Kaczyński details PiS plans for “vetting” Polish judges after Sunday’s election

Share

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

More

The head of the ruling Law and Justice party (PiS) has stated that the ruling party will complete its “reform” of the justice system, overcoming what he calls “the last barrier”. Kaczyński invokes the Polish constitution, which provides mechanisms for the reorganization of the courts. In practice, this will mean a vetting of all judges in the country and the removal of those who fail to toe the line.



During a 7 October television appearance on Polsat News, Law and Justice chairman Jarosław Kaczyński said that the completion of justice system “reforms” was on the cards. The conversation touched on the PiS programme and the party’s plans following a predicted victory in the Sunday 13 October parliamentary elections.

 

Kaczyński was asked why the state remains inefficient, proof of which was said to be long queues in the courts and the health service.

 

“As for the courts, (…) there have been difficulties with implementing reforms, despite their being fully compliant with the Polish constitution,” Kaczyński replied. In his opinion, the problem lies with “difficulties of an international nature”.

 

He then announced the impending completion of the court system “reforms” after the elections.

 

“If we receive a mandate from society, we will return to the subject. We have a firm basis for doing so. Article 180, point 5, paragraph 5 of the Constitution gives us the full right to conduct such reforms. And we will invoke this article, we will get it done. Without a deep reform of the courts, a general renovation of the state, it’s very difficult, because this is something like the last barrier, the last level of decision-making in many matters, and not only those related to civil or criminal matters, but also administrative ones,” the head of PiS emphasized.

 

This declaration is key, because in it Jarosław Kaczyński confirms rumours swirling around the justice system for over a year.

 

Reorganization through liquidating the existing courts

 

The endgame is a large-scale reorganization of the common courts – district, region, and appellate – which will enable a full vetting and purge of the judicial cadre, today numbering around 10,000 judges.

 

On Polsat News, Kaczyński invoked Article 180 of the Polish Constitution. Paragraph 1 states “Judges shall not be removable”. But in Paragraph 5 we read that “Where there has been a reorganization of the court system or changes to the boundaries of court districts, a judge may be allocated to another court or retired with maintenance of his full remuneration”.

 

Article 180 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland

 

Principle of judicial irremovability

 

1. Judges shall not be removable.

 

2. Recall of a judge from office, suspension from office, transfer to another bench or position against his will, may only occur by virtue of a court judgment and only in those instances prescribed in statute.

 

3. A judge may be retired as a result of illness or infirmity which prevents him discharging the duties of his office. The procedure for doing so, as well as for appealing against such decision, shall be specified by statute.

 

4. A statute shall establish an age limit beyond which a judge shall proceed to retirement.

 

5. Where there has been a reorganization of the court system or changes to the boundaries of court districts, a judge may be allocated to another court or retired with maintenance of his full remuneration.

 

[source: Official Sejm website at https://www.sejm.gov.pl/prawo/konst/angielski/kon1.htm]

 

It is no secret that the Minister of Justice and Prosecutor General, Zbigniew Ziobro, is planning to take advantage of this opportunity. How? The Ministry of Justice is considering the option of abolishing the current system based on three levels of courts and creating a system comprised of two new courts.

 

New regional courts will replace the existing appellate and district courts, while new district courts will replace the existing regional courts. In addition, the status of all judges, regardless of their rank, will be realigned. There will be only common courts judges who can adjudicate in both of the new courts.

 

These plans for reorganization of the courts were leaked in March 2019 to the “Rzeczpospolita” Polish daily.

 

Interestingly, for the first time the chief of Law and Justice has mentioned administrative courts in the context of the reorganization, which may mean that “reform” plans will be extended to these courts as well.

 

So far, PiS has not attacked administrative courts and has not included them in plans for changes to the judiciary. Recently, however, the administrative courts, which were initially far removed from what the authorities were doing with the court system, have also begun to defend the Constitution and hand down rulings unfavourable to the ruling party.

 

The final battle for control of the courts

 

Reorganisation of the courts would open the door to a vetting of all judges in Poland, because the procedure would require them to be reappointed to the bench and to the new courts.

 

The experience of the public prosecutorial service gives us a clue as to what this vetting would look like. In order to sack experienced prosecutors, PiS eliminated the Office of the Prosecutor General and Regional Prosecutors’ Offices, i.e. the two highest levels in the prosecutorial service.

 

In their place, the National and Appellate Prosecutors’ Offices were established. This necessitated a new recruitment procedure. As a result, independent prosecutors were removed as well as those whom the current authorities do not trust. They have been downgraded, often to the lowest level in the prosecutor’s office, that of district prosecutor. The same can happen with judges.

 

What is all this for? By reorganising everything in a single stroke, the current government can take control of the courts and decide who will adjudicate. This is a means of ridding the courts of independent judges, who today defend the independence of the judiciary and openly criticise Zbigniew Ziobro.

 

After the reorganisation, independent judges can be given a choice: take early retirement or remain on the bench with further consequences. These consequences include demotion to the lowest court level, being relocated to a court on the other side of the country, or one far away from home, as well as disciplinary proceedings. It may also be the case that there will not be enough posts in the new courts and the unbowed judges will not be appointed to them at all.

 

Exiling people to work far away from home is already a practice engaged in by the current authorities in the prosecutorial service. Judges are harassed by mountains of disciplinary proceedings initiated by the chief disciplinary spokesman, appointed by Zbigniew Ziobro.

 

If Law and Justice succeeds with its plans for reorganization, the disciplinary proceedings will remain for the most rebellious judges who defend their independence to the end. At OKO.press, the former Minister of Justice, Zbigniew Ćwiąkalski, spoke about what the reorganisation will mean in practice (read in Polish at OKO.press).

 

Will the EU block changes to the courts?

 

But it doesn’t have to be this way. Everything depends on the response by the European Union and the EU Court of Justice, to which judges file motions for preliminary rulings. The EU possesses instruments for blocking the exchange of judges. It can exert political pressure on the Polish government, and can also invoke financial sanctions, such as by blocking disbursements of EU funds.

 

At present there is only talk, as no decision has yet been made to link funds with the criterion of adherence to the rule of law. The reaction by the EU to changes in the justice system is what Kaczyński referred to on Polsat News as “difficulties of an international nature”.

 

So far, the current authorities have taken over the courts in stages. First, they neutralized the Constitutional Tribunal, which had the power to block legislation advanced by PiS.

 

The next stage was the dissolution of the “old”, legitimate National Council of the Judiciary, which makes decisions about promotion of judges and used to be responsible for protecting the independence of the courts. PiS appointed a new Council, populated primarily by individuals ready to cooperate with the current ruling party. And it was after the appointment of this Council that previously frozen recruitment proceedings were restarted to fill vacancies in courts. Now, trusted judges are frequently promoted. Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro also purged the chief justices of courts, appointing in their place people in his trust.

 

The attempt at taking over the courts was stymied when it reached the Supreme Court. Faced by mass protests, Law and Justice abandoned its exchange of “old” Supreme Court judges, but did appoint two new chambers. One of them, the Disciplinary Chamber, is a tool for helping remove rebellious judges, prosecutors, and lawyers from the legal profession.

 

In the run-up to the elections PiS sought to calm emotions surrounding the justice system. Yet the disciplinary spokesman continues his work, persecuting independent judges with disciplinary proceedings. The final stage in the takeover of the courts – what Jarosław Kaczyński called “the last barrier” – is a large-scale reorganization and vetting of judges.

 

This will give the ruling party almost total control over the state.

 

[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

October 9, 2019

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandZbigniew Ziobrorule of lawEuropean CommissionjudgesCourt of Justice of the EUNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaIgor TuleyaEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary systemMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiWaldemar Żurekdemocracymuzzle lawpresidential electionsPiotr SchabjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020Kamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerBeata MorawiecPrzemysław RadzikFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsMichał LasotaEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiPrime MinisterJulia Przyłębskamedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19electionsNational Recovery PlanNational Council for JudiciaryPresidentSupreme Administrative Courtfreedom of expressionŁukasz PiebiakCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawDagmara Pawełczyk-Woickadisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanMałgorzata GersdorfAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynAnna DalkowskaNational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamberconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetWłodzimierz WróbelCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorStanisław PiotrowiczJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisK 7/21May 10 2020 electionsLex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandSejmXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v Polandmedia independenceIustitiaJarosław DudziczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczArticle 6 ECHRTHEMISEAWUrsula von der LeyenChamber of Professional LiabilitymediaimmunityCouncil of Europe2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaRegional Court in KrakówRecovery FundP 7/20Justice Fundneo-judgesPiSC-791/19National Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Piotr PszczółkowskiPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaProfessional Liability ChamberJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikorasuspensionJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesReczkowicz and Others v. PolandUkraineKrystian MarkiewiczKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczDariusz DrajewiczRafał PuchalskidefamationcourtsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekEwa WrzosekEU law primacyTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej Miterademocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetoJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJrecommendationTeresa 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 RzeplińskiJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskireportBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersEuropean ParliamentOKO.pressZiobroMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskitransferPiotr GąciarekKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiPiebiak gatehuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyKrakówcoronavirusXero Flor v. PolandEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej Rutkiewiczresolution of 23 January 2020Mirosław WróblewskiCivil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaLeon Kieresright to protestSławomir JęksaPKWWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMariusz Kamińskiinfringment actionsurveillanceEU valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauENCJJacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiIsraelŁukasz Radkeforeign agents lawpolexitDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościLGBT free zonesAct sanitising the judiciaryequalityMarek AstMaciej FerekChamber of Extraordinary VerificationEdyta Barańskahate crimesCourt of Appeal in Krakówhate speechPutinismcriminal codeKaczyńskiGrzęda v Polandright to fair trialPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasŻurek v PolandMałgorzata Wąsek-WiaderekSobczyńska and Others v Polandct on the Protection of the PopulatioparliamentlegislationRafał Trzaskowskilex Wośmedia lawRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtPrzemysła RadzikAntykastaSenateStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczMarcin WarchołKatarzyna ChmuraElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiGrzegorz FurmankiewiczJacek CzaputowiczMarek JaskulskiPrzemysław CzarnekJoanna Kołodziej-Michałowiczlegislative practiceEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaENAPaweł StyrnaZbigniew BoniekKasta/AntykastaAndrzej SkowronŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoOmbudsmanMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiKraśnikEmilia SzmydtNorwayTomasz SzmydtNorwegian fundssmear campaignNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał DworczykC-487/19media pluralism#RecoveryFilesArticle 10 ECHRmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentRegional Court in Amsterdamrepairing the rule of lawharassmentOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentBohdan BieniekSimpson judgmentMarcin KrajewskiForum Współpracy SędziówMałgorzata Dobiecka-Woźniakelectoral processChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairspublic broadcasterWiesław KozielewiczNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeGrzegorz PudaPiotr MazurekJerzy Kwaśniewskimutual trustPetros Tovmasyancourt presidentsLMelections 2023ODIHRIrelandFull-Scale Election Observation MissionNGOIrena MajcherWojciech MaczugaAmsterdamKarolina MiklaszewskaRafał LisakMałgorzata FroncJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiSebastian Mazurekthe Regional Court in WarsawElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikUnited NationsLeszek Mazurpopulisminterim 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 StatePechOlsztyn courtKochenovPrzemysła CzarnekEvgeni TanchevEducation MinisterFreedom in the WorldECJIpsosFrackowiakOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeretirement ageAmnesty InternationalHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr Bogdanowicztrans-Atlantic valuesPiotr BurasLSOauthoritarian equilibriumlawyersArticle 258Act of 20 December 2019clientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officerepressive actPolish National FoundationLux VeritatisKoen LenaertsMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykharrassmentMarian BanaśAlina CzubieniakSupreme Audit OfficeTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediapostal voteRzeszówborderpostal vote billprimacy