Deans of the faculties of law of 13 universities in Poland condemn the proposed changes into judiciary

Share

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

More

According to the deans of law departments of 13 universities around Poland, the bill submitted to the Sejm by Law and Justice unconstitutionally restricts the fundamental rights and freedoms of judges, as citizens of the Republic of Poland, and introduces disciplinary liability of judges for their judicial activity which is in compliance with the applicable law



The deans of the faculties of law of Poland’s most important universities issued a joint position on the members’ bill prohibiting judges from complying with the CJEU judgment and extending the disciplinary liability of judges, prosecutors and attorneys-at-law.

 

The bill, which also received a devastating assesment from the Supreme Court, was received by the Sejm at night on 12–13 December.

 

‘We consider it our duty to present our joint position to the public and to indicate to those in power in the country that passing the proposed solutions will undermine the fundamental constitutional principles on the basis of which the Republic of Poland functions, which arise from both the Constitution and European Union law.

 

The consequence of the proposed changes becoming effective will not only be the increase in the current legal chaos, but primarily the deprival of citizens of the real right to an independent and impartial hearing.

 

In its current shape, the bill is a serious threat to the functioning of a democratic state governed by the rule of law and judicial protection of individual rights, while the solutions contained in it require extensive reflection as to their potential, and largely irreversible legal effects. Its adoption may deprive the citizens of the Republic of Poland of their constitutional right to a ‘fair and public hearing of their case, without undue delay, before a competent, impartial and independent court’ (Article 45, para. 1 of the Polish Constitution),’ – write the deans.

 

The deans criticize the bill because:

  • it limits the autonomy of the judicial associations, as well as the rights of their governing bodies, to an excessive extent, expanding the powers of the bodies which are appointed by and dependent on the Minister of Justice;
  • it removes the issue of legality of the establishment and functioning of the bodies settling matters of citizens from judicial control in the situation in which the obligation to examine this arises not only from the applicable law, but also from two recent judgments, i.e. the judgment of the Supreme Court of 5 December 2019 (III PO 7/18) and the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 19 November 2019 (C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18);
  • it unconstitutionally limits the fundamental rights and freedoms of judges as citizens of the Republic of Poland, including their right to associate, their right to privacy, their right to criticize the authorities and participate in public life and their right to obtain information and freedom of expression;
  • it introduces disciplinary liability for judges for their judicial activity which is in compliance with the applicable law and enables the removal of judges from service if they directly apply the provisions of the Constitution or European Union law.
  • the bill changes the method of election of the First President of the Supreme Court, making the procedure for selecting candidates for this office similar to the constitutional procedure of electing the current President of the Constitutional Tribunal, which gives rise to serious doubts to this day.

 

The position was signed by the deans of the faculties of law of the Jagiellonian University, the University of Warsaw, the University of Silesia, the University of Wrocław, the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, the University of Gdańsk, the Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University, the University of Łódź, the University of Opole, the Catholic University of Lublin, the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, the University of Szczecin and the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań.

 

The full text of the position in Polish



Author


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


More

Published

December 18, 2019

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary Chamberdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawPolandConstitutional Tribunaljudicial independenceEuropean CommissionjudgesZbigniew ZiobroCourt of Justice of the EUNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of JusticeEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaIgor TuleyaMałgorzata Manowskadisciplinary systemMinister of JusticeCommissioner for Human RightsMateusz MorawieckiCJEUpresidential electionsEuropean Court of Human RightsjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsdemocracymuzzle lawHungaryJarosław Kaczyńskielections 2020Beata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsKamil ZaradkiewiczEuropean Arrest WarrantCOVID-19disciplinary commissionerPresidentProsecutor GeneralConstitutionfreedom of expressioncriminal lawMarek SafjanOSCEWaldemar ŻurekPaweł JuszczyszynNational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsPrime MinisterJulia PrzyłębskaExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJNational ProsecutorelectionsWojciech HermelińskiStanisław PiotrowiczAndrzej ZollMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtAleksander StepkowskiOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsmedia independenceAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczMaciej NawackiEAWmediaimmunityAnna DalkowskaPiotr SchabPrzemysław RadzikCouncil of Europe2017freedom of assemblyFreedom HouseLech GarlickiStanisław BiernatArticle 7Venice CommissionWłodzimierz WróbelPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaK 3/21P 7/20Ministry of JusticeC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionGeneral 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-AbramdefamationTHEMISTVPLex 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 Zubikmedia freedomDidier ReyndersEuropean ParliamentZiobroMichał LaskowskiMarek Pietruszyńskihuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawCourt of Justice of the European UnioncoronavirusPiSresolution of 23 January 2020Piotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakLeon 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 judgmentEU law primacyForum 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 MinisterPiotr GąciarekFreedom 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 TaborowskiharrassmentAlina CzubieniakJustice FundGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote bill