“Constitutional Tribunal has virtually been abolished,” announce retired judges

Share

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

More

Twenty-two former members of the Constitutional Tribunal, including eight retired presidents and vice-presidents, say the court has ceased to perform its constitutional tasks and duties. They note the pending spurious dispute on the Supreme Court resolution, and particularly the participation of two former MPs in the bench, that compromise the court’s independence.



What follows is the English translation of an open letter penned by retired judges of Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal.

 

We, the undersigned retired judges of the Constitutional Tribunal, regret to state that the actions of the legislature and the executive since 2015, and the Constitutional Tribunal leadership since 2017, have led to a dramatic decline in the significance and the prestige of this constitutional body, as well as to the inability to perform its constitutional tasks and duties. Unfortunately, the widespread belief that the Constitutional Tribunal has virtually been abolished is correct.

 

The alleged, spurious dispute over authority which is now pending, between the Supreme Court on one side, and the Sejm and the President of the Republic on the other, is a recent striking example which must be added to the long list of breaches of law on the organisation and the mode of proceedings before the Constitutional Tribunal. The full bench, which is to rule in this case, contains two newly elected judges who were actively involved in the legislative process of the Law amending the Act on the National Council of the Judiciary and certain other acts. The provisions of this law form a main part of the reasoning of the request to settle the dispute.

 

More precisely:

 
– Stanisław Piotrowicz chaired the sittings of the Justice and Human Rights Committee of the Sejm on 28 November and 6 December 2017, and also spoke on the proposal several times. During the second reading of the bill, at a plenary session, he gave a long speech in favour of the draft law.

 

– Krystyna Pawłowicz, the judge-rapporteur, spoke about the proposal several times during the sitting of the Justice and Human Rights Committee on 28 November 2017.

 

On 8 December 2017, during the third reading of the bill, both Krystyna Pawłowicz and Stanisław Piotrowicz voted in favour of the draft law as a whole, including the adopted amendments, according to the wording included in Sejm paper no. 2070, i.e. the law which they are to examine as Constitutional Court judges.

 

It must be recalled that pursuant to Article 38(2) and (3) of the Act of 30 November 2016 on the organisation and the mode of proceedings before the Constitutional Tribunal: “a judge of the Tribunal shall also be excluded from the Tribunal’s consideration of a case if he or she […] participated in the issuing of a normative act, a judgment, an administrative decision, or another determination, which are referred to in para 1(1) and (2), and this may raise doubts as to the judge’s impartiality”, and “in the situations referred to in para 2, a judge of the Tribunal shall be excluded from the Tribunal’s consideration of a case if it is deemed probable that there are circumstances which may raise doubts as to the impartiality of the judge”.

 

The participation of the two mentioned judges in the panel of the Constitutional Tribunal, one in particular as a judge-rapporteur, is a flagrant breach of the cited provisions, including in the light of the Tribunal’s case-law (see in particular order of 17 July 2003, case K 13/02).

 

Stanisław Biernat (2008–2017, Vice-President 2010–2017)
Teresa Dębowska-Romanowska (1997–2006)
Lech Garlicki (1993–2001)
Mirosław Granat (2007–2016)
Wojciech Hermeliński (2006–2015)
Adam Jamróz (2003–2012)
Biruta Lewaszkiewicz-Petrykowska (1997–2006)
Wojciech Łączkowski (1989–1997)
Ewa Łętowska (2002–2011)
Marek Mazurkiewicz (2001–2010, Vice-President 2010)
Andrzej Mączyński (1997–2006, Vice-President 2001–2006)
Małgorzata Pyziak-Szafnicka (2011–2020)
Ferdynand Rymarz (1993–2001)
Andrzej Rzepliński (2007–2016, President 2010–2016)
Marek Safjan (1997–2006, President 1998–2006)
Jerzy Stępień (1999–2008, President 2006–2008)
Piotr Tuleja (2010–2019)
Sławomira Wronkowska-Jaśkiewicz (2010–2019)
Mirosław Wyrzykowski (2001–2010)
Bohdan Zdziennicki (2001–2010, President 2008–2010)
Andrzej Zoll (1989–1997, President 1993–1997)
Marek Zubik (2010–2019)

 

10 February 2020



Author


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


More

Published

February 11, 2020

Tags

Supreme Courtdisciplinary proceedingsDisciplinary Chamberrule of lawjudicial independencePolandEuropean CommissionConstitutional TribunaljudgesCourt of Justice of the EUZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of JusticeEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaIgor TuleyaMałgorzata Manowskadisciplinary systemMinister of JusticeCommissioner for Human Rightspresidential electionsjudiciarypreliminary rulingsdemocracyCJEUmuzzle lawJarosław Kaczyńskielections 2020Beata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsHungaryEuropean Arrest WarrantMateusz MorawieckiAdam BodnarCOVID-19Kamil ZaradkiewiczEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary commissionerPresidentfreedom of expressioncriminal lawOSCENational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberProsecutor GeneralSupreme Administrative CourtconditionalityConstitutionCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJNational ProsecutorelectionsMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsWaldemar Żurekmedia independenceAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczEAWmediaPaweł JuszczyszynimmunityAnna DalkowskaCouncil of EuropePrime Minister2017freedom of assemblyJulia PrzyłębskaFreedom HouseVenice CommissionEU budgetWłodzimierz WróbelPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaMinistry of JusticeC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionWojciech HermelińskiAndrzej ZollMarek SafjanGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesAleksander StepkowskiPresident of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesSejmMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramdefamationTHEMISMaciej NawackiTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan ŚwięczkowskiPiotr SchabPrzemysław Radzikdemocratic backslidingViktor OrbandecommunizationNext Generation EUvetopoliceJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJLech GarlickirecommendationHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeSupreme Court Presidentreportmedia freedomArticle 7European ParliamentZiobroconditionality mechanismMichał LaskowskiMarek Pietruszyńskihuman rightsEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawcoronavirusPiSresolution of 23 January 2020Stanisław PiotrowiczPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakLeon KieresPKWinfringment actionEU valuesENCJlex NGOcivil societyRussiaIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtPresident of the Republic of PolandLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechcriminal codeGrzęda v PolandXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara 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 judgmentEU law primacyForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited Nationsjudcial independenceLeszek MazurMaciej Miterapopulisminterim measuresOLAFautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingequal treatmentabortionprotestsfundamental rightsthe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońCT PresidentGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUJustice Defence Committee – KOSC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeEUStanisław BiernatTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaWhite PaperKazimierz DziałochalustrationMirosław Granattransitional justiceAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiEwa ŁętowskaMarek MazurkiewiczAndrzej MączyńskiJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław Rymarpublic opinion pollFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiJerzy Stępień2018Piotr TulejaNations in TransitSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczCouncil of the EUMirosław WyrzykowskiBohdan ZdziennickiMarek Zubikmedia taxStanisław Zabłockiadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerDidier ReyndersKlubrádióSLAPPLIBE 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 StatetransferK 3/21PechOlsztyn courtKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakretirement ageAmnesty InternationalŁukasz PiebiakPiebiak gatetrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakJustice FundGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote bill