Committee to Defend Justice KOS urges President of the European Commission not to give up on implementation of CJEU judgments on judicial independence in Poland

Share

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

More

"As a coalition of legal and human rights associations operating in the area of the protection of human rights, associating, among others, the most important associations of judges in Poland, we are writing to you about the implementation of the rulings of the EU Court of Justice by the Polish authorities in the context of the negotiations on the approval of the Polish National Recovery Plan (NRP) and the conditions for subsequent disbursements from the Reconstruction Fund."



Warsaw, 30 May 2022

 

To: Ms Ursula von der Leyen

 

President of the European Commission

 

Dear Madam President,

 

As a coalition of legal and human rights associations operating in the area of the protection of human rights, associating, among others, the most important associations of judges in Poland, we are writing to you about the implementation of the rulings of the EU Court of Justice by the Polish authorities in the context of the negotiations on the approval of the Polish National Recovery Plan (NRP) and the conditions for subsequent disbursements from the Reconstruction Fund.

 

As the Polish authorities are announcing that the document of the NRP has already been agreed with the European Commission and is to be formally accepted by the EC during your planned visit to Warsaw on 2 June this year, given the fact that the content of this document and the arrangements made in this respect between Poland and the EC are not generally known, we would like to ask whether the document takes into account the clearly and obviously described obligations of the Polish authorities to fulfil their commitments arising from the decision of the CJEU of 14 July 2021 (C-204/21 R) and the CJEU judgment of 15 July 2022 (C-791/19):

 

  1. the liquidation of the Disciplinary Chamber, which will result in the removal from the Supreme Court of the so-called neo-judges, who were appointed in conflict with EU law and who are currently members of this Chamber, whose method of appointment and awarded special powers do not give a guarantee of an independent trial and an impartial court to the accused in the meaning of Article 19(1) TEU;
  2. the immediate reinstatement (and the right to full compensation) of the judges who were unlawfully suspended by the Disciplinary Chamber (for applying the judgments of the CJEU and the ECtHR or for issuing independent judgments), who are victims of the breaches of the rule of law in Poland by the current authorities and are the true defenders of the functioning of the European legal order in our country, in particular by ruling out the need for them to apply for reinstatement before people who, in accordance with the now well-established case law of the CJEU and the ECtHR, as well as the judgments of the Polish Supreme Court, do not provide a guarantee of an independent and impartial court (before so-called neo-judges);
  3. the restoration of the guarantee of independent disciplinary proceedings for Polish judges, in particular by removing provisions from the applicable law that provide for the possibility of prosecution on disciplinary grounds for contesting the status of incorrectly appointed judges or the legitimacy of a constitutional body of the Republic of Poland, i.e. the provisions of the so-called Muzzle Act that were contested within the framework of the infringement procedure (C-204/21).  

 

We would like to point out that the Act amending the Act on the Supreme Court and Certain Other Acts of 26 May 2022, which was passed by the Polish Sejm in accordance with the presidential bill (which will now be processed by the Polish Senate), contains cosmetic changes to the current provisions and does not satisfy the expectations formulated in October 2021 by the EC (arising from the July CJEU rulings) to the slightest extent.  This Act:

 

  1. only provides for the ostensible liquidation of the Disciplinary Chamber, because a Chamber of Professional Liability is to be established in its place, the method of establishment and operation of which will create a repetition of the same objections from the point of view of EU law that have already been repeatedly formulated by the European Courts in a number of judgments, including C-204/21 R and C-791/19.  The new Chamber will again be staffed by people appointed in a procedure which does not guarantee independence and impartiality (so-called neo-judges) and, furthermore, the Polish President will play a decisive role in their appointment, which constitutes an unauthorised abuse of powers and interference by the executive in the shape of the judiciary, namely a gross breach of the separation of powers and therefore of the fundamental principles specified in Article 2 TEU.  Consequently, Polish lawyers, including judges, will continue to be subject to disciplinary proceedings before a body that does not have the features of an independent and impartial court, which, as the practice of recent years has shown, leads, among other things, to the unjustified repression of the independent judiciary;
  2. does not provide for the obligation to reinstate judges who have been unlawfully suspended by the Disciplinary Chamber, envisaging a procedure before the newly created Chamber of Professional Liability, which does not guarantee an independent and impartial judgment in the cases of the suspended judges, nor does it provide for a deadline by which these judges are to be reinstated.  As a result, the judges who have, by all accounts, demonstrated the most respectable behaviour, risking their careers and exposing themselves to repressions and harassment for defending the principles laid down in Articles 2 and 19 TEU, will now have to undergo a humiliating procedure before a body appointed in the same defective manner, with the added likelihood that members of the current Disciplinary Chamber will participate in their cases;
  3. does not provide for an amendment that would realistically restore the functioning of an independent and impartial disciplinary system for judges, preventing the inadmissible influence of the executive on such proceedings, in particular, the so-called Muzzle Act has not been removed from the system (the provision of Article 107 § 1, item 3, by which an act of a judge questioning whether another judge is in office, whether the appointment of a judge is effective or whether a constitutional body of the Republic of Poland is empowered is considered a disciplinary offence), the exclusions from the list of disciplinary offences include the examination of whether the requirements of independence and impartiality have been satisfied, but the ordinary courts have not been included in this (and so, if a judge of an ordinary court performs such an examination of independence, for instance,  as a result of a party’s motion to remove a judge, he will be liable for committing a disciplinary offence) and, furthermore, a new disciplinary offence called ‘denial of administering justice’ has been introduced (meaning that, if a judge refuses to adjudicate with a defectively appointed judge, he may be held liable on disciplinary charges for this).

 

These are only some of the reservations to the enacted law according to the presidential bill.  However, they demonstrate that the changes are cosmetic and ostensible and under no circumstances bring about the implementation of the above CJEU judgments.

 

Invariably, the source of problems with the functioning of the Polish judiciary is the new National Council of the Judiciary (the so-called neo-NCJ), which was appointed defectively, is deprived of independence and has a decisive role in shaping the executive and legislative powers, which the current ruling party appointed for another 4-year term of office, completely disregarding the European legal order, including the judgments of the CJEU (starting with the judgment in the A.K. case C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18), the ECtHR and the Polish Supreme Court.  Therefore, we are repeating our appeal for the earliest possible referral of the complaint in the case of the regulations on the neo-NCJ to the CJEU in the infringement procedure, with a request for security (an interim measure).

 

Partners of the Justice Defence Committee (KOS):

 

Professor Zbigniew Hołda Association

 

Polish Judges’ Association “Iustitia” Association of Judges “THEMIS”

 

“Lex Super Omnia” Association of Prosecutors Free Courts Initiative

 

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights

 

Institute for Law and Society INPRIS

 

Wiktor Osiatyński Archive

 

Amnesty International Poland

 

Civil Development Forum (FOR)

 

Polish National Association of Judges of Administrative Courts

 

Presidium of the Judges’ Cooperation Forum

 

Bar Association “Defensor Iuris”



Author


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


More

Published

May 30, 2022

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional TribunalPolandjudgesdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroCourt of Justice of the EUNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionMałgorzata ManowskaAndrzej DudaCourt of JusticeIgor TuleyaEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary systemMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiMateusz MorawieckiCJEUmuzzle lawCommissioner for Human RightsNational Recovery PlanAdam BodnardemocracyWaldemar ŻurekPrzemysław Radzikcriminal lawpresidential electionselectionsKamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerPiotr Schabmedia freedomneo-judgeselections 2023judiciaryFirst President of the Supreme Courtpreliminary rulingsSupreme Administrative CourtHungaryelections 2020K 3/21Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaNational Council for JudiciaryharassmentJulia PrzyłębskaProsecutor 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 expressiondisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanMałgorzata GersdorfSejmMaciej Ferekfreedom of assemblyconditionalityLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeJustice FundNational ProsecutorPiSStanisław PiotrowiczAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPresident of the Republic of PolandIustitiacourtsTHEMISimmunityAnna 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 ŁętowskaStrategic 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 ZubikDidier ReyndersSLAPPOKO.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 Baszuk