making use of this mechanism. The functioning of the preliminary reference mechanism – which is the backbone of the Union’s legal order – requires national courts to be free to refer to the European Court of Justice any question for a preliminary ruling that they consider necessary, at whatever stage of the proceedings.

 

The Polish Government now has 2 months to reply to the Letter of Formal Notice.



Author


Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland


More

Published

April 3, 2019

Tags

Supreme Courtrule of lawdisciplinary proceedingsEuropean CommissionDisciplinary ChamberNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceCourt of JusticeConstitutional TribunaljudgesAndrzej DudaPolandEuropean UniondemocracyZbigniew Ziobropresidential electionsjudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme Courtpreliminary rulingsCJEUMinister of Justiceelections 2020Court of Justice of the EUIgor TuleyaCOVID-19PresidentProsecutor GeneralprosecutorsLaw and Justicemuzzle lawJarosław Kaczyńskiacting first president of the Supreme CourtMay 10 2020 elections2017Freedom HouseExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberVenice CommissionConstitutionNCJdisciplinary systemelectionsNational Electoral CommissionCommissioner for Human RightsKamil ZaradkiewiczGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesAleksander StepkowskiMałgorzata Manowskademocratic backslidingdecommunizationfreedom of assemblyJulia PrzyłębskaLaw on the NCJrecommendationAdam BodnarHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropereportZiobroPM Mateusz Morawieckifreedom of expressionprosecutionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawHungarycriminal lawNational ProsecutorcoronavirusC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesWojciech Hermelińskiresolution of 23 January 2020Stanisław PiotrowiczPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakLeon KieresAndrzej ZollPKWMarek SafjanMałgorzata Gersdorfinfringment actionEU valuesENCJlex NGOcivil societyRussiaIsraelforeign agents lawOrdo IurisOSCEOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeEuropean Court of Human RightsFirst President of the Suprme CourtPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT free zonesequalityLGBT ideology free zonespopulismMateusz MorawieckiPrime Ministerequal treatmentfundamental rightspoliceCT PresidentJustice Defence Committee – KOSEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justicepublic opinion pollSupreme Court President2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUStanisław ZabłockiArticle 7European ParliamentLIBE CommitteeFrans TimmermansUS Department of StateSwieczkowskiSupreme Administrative Courtadvocate generalpress releaseRights and Values ProgrammeconditionalityEU budgetC-619/18defamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardintimidation of dissentersWojciech SadurskijudgetransferPechKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakretirement ageAmnesty InternationalŁukasz PiebiakPiebiak gatehuman rightstrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakMinistry of JusticeJustice FundGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote billPiS