Constitutional cat-and-mouse continues with Tribunal ruling

Share

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

More

The following is an English translation of the decision taken by Poland's Constitutional Tribunal to suspend the Supreme Court resolution of 23 January.



[The Supreme Court resolution that this ruling addresses can be read here: https://ruleoflaw.pl/translation-of-polish-supreme-court-resolution-on-judicial-appointments/]

 

MONITOR POLSKI
OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND

 

Warsaw, 29 January 2020

 

Item 103

 

Case ref. Kpt 1/20

 

DECISION

 

Warsaw, 28 January 2020

 

The Constitutional Tribunal consisting of:

 

Julia Przyłębska – chairperson
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski
Leon Kieres
Mariusz Muszyński
Krystyna Pawłowicz – rapporteur
Stanisław Piotrowicz
Justyn Piskorski
Piotr Pszczółkowski
Jakub Stelina
Wojciech Sych
Michał Warciński
Rafał Wojciechowski
Jarosław Wyrembak
Andrzej Zielonacki,

 

In connection with the request of the Speaker of the Sejm of 22 January 2020, to:

 

1) resolve the competence dispute between the Sejm of the Republic of Poland and the Supreme Court regarding the matter of whether the Supreme Court is entitled to change the statutory situation regarding the structure and organisation of the justice administration by way of the resolution referred to in Article 83 § 1 of the Act on the Supreme Court of 8 December 2017 (Journal of Laws of 2019, item 825, as amended), passed in connection with a judgment of an international court or whether, pursuant to Article 10, para. 1 and 2, Article 95, para 1, Article 176, para. 2, Article 183, para 2 and Article 187, para. 4 of the Constitution, such rights remain within the exclusive competence of the lawmakers;

 

2) resolve the competence dispute between the President of the Republic of Poland and the Supreme Court regarding:

 

a) whether the competence of the President of the Republic of Poland, as referred to in Article 179 in connection with Article 144, para. 3, item 17 of the Constitution, may be understood in such a way that it is permissible to award competence to the Supreme Court or another court, which is not provided for in the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, to assess the effectiveness of the appointment of a judge and, in particular to assess the effectiveness of the award of the judge, to whom the act of nomination applies, the right to exercise judicial authority;

 

b) whether the Supreme Court can make a binding interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution in connection with the President of the Republic of Poland exercising his prerogative, as referred to in Article 144, para. 3, item 17 and Article 179 of the Constitution and, in particular, whether this court can specify what the conditions are for the effectiveness of appointing a judge;

 

decides:

 

pursuant to Article 86, para. 2 of the Act on the Organisation and Procedure of Conduct before the Constitutional Tribunal (Journal of Laws of 2019, item 2393), to temporarily regulate the disputed issues and until the case of case ref. Kpt 1/20 is settled:

 

I

 

to suspend the Supreme Court in exercising its powers to issue resolutions if they were to apply to the compliance with national law, international law and judgments of international courts of:

 

1) the formation of the membership of the National Council of the Judiciary on the basis of the Act on the National Council of the Judiciary of 12 May 2011 (Journal of Laws of 2019, item 84, as amended), as well as Article 187 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland;

 

2) the procedure of presenting candidates to the President of the Republic of Poland for holding the office of judge, regulated by the Act referred to in item 1 and Article 179 in connection with Article 144, para. 3, item 17 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland;

 

3) the President of the Republic of Poland exercising the prerogative of appointing judges in accordance with the Act referred to in item 1 and Article 179 in connection with Article 144, para. 3, item 17 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland;

 

4) the competence of a person appointed by the President of the Republic of Poland at the request of the National Council of the Judiciary appointed on the basis of the Act referred to in item 1 in accordance with the provisions of that Act and Article 179 in connection with Article 144, para. 3, item 17 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland to hold office in the position of judge;

 

II

 

withhold the application of the resolution of combined Civil, Criminal and Labour and Social Insurance Chambers of the Supreme Court of 23 January 2020 from the date of its issue. In particular, this means that:

 

1) it is inadmissible to apply Article 439 § 1, item 2 of the Criminal Procedures Code of 6 June 1997 (Journal of Laws of 2020, item 30) and Article 379, item 4 of the Civil Procedures Code of 17 November 1964 (Journal of Laws of 2019, item, 1460, as amended) in the meaning accepted in the resolution in question;

 

2) the powers of a judge appointed to office by the President of the Republic of Poland at the request of the National Council of the Judiciary appointed in accordance with the Act referred to in point 1.1 in the procedure regulated by that act to adjudicate cannot be limited;

 

3) judgments issued by benches which included the judges specified in point 2 are binding.

 

The decision was made with a majority of votes.



Author


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


More

Published

January 29, 2020

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary Chamberdisciplinary proceedingsPolandConstitutional Tribunalrule of lawjudicial independenceZbigniew ZiobroCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean CommissionjudgesNational Council of the JudiciaryEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeAndrzej DudaIgor TuleyaMałgorzata Manowskadisciplinary systemMinister of JusticeEuropean Court of Human RightsMateusz MorawieckiCJEUCommissioner for Human Rightspresidential electionsjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsdemocracymuzzle lawHungaryJarosław Kaczyńskielections 2020Beata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsKamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerEuropean Arrest WarrantConstitutionCOVID-19Waldemar ŻurekJulia PrzyłębskaPresidentProsecutor Generalfreedom of expressionK 3/21criminal lawMarek SafjanOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynNational Public ProsecutorPiotr SchabPrzemysław Radzikcriminal proceedingsPrime MinisterExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chambermedia freedomSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJCourt of Justice of the European UnionNational ProsecutorelectionsWojciech HermelińskiStanisław PiotrowiczAndrzej ZollMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtAleksander StepkowskiOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsmedia independenceAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczMaciej NawackiEAWmediaimmunityAnna DalkowskaCouncil of Europe2017freedom of assemblyFreedom HouseLech GarlickiStanisław BiernatArticle 7Venice CommissionWłodzimierz WróbelPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaP 7/20Ministry of JusticeC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesSejmBroda and Bojara v PolandMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramdefamationTHEMISEU law primacyTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskidemocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetopoliceJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJJustice Defence Committee – KOSrecommendationTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiEwa ŁętowskaHuman Rights CommissionerMarek MazurkiewiczCCBEAndrzej MączyńskiThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław Rymarpublic opinion pollFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiSupreme Court PresidentJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskireportBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersEuropean ParliamentZiobroMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiPiotr Gąciarekhuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawJustice FundAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencycoronavirusPiSEU treatiesresolution of 23 January 2020Leon KieresPKWinfringment actionEU valuesENCJlex NGOcivil societyRussiaIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechcriminal codeGrzęda v PolandXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawIustitiaKrystian MarkiewiczPrzemysła RadzikSenateMarcin WarchołElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekcourtsOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsC-487/19Article 6 ECHRArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieUrsula von der LeyenEwa WrzosekAK judgmentSimpson judgmentForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited Nationsjudcial independenceLeszek MazurMaciej Miterapopulisminterim 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 WyborczaOKO.pressUS 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 StatetransferPechOlsztyn courtKochenovPrzemysła CzarnekEvgeni TanchevEducation MinisterFreedom in the WorldKrystyna PawłowiczECJIpsosFrackowiakOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeretirement ageMariusz MuszyńskiAmnesty InternationalHudocŁukasz PiebiakRegional Court in KrakówPiebiak gateKonrad SzymańskiPiotr Bogdanowicztrans-Atlantic valuesPiotr BurasLSOauthoritarian equilibriumlawyersArticle 258Act of 20 December 2019clientelismoligarchic systemRecovery FundEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officerepressive actPolish National FoundationLux VeritatisKoen LenaertsMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiharrassmentMarian BanaśAlina CzubieniakSupreme Audit OfficeTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerEwa MaciejewskaPolish medianeo-judgespostal voteKrakówRzeszówDagmara Pawełczyk-Woickaborderpostal vote billprimacyXero Flor v. Poland