Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamber to euthanise the Supreme Court’s own resolution


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


The “Muzzle Act” takes effect 14 February. Public opinion is focused on the Disciplinary Chamber, but it is the Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamber that will serve to smother oversight of judges recommended by the new National Council of the Judiciary. This chamber will accept all relevant motions and simply leave them unexamined. In addition, any resolutions it passes will be binding on the entire Supreme Court.

text by Dominika Sitnicka


On Tuesday 4 February 2020, President Andrzej Duda signed what is being referred to as the Muzzle Act. It will come into force a mere 7 days after its promulgation, on 14 February. A Valentine’s Day present for judges.


The obvious aim of the legislation is to prevent Polish courts from examining the legitimacy of judges appointed in the procedure before the new National Council for the Judiciary, which would in consequence constitute an examination of the independence of the Council itself.


Hence the provisions in the Act to extend the disciplinary responsibility of judges for:


    – “acts or omissions likely to obstruct or significantly impede the functioning of the justice system”;


    – “actions calling into question the existence of a judge’s employment relationship or the effectiveness of his appointment”.


Despite repressions ramping up even before the adoption of the law, courts in Poland continue to engage in such review. The Muzzle Act therefore introduces an additional provision that is intended to make it impossible to examine the independence of judges and the Council by even those courts which, adhering to the opinions of the CJEU and the Supreme Court, would decide to do so without concern for the risk of disciplinary liability.


In addition, a provision has been included in the act which opens the door for one of the Supreme Court’s new chambers to abolish the resolution of the combined chambers of the Court, adopted 23 January.


Where do things stand? Chambers in conflict


In the resolution of 23 January, the three combined “old” chambers of the Supreme Court stated that panels containing judges who were appointed in proceedings before the new Council, which is without its independence, are unlawful or may turn out to be unlawful. Therefore:


    – Supreme Court judges who were recommended by the new National Council of the Judiciary should be excluded from adjudication;


    – Common courts judges may be charged with procedural irregularities under the relevant provisions of criminal and civil procedure.


However, a court of appeal examining such a charge will not automatically declare such a judge unfit to rule, but will verify whether there were indeed irregularities in proceedings before the new Council, and will verify whether these irregularities affected the content of the ruling that was made.


The Disciplinary Chamber ignored the resolution of the merged Supreme Court chambers and after 23 January continued its work as if nothing had happened.


The Chamber of Extraordinary Control, which was also set up by the Law and Justice government and which is entirely composed of judges who underwent the procedure before the new Council, took a different approach. These judges have respected the resolution of the Supreme Court and are abstaining from adjudicating.


Since 23 January, sessions and hearings of the Chamber of Extraordinary Control have been suspended. Officially, this was for reasons unrelated to the resolution, but in cases forwarded to the Chamber and requiring rapid resolution because of statutory time-limits, judges from the Criminal Chamber ruled. The President of the Chamber of Extraordinary Control, Joanna Lemańska, filed such a motion to the First President of the Supreme Court, Małgorzata Gersdorf.


However, the judges of the Chamber of Extraordinary Control are of a different opinion regarding the impact of the CJEU judgment of 19 November and the possibility of examining the procedure before the new Council. In a resolution of 8 January 2020, an enlarged panel of judges of the Chamber of Extraordinary Control ruled that the independence of the National Council of the Judiciary and proceedings before it can be reviewed only when considering a judge’s appeal against a resolution by the Council, and only until the moment the President appoints the judge.


This was a definite narrowing of the scope of judicial review compared to the decision of the Labour Law and Social Security Chamber of the Supreme Court on 5 December 2019. This led Małgorzata Gersdorf to file a motion to the combined chambers of the Supreme Court, which led to the resolution of 23 January.


The fact that the judges of the Chamber of Extraordinary Control, despite obvious differences of opinion, acknowledge this resolution and are refraining from adjudicating, is an expression of their legalistic approach. Unlike the Disciplinary Chamber, they respect the legal principles of the Supreme Court of which they are part.


Power in the hands of the Chamber of Extraordinary Control


Meanwhile, in the so-called Muzzle Act, the legislator granted further powers to the Chamber of Extraordinary Control. These powers address the core of the dispute that arose between the Polish justice system and the Law and Justice government.


According to Article 26 of the Supreme Court Act, as amended by the Muzzle Act, it is the Chamber of Extraordinary Control to which will be addressed all cases in which motions or statements were submitted concerning “the disqualification of a judge or the designation of the court before which proceedings are to be conducted, including the charge of the lack of independence of the court or the lack of independence of the judge”.


This is a quite clever trick. We know that the government was seeking to stop such oversight, hence the provisions prohibiting the undermining of another judge’s status. Ultimately, the Muzzle Act introduces disciplinary responsibility for “reviewing the effectiveness of the appointment of a judge” (according to the resolution of the Supreme Court, this is not questioning the appointment itself and the status of the judge, but there is no doubt that this will be assessed by disciplinary officers following the wishes of the Ministry of Justice).


But what to do if an appellate court has the courage to review the independence of a court or of a judge following the procedure set out in the Supreme Court’s resolution?


The authorities have found a workaround: under the amendments to the law on the Supreme Court, the court will be obliged to refer the case to the Chamber of Extraordinary Control.


Will a common court be able to ignore such a provision? It is difficult to say – after all, it does not directly contradict the CJEU judgment, as it theoretically leaves intact the possibility of examining judicial independence. But this will be done by a new Chamber of the Supreme Court. And paragraph 3 of the amended Article 26 imposes on that same Chamber an obligation to leave a motion without further consideration “if it involves the determination and assessment of the lawfulness of the appointment of a judge or his authority to perform judicial tasks”.


However, even without such a provision, it is more than likely that the Chamber of Extraordinary Control would leave such cases unreviewed. As we know, in its resolution of 8 January it presented a very narrow interpretation of the CJEU judgment, narrower than that provided for in the resolution of the Supreme Court.


Subsequent paragraphs of Article 26, added in the course of legislative work on the Muzzle Act, also introduce a new type of complaint about the unlawfulness of a final judgment. It is, of course, to apply to rulings in which “the illegality consists in undermining the status of a person appointed to hold office as a judge who issued a ruling in the case.”


Interestingly, the original institution of an application for a declaration of unlawfulness, which comes from civil procedure, assumes that such a complaint is filed when a party has been harmed. Here, however, “it is not necessary to demonstrate any damage caused by the ruling to which the complaint relates.”


This means that all such cases will go straight to the Chamber of Extraordinary Control, which will not even bother to investigate their circumstances, but will simply automatically rule on their illegality. And behind these applications will be the Prosecutor General, Zbigniew Ziobro.


Chamber of Extraordinary Control – a court unto itself


As we know, for the time being the Chamber of Extraordinary Control refrains from adjudicating because it respects the resolution of the Supreme Court. But there are provisions in the new law stating that in cases concerning the independence of judges and the independence of the court, resolutions of thar Chamber are binding on all panels of the Supreme Court.


The Chamber of Extraordinary Control is not bound by resolutions of other compositions of the Supreme Court, even if those resolutions the force of a legal rule.


What does this mean?


This means that theoretically, after the law comes into force, the Chamber of Extraordinary Control can convene and adopt a resolution, even one similar to its resolution of 8 January. Such a resolution would again state that it is not allowed to examine the appointment procedure of a judge before the new National Council of the Judiciary if the President has already appointed that judge. And it would invalidate the Supreme Court resolution of 23 January.


But the Chamber is not adjudicating. For now.


Yet, to pass a resolution, you have to be able to adjudicate. The second possibility, therefore, is for the Chamber of Extraordinary Control to recognise that with the entry into force of the law, the new rules for being bound by resolutions apply to cases before the adoption of that law. And simply recognise that they are not bound by the resolution of the Supreme Court of 23 January, or by any other resolution of the Supreme Court on this matter.


It should be kept in mind that the decision of the Constitutional Tribunal is also on the horizon, which on March 3 will announce a verdict on a spurious competence dispute. Its content is predictable.


Perhaps the Chamber of Extraordinary Control will simply wait for this judgment, which would mean that it will return to adjudication after 3 March. It will then pass a resolution and start assuming all cases concerning the independence of courts.


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



February 12, 2020


Supreme CourtConstitutional TribunalDisciplinary ChamberPolandjudgesdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of Justice of the EUjudicial independenceEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaCourt of JusticeEuropean Court of Human RightsMinister of JusticeIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemAdam Bodnarmuzzle lawJarosław KaczyńskiNational Recovery PlanCJEUMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human Rightsneo-judgesCourt of Justice of the European UniondemocracyPrzemysław RadzikWaldemar ŻurekNational Council for Judiciarypresidential electionselectionselections 2023disciplinary commissionercriminal lawJulia PrzyłębskaPiotr SchabKamil Zaradkiewiczmedia freedomharassmentpreliminary rulingsHungarySupreme Administrative Courtelections 2020K 3/21Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickajudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme CourtŁukasz PiebiakprosecutorsPresidentRecovery FundBeata MorawiecPaweł JuszczyszynProsecutor GeneralMichał Lasotafreedom of expressionMaciej NawackiEuropean Arrest WarrantSejmprosecutionCOVID-19Regional Court in KrakówCriminal ChamberNational ProsecutorConstitutionPrime MinisterMinistry of JusticecourtsMałgorzata GersdorfMarek SafjanEU budgetdisciplinary liability for judgesMaciej FerekOSCEWojciech HermelińskiExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberIustitiacriminal proceedingsWłodzimierz WróbelVenice Commissionconditionality mechanismAleksander StepkowskiTHEMISLabour and Social Security ChamberStanisław BiernatPiScommission on Russian influenceStanisław PiotrowiczPresident of the Republic of PolandNCJimmunityconditionalityAnna DalkowskaJustice FundcorruptionLaw and JusticeNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europefreedom of assemblyKrystian MarkiewiczreformsReczkowicz and Others v. PolandKrzysztof Parchimowiczacting first president of the Supreme Court2017policeSenateAndrzej Zollmedia independenceSLAPPdefamationStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationLGBTJustice Defence Committee – KOSEwa ŁętowskaDidier ReyndersFreedom HouseAmsterdam District CourtMay 10 2020 electionsXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandOrdo IurisPresident of PolandAndrzej StępkaBroda and Bojara v PolandSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramPiotr GąciarekJarosław WyrembakPM Mateusz MorawieckiArticle 7Next Generation EUConstitutional Tribunal PresidentUrsula von der LeyenLex DudaTVPmediaLex Super OmniaProfessional Liability ChamberreformJarosław DudziczK 7/21National Reconstruction PlansuspensionparliamentChamber of Professional LiabilityEAWArticle 6 ECHRP 7/20Supreme Court PresidentLech GarlickiMichał WawrykiewiczabortionPiotr PrusinowskiNational Electoral Commissionelectoral codeJanusz NiemcewiczTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaStanisław RymarMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaKazimierz DziałochaBogdan ŚwięczkowskiNetherlandsAndrzej MączyńskiMarek MazurkiewiczvetoStefan JaworskiMirosław GranatOLAFBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaViktor OrbanJózef IwulskiMaciej MiteraSLAPPsjudcial independenceWojciech ŁączkowskiAdam JamrózPATFoxFerdynand RymarzKonrad WytrykowskiRafał Puchalskismear campaignmilestonesKrakówMarzanna Piekarska-Drążekstate of emergencyUkraineelectoral processBelaruscourt presidentsAdam SynakiewiczXero Flor v. PolandAstradsson v Icelandright to fair trialEdyta BarańskaJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraCentral Anti-Corruption BureauJakub IwaniecsurveillancePegasusDariusz DrajewiczJoanna Misztal-KoneckaCivil ChamberK 6/21Wojciech MaczugaSzymon Szynkowski vel SękDariusz ZawistowskiOKO.presselections integrityelections fairnessMarek ZubikBohdan ZdziennickiMirosław WyrzykowskiSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczPiotr TulejaJerzy StępieńAndrzej RzeplińskitransparencyMariusz KamińskiMaciej Taborowskiinsulting religious feelingsPaweł Filipekpublic mediaMariusz MuszyńskiKrystyna PawłowiczlexTuskcourt changesMarek PietruszyńskiMichał LaskowskiSupreme Audit Officeabuse of state resourcesLaw on the NCJEuropean ParliamentJarosław GowincoronavirusRussiaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczFree Courts11 January March in WarsawCCBEPiebiak gatehuman rightsrecommendationC-791/19Human Rights CommissionerMarcin WarchołLGBT ideology free zonesreportEuropean Association of JudgesPiotr Pszczółkowskiretirement agedecommunizationGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgesintimidation of dissentersdemocratic backslidingpublic opinion pollZiobroEU law primacyMarian BanaśThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europecriminal codeBelgiumlex NGOEwa Wrzosekcivil societytransferAdam Tomczyńskimedia pluralismBohdan Bieniek#RecoveryFilesFrans TimmermansLIBE Committeerepairing the rule of lawUS Department of StateMarcin KrajewskiKarolina Miklaszewska2018NGOFull-Scale Election Observation MissionODIHRNations in TransitStanisław ZabłockiPetros TovmasyanJerzy KwaśniewskiPiotr MazurekGrzegorz PudaNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeWiesław KozielewiczChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakCouncil of the EURafał LisakMichał DworczykWojciech Sadurskidefamatory statementsRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtC-619/18Rights and Values Programmejudgepress releaseAntykastalex WoślegislationCourt of Appeal in KrakówPutinismKaczyńskiPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderekct on the Protection of the PopulatioWorld Justice Project awardStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiEmilia SzmydtTomasz SzmydtE-mail scandalAndrzej SkowronKasta/AntykastaKatarzyna Chmuraadvocate generalGrzegorz FurmankiewiczMarek JaskulskiEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaSwieczkowskiDworczyk leaksMałgorzata FroncHater ScandalAleksandra RutkowskaGeneral Court of the EUArkadiusz RadwanLech WałęsaWałęsa v. Polandright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawpilot-judgmentDonald Tusk governmentRafał WojciechowskiDobrochna Bach-Goleckalex RaczkowskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActdisinformationCT Presidentfundamental rightsNational Broadcasting Councilelection fairnessequal treatmentcivil lawMarcin MatczakDariusz KornelukNational School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (KSSiP)codification commissiondelegationsWatchdog PolskaDariusz BarskiLasotapopulismState TribunalRadosław BaszukAction PlanJustice MinistryVěra JourováDonald Tuskjustice system reformAnti-SLAPP Directiveinsultgag lawsuitsstrategic investmentinvestmentlustrationJakub KwiecińskidiscriminationAct on the Supreme Courtelectoral commissionsEuropean Court of HuKrzysztof RączkaPoznańTomasz Koszewskitest of independenceSebastian MazurekElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikJoanna Scheuring-WielgusoppositionThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentAdam Gendźwiłłtransitional justiceDariusz DończykKoan LenaertsKarol WeitzZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaCourt of Appeal in WarsawOsiatyński'a ArchiveEUUS State DepartmentAssessment Actenvironmentextraordinary commissionWhite PaperKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiREuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFJustyna WydrzyńskaAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszJoanna KnobelCrimes of espionageJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiMarek Piertuszyńskihate speechhate crimesmedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandPrzemysław CzarnekJacek CzaputowiczMarcin RomanowskiElżbieta KarskaPrzemysła Radzikmedia lawRafał TrzaskowskiSobczyńska and Others v PolandTelex.huJelenForum shoppingFirst President of the Suprme CourtEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian KaletaOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeC-156/21C-157/21foreign agents lawArticle 2Rome IIJózsef SzájerChamber of Extraordinary VerificationKlubrádióequalityGazeta WyborczaLGBT free zonesPollitykaBrussels Ilegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekAK judgmentautocratizationMultiannual Financial FrameworkOpenbaar MinisterieRegional Court in Amsterdamabortion rulingArticle 10 ECHRprotestsinterim measuresLeszek MazurIrena MajcherAmsterdamLMmutual trustthe Regional Court in Warsawpublic broadcasterUnited NationsForum Współpracy Sędziówthe NetherlandsDenmarkact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsNorwegian fundsNorwayKraśnikOmbudsmanKarlsruheAusl 301 AR 104/19SwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońC-487/19GermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUIrelandMarek AstLSOright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman Giertychtrans-Atlantic valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinancelawyersMirosław Wróblewskirepressive actborderprimacyEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej RutkiewiczAct of 20 December 2019Amnesty InternationalJacek SasinEvgeni TanchevKochenovPechPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryFreedom in the WorldECJErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitFrackowiakDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandRzeszówKoen LenaertsharrassmentOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeinfringment actionHudocPKWKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr BurasLeon KieresIpsosEU valuesNational Prosecutor’s OfficeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOlsztyn courtPrzemysła CzarnekEducation MinisterENCJauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258postal voteTVNjournalistslexTVNEwa MaciejewskaGerard BirgfellerPolish mediaAlina CzubieniakSimpson judgmentpostal vote billclientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officeresolution of 23 January 2020Polish National FoundationLux VeritatisMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykIsrael