Further repressions against justices for posing question of law to Supreme Court

Share

Journalist covering law and politics for OKO.press. Previously journalist at Gazeta Wyborcza, Rzeczpospolita, Polska The Times, Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.

More

Disciplinary officer Przemysław Radzik has brought disciplinary charges for violating the dignity of the office of judge and accused two justices of abuse of power for implementing a CJEU verdict. This is punishment for their courage in querying the legality of the new National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ) and of the judges promoted by it. Radzik is also seeking to suspend both judges.



Some background:

 

Judges repressed for implementing CJEU verdict

 

Alongside the two judges from Katowice, other justices have already begun paying their price in the form of disciplinary charges brought against them for implementation of the CJEU verdict and questioning the legality of the NCJ and Supreme Court Disciplinary Chamber:

 

1. Judge Paweł Juszczyszyn from Olsztyn, the first judge in Poland to implement the CJEU verdict. He demanded that the Chancellery of the Sejm present the list of signatures submitted in support of candidates to the new NCJ.

 

2. Judges from the District Court in Kraków. Prior to the CJEU verdict, Rafał Lisak, Wojciech Maczuga, and Kazimierz Wilczek sought to determine the status of a magistrate who issued a verdict in the first instance. They inquired whether he had been appointed by the new NCJ, and merely for this question they were brought up on disciplinary charges. It then turned out that the magistrate had been appointed by the old, legitimate NCJ.

 

3. Judge Krystian Markiewicz of Katowice, the head of Iustitia. He has been charged with 55 disciplinary offences for a letter addressed to judges in which he questioned the legality of the new NCJ and Disciplinary Chamber. The attack on Markiewicz was designed for maximum impact because of his position as the leader of Iustitia, the largest association of judges in Poland and an active defender of judicial independence. Nevertheless, judges refused to be frightened by the number of charges.

 

4. Judge Anna Bator-Ciesielska from the Warsaw District Court. Her disciplinary charges stem from her refusal to adjudicate in a case with disciplinary officer Przemysław Radzik, and for querying his status as a delegated judge. In this case, Judge Bator-Ciesielska applied to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. She did not want to adjudicate with Radzik because of his name appearing in the context of a smear campaign involving the Ministry of Justice. On 6 December she was charged with 5 disciplinary offences, including for speaking to the press.

 

More repressions against judges

 

The disciplinary officer nominated by Zbigniew Ziobro initiated with lightening speed disciplinary proceedings against Judges Aleksandra Janas and Irena Piotrowska from the Court of Appeals in Katowice.

 

Apparently, the matter was so urgent that he had to issue the charges against them on Sunday 15 December.

 

Deputy disciplinary officer Przemysław Radzik accused the judges of “committing a disciplinary offence.”

 

Let’s look at a fragment of the charges to understand their astonishing logic.

 

The judges, according to Radzik “on 11 December 2019 in Katowice violated the dignity of their office in the following manner: as public functionaries acting as the chair and member, respectively, of the judicial panel ruling in the case before the Court of Appeals in Katowice (…) abused their office by granting themselves the authority to determine and assess the activity of constitutional authorities of the state as concerns the mode of selection of some members of the National Council of the Judiciary, as well as the mode of appointment of the judge-rapporteur in the case [in which the two judges were adjudicating – editor’s note] and judge of the Court of Appeals in Katowice (…) and participated in the issuing of a motion to apply to the Supreme Court for a ruling on a question of law whose content constitutes unlawful interference in the legal mode of appointing justices to judicial panels.”

 

Judges Aleksandra Janas and Irena Piotrowska were members of a judicial panel along with Judge Grzegorz Misina, who was promoted to the Court of Appeals by the new and unconstitutionally formed National Council of the Judiciary. This panel was supposed to rule on 11 December concerning an appeal against a divorce verdict of the District Court in Gliwice.

 

But both judges had doubts as to whether Judge Misina was eligible to adjudicate as a properly appointed judge. That is why they asked the Supreme Court to rule on the status of the judge nominated by the new NCJ and whether he could issue legal judgements. Judge Misina submitted a dissenting opinion.

 

The next day, the disciplinary officer initiated an investigation into the case. On the same day, both judges posed four similar legal questions to the Supreme Court.
In Przemysław Radzik’s opinion, by exercising their right to file such motions to the Supreme Court, the judges from Katowice may have even violated the Polish Constitution, which states that the President appoints judges. He also accuses them of exceeding their authority in violation of Art. 231 of the Criminal Code.

 

Article 231 of the Criminal Code reads:

 

• 1. A public servant who, in exceeding his authority or failing to perform his duties, acts to the detriment of a public or private interest shall be subject to the penalty of imprisonment for a term of up to 3 years.
• 2. If the offender committed the offence defined in § 1 in order to acquire personal and/or material benefits, he shall be subject to the penalty of imprisonment for a term of between 1 and 10 years.
• 3. If the offender responsible for the offence defined in § 1 acted involuntarily and caused significant harm, he shall be subject to a fine, restriction of freedom, or imprisonment for a term of up to 2 years.
• 4. The provisions of § 2 shall not apply if the conduct meets the criteria of the criminal act defined in Art. 228.

 

The allegation is not accidental, because it means the disciplinary case will be reviewed by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court – appointed by the new NCJ and comprised mainly of former collaborators of Justice Minister Ziobro. The disciplinary spokesman stresses that the judges acted “to the detriment of the public interest in the form of the proper functioning of the judiciary”.

 

Radzik will also ask the Disciplinary Chamber to suspend both judges in their duties until the proceedings are resolved by the Chamber.

 

The actions by Ziobro’s appointee come as no surprise. The current authorities do not want the legitimacy of the new National Council of the Judiciary and Disciplinary Chamber to be undermined. And the examination of their legality was ordered by the CJEU in a recent judgment. Therefore, the authorities are going to war with independent judges, seeking to punish them for their independence and expel them from their profession. For months now, the repressions have been affecting rebellious judges in the form of disciplinary proceedings.

 

The authorities of PiS are also seeking to silence them by forcing through an unconstitutional and repressive law that would impose severe sanctions on judges and subject them to harassment for their independence, including for examining the legality of the new NCJ and the Disciplinary Chamber. This law is intended to stifle the independence of judges and subjugate them to the authorities.

 

[translated by Matthew La Fontaine]



Author


Journalist covering law and politics for OKO.press. Previously journalist at Gazeta Wyborcza, Rzeczpospolita, Polska The Times, Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.


More

Published

December 18, 2019

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandrule of lawZbigniew Ziobrojudicial independenceCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean CommissionNational Council of the JudiciaryjudgesEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeMałgorzata ManowskaAndrzej DudaIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemCommissioner for Human RightsEuropean Court of Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeMateusz MorawieckiJarosław Kaczyńskipresidential electionsjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsdemocracyK 3/21muzzle lawHungaryelections 2020Kamil ZaradkiewiczBeata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsWaldemar Żurekdisciplinary commissionerEuropean Arrest WarrantProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19Julia PrzyłębskaPresidentmedia freedomfreedom of expressionCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynNational Public ProsecutorPiotr SchabPrzemysław Radzikcriminal proceedingsPrime Ministerfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorelectionsWojciech HermelińskiStanisław PiotrowiczAndrzej ZollMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsBroda and Bojara v Polandmedia independenceAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczTHEMISMaciej NawackiEAWmediaimmunityAnna DalkowskaCouncil of Europe2017policeFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaArticle 7Venice CommissionWłodzimierz WróbelPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaP 7/20Justice FundPiSC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesSejmXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandReczkowicz and Others v. PolandIustitiaKrystian MarkiewiczMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramdefamationcourtsEwa WrzosekEU law primacyTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independencedemocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetoJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJJustice Defence Committee – KOSrecommendationTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiHuman 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 ParliamentOKO.pressZiobroMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiPiotr Gąciarekhuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyneo-judgescoronavirusXero Flor v. PolandEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej Rutkiewiczresolution of 23 January 2020K 6/21Mirosław WróblewskiCivil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaLeon Kieresright to protestSławomir JęksaPKWWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMariusz Kamińskiinfringment actionsurveillanceEU valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauENCJJacek SasinErnest Bejdalex NGOThe First President of the Supreme Courtcivil societyMaciej CzajkaRussiaMariusz JałoszewskiIsraelŁukasz Radkeforeign agents lawpolexitNational Recovery PlanK 7/21Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechcriminal codeGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawPrzemysła RadzikSenateMarcin WarchołElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsC-487/19Article 6 ECHRArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieUrsula von der LeyenAK judgmentSimpson judgmentForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited NationsLeszek 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 WyborczaUS 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 WawrzykharrassmentMarian BanaśAlina CzubieniakSupreme Audit OfficeTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediapostal voteKrakówRzeszówDagmara Pawełczyk-Woickaborderpostal vote billprimacy