Gersdorf makes her move. Three Supreme Court chambers to rule on dodgy judicial nominations

Share

Journalist at OKO.press and Archiwum Osiatyńskiego

More

On 23 January, a panel composed of three chambers of the Supreme Court will decide whether judges nominated by the new, politicized National Council of the Judiciary should be allowed to adjudicate. The “legacy” justices of the Supreme Court in the Civil, Criminal, and Labour Law chambers were asked by First President of the Supreme Court Małgorzata Gersdorf to rule on the issue. Their resolution will be binding on the Supreme Court.



“Today, Professor Małgorzata Gersdorf, First President of the Supreme Court, decided to present three combined chambers of the Supreme Court – the Civil Chamber, Criminal Chamber, and Labour Law and Social Security Chamber – with a question of law concerning divergent jurisprudence in the Supreme Court,” said Judge Michał Laskowski at a press conference held on 15 January.

 

The three chambers of the Supreme Court, staffed in the main by judges appointed prior to the “good change” PiS government, have been asked by First President Gersdorf to determine what will happen with the judges recommended by the newly constituted National Council of the Judiciary.

 

The question concerns judges appointed to common courts, military courts, and the Supreme Court.

 

The three chambers are to decide whether those justices’ participation in court proceedings constitutes a violation of the provisions of the Polish constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Treaty on European Union, and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

 

Under Art. 87 of the Supreme Court Act, resolutions adopted by combined chambers automatically acquire the status of legal principle, making it binding on all adjudicating panels of the Supreme Court.

 

The session is to be held on Thursday, 23 January 2020, at 11:00am, in what represents a rapid reaction by the Supreme Court.

 

“Considering the general situation, ongoing legislative work, and the pace of work in other chambers, this can hardly be considered unnecessary haste. This is an extraordinary situation. In the face of constant questions from common courts, divergent jurisprudence, and the weight of the issue, it is crucial to seek a quick solution, while of course remaining conscious of the weight of the decision,” Laskowski explained.

 

Divergent jurisprudence between the “old” and “new” chambers

 

In her justification to the motion, First President Gersdorf reminds that the provisions of the Supreme Court Act allow for a question of law to be posed to any panel of justices with a view to ensuring “consistency of jurisprudence.”

 

This consistency has gone missing in recent verdicts and resolutions adopted by the particular chambers of the Supreme Court following the 19 November judgement of the EU Court of Justice. The CJEU, responding to a request for a preliminary ruling, instructed the Supreme Court to assess for itself whether the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court and the newly constituted National Council of the Judiciary are independent entities.

 

On 5 December, the Labour Law and Social Security Chamber, which posed the question, ruled that they were not. The ruling emphasized that the guidelines for a review of independence as set out by the CJEU verdict are binding on all countries, all courts, all bodies involved in applying the law. Not only on courts referring questions.

 

But already on 8 January 2020 a resolution to the contrary was passed by a seven-member panel of the Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamber. Only judges appointed by the new National Council of the Judiciary sit in this Chamber.

 

The Chamber stated that the independence of the Council can be examined only when individual appeals against its resolutions are considered. But this is possible only until the President appoints a judge.

 

In her application, First President Gersdorf also invoked the famous resolution of the full Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, itself composed exclusively of “new judges.” On 10 April 2019, the Chamber “legalised” itself in a move to pre-empt the CJEU judgment.

 

The session on 23 January 2020 is to involve only “old” Supreme Court justices.

 

“New judges from the Disciplinary and Extraordinary Control Chambers will not be attending for a simple reason. This issue is directly related to their status. Madam First President invokes the time-tested maxim that judges may not rule in their own case,” Michał Lisowski explains.

 

“An outstanding issue is that of participation in the hearing by the seven new justices adjudicating in the Civil Chamber and their voting in the case,” he added.

 

Resolve doubts

 

First President Gersdorf’s decision is good news for defenders of the rule of law, who appealed for putting an end to confusion that followed the CJEU’s November judgment.

 

At the end of December 2019, legal experts Michał Ziółkowski and Michał Krajewski wrote about the risk of discrepancies in the judgements of individual CJEU chambers.

 

“In our opinion, the Supreme Court verdict of 5 December 2019 demonstrated the strength of Hercules. But to ensure the legal security of citizens, the Supreme Court should take advantage of its competence to adopt interpretative resolutions. Such a resolution would remove any remaining doubts and indicate the path to be taken by judges in lower instance courts,” the lawyers wrote.

 

“It could be undertaken on an application by the First President of the Supreme Court (e.g., a panel composed of the combined chambers which have never been the subject of misgivings: the Civil, Criminal, and Labour Law and Social Security chambers),” they suggested.

 

First President Gersdorf filed precisely this application in the Supreme Court.



Author


Journalist at OKO.press and Archiwum Osiatyńskiego


More

Published

January 16, 2020

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