Donald Tusk Gives Green Light for Selection of Neo-Judge as Chair of the Civil Chamber Assembly of the Supreme Court

Share

Co-founder of the Rule of Law in Poland and the Wiktor Osiatyński Archive, rule of law monitoring projects. Doctor of…

More

Donald Tusk has countersigned President Duda's decree appointing a neo-judge as the chairperson of the Assembly of Judges of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, which is tasked with electing a new Chief Justice of the Chamber. “Supreme Court judges are devastated and stunned. They feel betrayed,” comments Krystian Markiewicz, President of Iustitia.



On Tuesday, August 27, the Polish Monitor (Monitor Polski) published a decree by President Andrzej Duda regarding the appointment of the chairperson of the Assembly of Judges of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court. The neo-judge Krzysztof Andrzej Wesołowski, appointed by the President, will lead the assembly that will select candidates for the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, overseeing the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court.

 

The decree bore the countersignature of Prime Minister Donald Tusk. The judicial circles opposing the judicial reforms implemented by the Law and Justice Party (PiS) reacted with outrage to the Prime Minister’s decision.

 

What is the issue?

 

At the end of September 2024, the three-year term of the current Chief Justice of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, neo-judge Joanna Misztal-Konecka, will expire. The regulations introduced by the PiS government are designed to ensure that among the three candidates the assembly of judges must present to the President, there is always at least one neo-judge.

 

As reported by Mariusz Jałoszewski in mid-August, there have been several attempts to select candidates for the new Chief Justice, but all assemblies have ended in failure. Legal judges are boycotting the elections, unwilling to vote alongside neo-judges, especially given that the President is expected to choose a neo-judge anyway.

 

The list of candidates for the new Chief Justice includes only neo-judges – Marcin Łochowski, Marcin Krajewski, and Joanna Misztal-Konecka. As Misztal-Konecka is running for a second term, she cannot lead the electoral assembly as the current Chief Justice because she is a candidate herself. Consequently, the President must appoint the chairperson of the electoral assembly, as stipulated by the Supreme Court Act.

 

However, for the President’s appointment of the chairperson to be valid, it required the Prime Minister’s countersignature. President Andrzej Duda’s decree dates from August 17, and it was published in the Monitor Polski with Donald Tusk’s signature on August 27.

 

What if there had been no countersignature?

 

If the Prime Minister had not provided the countersignature, the President would not have been able to appoint the chairperson of the assembly. In such a case, as Joanna Misztal-Konecka’s term would end in September, the duties of Chief Justice would be assumed by the most senior judge heading one of the civil chamber’s departments (also a neo-judge). However, this person would only serve as acting Chief Justice until an assembly could be convened to elect three candidates. This scenario presumed that such an election might occur following a change in the presidency in 2025. In contrast, the Prime Minister’s countersignature paves the way for the election of a neo-judge as Chief Justice for the next three years immediately.

 

Donald Tusk’s decision to countersign the President’s decree regarding the Supreme Court coincides with the selection of a candidate for the European Commissioner. On August 13, the Prime Minister publicly announced that the government’s proposal would be the candidacy of Piotr Serafin, Acting Permanent Representative of Poland in Brussels. According to the PiS-enacted so-called competency law, the Prime Minister needs the President’s signature for such a proposal. The President’s Office announced on August 16 that Andrzej Duda had agreed to Piotr Serafin’s candidacy. A few days later, Onet reported a confidential meeting between the Prime Minister and the President.

Judges’ Outrage

“The situation is a complete surprise. An extremely negative surprise. Firstly, on October 15, the Coalition Prime Minister appoints a neo-judge to any position together with the President. Secondly, this decision paves the way for the re-election of a neo-judge as Chief Justice of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court. Instead of working towards resolving the massive problem with the Supreme Court, Donald Tusk is temporarily cementing PiS’s judicial pathology in the Supreme Court with this countersignature,” said Krystian Markiewicz, President of Iustitia, in an interview with OKO.press.

 

“Judges of the Civil Chamber have effectively blocked the election of the Chief Justice in recent months. They assumed, as a certainty, that the Prime Minister of a government that talks about restoring the rule of law would not agree to such a joint initiative with President Duda. No one even warned them, no one consulted with them. The Supreme Court judges are devastated, stunned. They feel betrayed. I hope this is only a mistake and not deliberate policy. I hope that talks between the government and the judges will commence soon.”

 

Supreme Court Judge, Prof. Włodzimierz Wróbel from the Criminal Chamber, also commented on the matter via social media:

 

“At first, I was convinced this was too improbable to be possible. Yet, it is happening. When politicians took control of the Supreme Court, the President appointed a commissioner from among the neo-judges to conduct the vote for Prof. M. Manowska, whom he intended for the position of First President of the Supreme Court. For the validity of President Duda’s decision, the agreement of Prime Minister M. Morawiecki was required. Of course, there was no issue with this agreement.

 

But for the current Prime Minister to endorse the same maneuver with his signature, allowing political nominees of the previous government to retain control over one of the most important parts of the Supreme Court?

 

The President appointed a commissioner to conduct the election of the Chief Justice of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, an illegally appointed neo-judge. Without the Prime Minister’s agreement and signature, such an appointment would be invalid, and President Duda could not appoint another political nominee as Chief Justice of this Chamber for the next three years.

 

But the Prime Minister agreed, allowing unconstitutional actions by the President. Restoring the rule of law.”

 

What about the Labor Chamber?

 

Judicial circles are also wondering what will happen to the Labor and Social Security Chamber of the Supreme Court. It is the last chamber of the Supreme Court where the Chief Justice is not a neo-judge. However, the term of its current Chief Justice, Judge Piotr Prusinowski, ends on September 2.

 

The candidate for the new Chief Justice of the Labor Chamber, like in the other chambers, should be designated by the Assembly of Judges of the Chamber. However, it has not been convened because the legal judges, who still have the majority in the Chamber, have declared they will not deliberate until there are changes restoring the rule of law in the Supreme Court.

 

If there is no Chief Justice in the Chamber on September 3, the law stipulates that the position will be taken over by the oldest department head of the Chamber, i.e., legal judge Dawid Miąsik. However, in this case, the President could also pave the way for the appointment of a new Chief Justice. The law amended by the PiS allows the President to appoint a temporary Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to conduct the elections for a new Chief Justice of the Chamber. But, as with the previous case, this would require the Prime Minister’s countersignature. So far, there is no information about an agreement between the Prime Minister and the President.

 

 

This article by Dominika Sitnicka appeared in OKO.press on August 27, 2024.

https://oko.press/donald-tusk-dal-zielone-swiatlo-dla-wyboru-neo-sedziego-na-prezesa-izby-cywilnej-sn



Author


Co-founder of the Rule of Law in Poland and the Wiktor Osiatyński Archive, rule of law monitoring projects. Doctor of…


More

Published

August 28, 2024

Tags

Supreme CourtPolandConstitutional TribunalDisciplinary Chamberjudgesrule of lawdisciplinary proceedingsZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaCourt of JusticeMinister of JusticeEuropean Court of Human RightsAdam BodnarIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemneo-judgesmuzzle lawCJEUJarosław KaczyńskiNational Recovery PlanMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsWaldemar ŻurekCourt of Justice of the European UnionNational Council for JudiciaryPrzemysław RadzikdemocracyPiotr Schabjudiciarypresidential electionselectionscriminal lawKamil Zaradkiewiczelections 2023disciplinary commissionermedia freedomJulia PrzyłębskaK 3/21First President of the Supreme Courtelections 2020harassmentSupreme Administrative Courtpreliminary rulingsDagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaprosecutionHungaryMichał LasotaprosecutorsBeata MorawiecRecovery FundPresidentProsecutor GeneralPaweł JuszczyszynNational ProsecutorŁukasz PiebiakConstitutionEuropean Arrest WarrantPrime Ministerfreedom of expressionMaciej NawackiCOVID-19Marek SafjanVenice CommissionSejmimmunityCriminal ChamberRegional Court in KrakówIustitiaMaciej FerekMałgorzata GersdorfreformMinistry of JusticeNCJExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberOSCEcourtsWojciech Hermelińskidisciplinary liability for judgesEU budgetcorruptionStanisław PiotrowiczNational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsCouncil of EuropeAnna DalkowskaLGBTJustice FundPresident of the Republic of PolandWłodzimierz Wróbelconditionality mechanismTHEMISKrystian MarkiewiczAleksander StepkowskiStanisław BiernatPiSreformsLaw and Justicecommission on Russian influenceLabour and Social Security ChamberJarosław Dudziczconditionalityfreedom of assemblyPresident of PolandChamber of Professional LiabilityOrdo Iurismedia independenceDidier ReyndersReczkowicz and Others v. PolandSLAPPStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationBroda and Bojara v PolandXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsSupreme Court PresidentMarcin Romanowskielectoral codeAndrzej StępkaArticle 7Piotr PrusinowskiSenateSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeTVPmediaLech GarlickiLex Super OmniapoliceabortionNext Generation EUUrsula von der LeyenEAWJustice Defence Committee – KOSAmsterdam District CourtdefamationKrzysztof ParchimowiczFreedom HouseMichał WawrykiewiczEwa ŁętowskaArticle 6 ECHRMay 10 2020 elections2017Piotr GąciarekPegasussuspensionP 7/20acting first president of the Supreme CourtNational Electoral CommissionK 7/21PM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej ZollJarosław WyrembakLex DudaProfessional Liability ChamberCivil Chamberparliamentcivil societyNational Reconstruction PlanConstitutional Tribunal PresidentAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraKrakówBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaStanisław RymarMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaJanusz NiemcewiczAndrzej MączyńskiMarek MazurkiewiczAdam Synakiewiczstate of emergencyWojciech ŁączkowskiEdyta BarańskaMirosław GranatKazimierz DziałochaJoanna Misztal-Koneckajudcial independenceMaciej MiteraDariusz KornelukViktor OrbanOLAFrestoration of the rule of lawvetoMariusz KamińskisurveillanceK 6/21Józef IwulskiAstradsson v IcelandCentral Anti-Corruption BureauPATFoxSLAPPsTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaaccountabilityUkraineKrystyna PawłowiczRafał PuchalskitransparencyDariusz ZawistowskiOKO.pressright to fair trialDariusz DrajewiczPaweł FilipekMaciej Taborowskismear campaigninsulting religious feelingsNational Prosecutor’s OfficeMariusz MuszyńskiBelaruselectoral processcourt presidentsMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekmilestonesWojciech MaczugaMichał LaskowskiMarian BanaśJakub IwaniecSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczPiotr TulejaJerzy Stępieńelections fairnessAndrzej RzeplińskiSzymon Szynkowski vel SękFerdynand RymarzInternational Criminal CourtMarek PietruszyńskiMirosław WyrzykowskiBohdan ZdziennickiXero Flor v. Polandpublic mediaSupreme Audit OfficelexTuskcourt changeselections integrityMarek ZubikKonrad Wytrykowskiabuse of state resourcesGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesEuropean ParliamentZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczMarcin Warchoł11 January March in WarsawEuropean Association of JudgesZiobroFree CourtsdecommunizationEwa WrzosekEU law primacyhuman rightsPiebiak gaterecommendationreportLaw on the NCJlex NGORussiaCCBEpublic opinion pollHuman Rights CommissionerJarosław GowinPiotr PszczółkowskiLGBT ideology free zonesC-791/19coronaviruscriminal coderetirement ageNetherlandsAdam Tomczyńskidemocratic backslidingintimidation of dissentersThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeBogdan ŚwięczkowskitransferBelgiumJoanna Scheuring-WielgusNations in TransitCouncil of the EUElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikKatarzyna ChmuraSebastian MazurekJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiLIBE Committeedefamatory statementsMałgorzata FroncRafał LisakKarolina MiklaszewskaNGOKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczIrena BochniakoppositionEuropean Court of Huelectoral commissionsAct on the Supreme CourtdiscriminationJakub KwiecińskiWorld Justice Project awardTomasz Koszewskitest of independenceDariusz DończykGrzegorz FurmankiewiczAntykastaStanisław ZdunAdam Gendźwiłł2018Wojciech SadurskiFull-Scale Election Observation MissionODIHRMarek Jaskulskirepairing the rule of lawadvocate generalpress release#RecoveryFilesmedia pluralismMichał DworczykDworczyk leaksE-mail scandalAndrzej SkowronRights and Values ProgrammeTomasz SzmydtŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoMonika FrąckowiakEmilia SzmydtSwieczkowskiKasta/AntykastaBohdan BieniekStanisław ZabłockiJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczPetros TovmasyanJerzy KwaśniewskiPiotr MazurekGrzegorz PudaNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeWiesław KozielewiczFrans TimmermansMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakUS Department of StateMarcin KrajewskiEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaC-619/18Arkadiusz CichockiCT PresidentMarcin Matczakequal treatmentNational School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (KSSiP)codification commissiondelegationsWatchdog PolskaDariusz BarskiLasotafundamental rightsState Tribunalinsultcivil lawRadosław BaszukAction PlanJustice MinistryVěra JourováDonald Tuskjustice system reformAnti-SLAPP DirectiveHater ScandalpopulismNational Council for the Judiciarycivil partnerships billKRSJudicial Reformsmigration strategyPenal CodeLGBTQ+NIKProfetosame-sex unionsKatarzyna Kotulacivil partnershipsHelsinki Foundation for Human RightsPiotr HofmańskiC‑718/21preliminary referenceEU lawethicsChamber of Professional ResponsibilityThe Codification Committee of Civil LawInvestigationPoznańKrzysztof Rączkaextraordinary commissionZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaCourt of Appeal in WarsawOsiatyński'a Archivetransitional justiceUS State DepartmentAssessment ActCrimes of espionageJoanna KnobelAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszKoan LenaertsKarol WeitzKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiRThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFJustyna Wydrzyńskaenvironmentinvestmentstrategic investmentRafał WojciechowskiAleksandra RutkowskaGeneral Court of the EUArkadiusz RadwanLech WałęsaWałęsa v. Polandright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawpilot-judgmentDobrochna Bach-Goleckaelection fairnessNational Broadcasting Councilgag lawsuitslex RaczkowskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActdisinformationlustrationWhite PaperEUDonald Tusk governmentjudgePrzemysław CzarnekJózsef SzájerRafał TrzaskowskiKlubrádióSobczyńska and Others v PolandŻurek v PolandGazeta WyborczaGrzęda v PolandPollitykaJelenmedia lawIndex.huJacek CzaputowiczElżbieta KarskaPrzemysła Radzikmedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMABrussels IRome IILGBT free zonesFirst President of the Suprme CourtBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeOlsztyn courtPrzemysła CzarnekequalityMarek PiertuszyńskiChamber of Extraordinary VerificationArticle 2Forum shoppinghate speechEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian Kaletahate crimesC-156/21C-157/21Education Ministerthe Regional Court in Warsawproteststhe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońGermanyCelmermutual trustabortion rulingLMUnited NationsLeszek MazurAmsterdamIrena Majcherinterim measuresIrelandautocratizationMultiannual Financial FrameworkC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUC-487/19Norwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsNorwegian fundsNorwayKraśnikOmbudsmanZbigniew BoniekENAArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service Actpublic broadcasterForum Współpracy SędziówSimpson judgmentAK judgmentlegislative practiceforeign agents lawrepressive actMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitLSOtrans-Atlantic valuesDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandAmnesty InternationalThe First President of the Supreme CourtErnest BejdaJacek Sasinright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychAct of 20 December 2019Michał WośMinistry of FinancelawyersFrackowiakPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikKochenovPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderekct on the Protection of the PopulatioPechlegislationlex WośKaczyńskiPutinismCourt of Appeal in KrakówMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryECJMarek AstFreedom in the WorldEvgeni TanchevRome StatuteIsraelEuropean Public Prosecutor's OfficeEU valuesPolish National FoundationLux Veritatisinfringment actionMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykPKWENCJoligarchic systemclientelismIpsosOlimpia Barańska-MałuszeHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr Burasauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258Leon Kieresresolution of 23 January 2020Telex.huEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtAlina CzubieniakMaciej RutkiewiczharrassmentMirosław WróblewskiprimacyborderGerard BirgfellerTVNjournalistslexTVNpostal vote billPolish mediapostal voteEwa MaciejewskaRzeszówKoen Lenaerts