Legalisation of the National Council of the Judiciary by the Constitutional Tribunal cancelled Is it for fear of Polexit?

Share

Leading journalist and commentator on legal affairs in Poland, a columnist for Polityka weekly. Her latest book ‘Sędziowie mówią. Zamach…

More

‘Why was the hearing cancelled? Either there is a problem with the unanimity of the judges, while the Tribunal likes to speak as one in political matters, or the leaders of the party and the government stopped the consideration of the case, fearing a suspected Polexit.’ argues Ewa Siedlecka in her article



The Constitutional Tribunal’s hearing of the petition from the new National Council of the Judiciary (KRS) to recognise the KRS as having been illegally elected was cancelled. It was planned for 3 January 2019. It had to be cancelled by the chairperson of the hearing, Julia Przyłębska in this case. The outcome was a certainty, as the hearing was planned with five judges, three of whom had ruled a year earlier that the KRS can be elected by members of parliament.
  
What happened? Nobody knows. The Sejm and the Attorney General expressed their opinions, but, in contrast with previous practice, the Tribunal did not publish those opinions on its website. The Sejm’s opinion is available on the Sejm’s website, although it was not submitted to the Constitutional Tribunal, but, according to ‘Gazeta Wyborcza’, this cannot serve as the formal grounds for postponing the hearing. The parliamentary majority (Law and Justice, PiS) claims the election of the judges to the KRS by MPs is in line with the Constitution, whereas the regulations on the right of a participant of the respective contest to appeal against a decision of the KRS are in breach of the Constitution.
  
If they nevertheless appeal, the court considering such an appeal is not allowed to suspend the other stages of the process, i.e. the President’s appointment of nominees elected by the KRS to the office of judges. This was done by the Supreme Administrative Court when the Court was considering appeals of several candidates to the Supreme Court, but the President ignored this ruling and appointed the nominees elected by KRS. The Sejm suggests discontinuation of the other parts of the complaint. The spokesperson of the State Attorney’s Office, Ewa Bialik, confirmed that the opinion of the Attorney General had been prepared, but she believes it can only be disclosed by the Constitutional Tribunal. And this did not happen.
  
Related content: Almost 3,000 Polish judges want the dismissal of the new National Council of the Judiciary. This is one third of all judges
  

Is this a unanimity issue or a signal from the party leaders?

  
We can only try to guess the reasons for cancelling the hearing on the basis of the previous activity of the Tribunal after the ‘good change’: either this is an issue of unanimity of the judges (the petition by the KRS applies to several provisions), and the Tribunal likes to speak as one in political matters, or the leaders of the party and the government indicated to the Tribunal that it should freeze the consideration of this case.
  
The KRS itself petitioned the Tribunal to rule that it is unconstitutional so that the Tribunal would rule the opposite, certifying that it is legal and capable of continuing to exist. Why would PiS waive this blessing, after it had taken over the Constitutional Tribunal to ensure that it certifies any doubtful or unconstitutional ideas? Why not use the Tribunal’s services in this case? PiS does not want to, as we can see, even by the fact that the petition to the Tribunal came from the KRS itself and not from PiS MPs. Even so, this is bizarre – an institution questioning its own legal status! Perhaps the KRS, despite being related to PiS itself, acted too quickly and prepared the petition without consulting the party?
  

More space for the government

 
From PiS’ point of view, the lawfulness of the appointment of the KRS is not a necessity. The Council’s objective is to appoint the right judges. Meanwhile, the members of the KRS may feel discomfort from other judges constantly questioning their legal status, e.g. in multiple resolutions of assemblies refusing to cooperate with KRS on opinions regarding candidates for court vacancies. Their position is also questioned by judicial organisations and the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary, which resolved to suspend  the Polish KRS’ membership.
  
Perhaps the hearing at the Constitutional Tribunal was cancelled because PiS is anxious not to be accused of initiating a Polexit before the elections. It should be reiterated that the European Court of Justice will rule in March/April on the lawfulness of the appointment of the KRS (while considering the requests of the Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court for preliminary rulings). If the Polish Constitutional Tribunal were to rule that the establishment of the KRS was not in breach of the Polish Constitution, whereas the Court of Justice were to rule that it was in breach of the Treaty on the European Union, the PiS government would face a real dilemma: whether to recognise the supremacy of the Polish Constitution by withdrawing from the Treaty or to accept the Court’s ruling, which would look as if it was depreciating the Polish Constitution. Perhaps this is why the ‘good-change’ Tribunal resolved not to rule on the case too early, leaving the government with greater freedom to act.
  

KRS operates as if nothing happened

  
Regardless of the reasons for cancelling the hearing planned for Thursday, the KRS, which questioned its own legal status, should not hold any further contests for positions of judges and should refrain from all activities whatsoever. This was exactly why the Constitutional Tribunal set the date of the hearing particularly quickly: a month after the petition was filed. Meanwhile, no hearing will now be held and the KRS should not take any action either. Even so, the KRS is still working: it issued the notorious ’pants resolution’ as an interpretation of the code of ethics forbidding judges from using symbols related to social movements. The resolution was approved after KRS’ petition questioning its own right to act as the National Council of the Judiciary was filed. And it is still working undisturbed: issuing opinions on legal acts and organising contests for judges. Judges who take part in such contests are also aware that they are taking part in a procedure that is being held by an institution that considers itself illegal. This is a sign of extreme contempt for the rule-of-law.
  
Ewa Siedlecka is a journalist and commentator for ‘Polityka’ weekly, specialising in law. She recently wrote the book ‘Sędziowie mówią. Zamach PiS na wymiar sprawiedliwości’. (The voice of judges. Law and Justice’s coup against the judiciary’. This text was published on her Conservative Blog.



Author


Leading journalist and commentator on legal affairs in Poland, a columnist for Polityka weekly. Her latest book ‘Sędziowie mówią. Zamach…


More

Published

January 3, 2019

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional TribunalPolandjudgesdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroCourt of Justice of the EUNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionMałgorzata ManowskaAndrzej DudaCourt of JusticeIgor TuleyaEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary systemMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiMateusz MorawieckiCJEUmuzzle lawCommissioner for Human RightsNational Recovery PlanAdam BodnardemocracyWaldemar ŻurekPrzemysław Radzikcriminal lawpresidential electionselectionsKamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerPiotr Schabmedia freedomneo-judgeselections 2023judiciaryFirst President of the Supreme Courtpreliminary rulingsSupreme Administrative CourtHungaryelections 2020K 3/21Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaNational Council for JudiciaryharassmentJulia PrzyłębskaProsecutor GeneralprosecutorsŁukasz PiebiakMichał LasotaBeata MorawiecPaweł JuszczyszynCourt of Justice of the European UnionPrime MinisterPresidentConstitutionCOVID-19European Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiCriminal ChamberRegional Court in KrakówRecovery FundExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberEU budgetfreedom of expressiondisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanMałgorzata GersdorfSejmMaciej Ferekfreedom of assemblyconditionalityLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeJustice FundNational ProsecutorPiSStanisław PiotrowiczAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPresident of the Republic of PolandIustitiacourtsTHEMISimmunityAnna DalkowskaNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsStanisław Biernatconditionality mechanismWłodzimierz WróbelLabour and Social Security Chambercommission on Russian influence2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiNational Electoral CommissionJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsPresident of PolandLGBTXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. Polandmedia independenceKrystian MarkiewiczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczMichał WawrykiewiczArticle 6 ECHREAWUrsula von der LeyenTVPmediaLex Super OmniaLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationAndrzej StępkaPiotr GąciarekcorruptionP 7/20K 7/21Lex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanProfessional Liability ChambersuspensionparliamentJarosław DudziczChamber of Professional Liabilityelectoral codePiotr Prusinowskidemocratic backslidingdecommunizationLaw on the NCJrecommendationHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europepublic opinion pollreportEuropean ParliamentZiobrointimidation of dissenterstransferretirement agePiebiak gatehuman rightsEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawcoronavirusC-791/19Piotr PszczółkowskiGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaJarosław GowinLGBT ideology free zonescriminal codeSenateZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczMarcin WarchołdefamationFree CourtsEwa WrzosekEU law primacyAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej MiteraViktor OrbanOLAFNext Generation EUvetoabortionJózef IwulskiTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiMarek MazurkiewiczAndrzej MączyńskiJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław RymarFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskiBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersSLAPPOKO.pressDariusz ZawistowskiMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiMarian BanaśSupreme Audit OfficeAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyKrakówXero Flor v. PolandAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Civil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaPegasusMariusz KamińskisurveillanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraEdyta Barańskaright to fair trialUkraineKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecDariusz DrajewiczRafał Puchalskismear campaignmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentMarzanna Piekarska-Drążekelectoral processWojciech Maczugapublic medialexTuskcourt changeselections integrityelections fairnessabuse of state resourcesPATFoxpopulismequal treatmentfundamental rightsCT PresidentEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justice2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUStanisław ZabłockiLIBE CommitteeFrans TimmermansUS Department of StateSwieczkowskiadvocate generalpress releaseRights and Values ProgrammeC-619/18defamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardWojciech SadurskijudgePechKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakAmnesty Internationaltrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote billresolution of 23 January 2020Leon KieresPKWinfringment actionEU valuesENCJIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawPrzemysła RadzikElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsC-487/19Article 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentSimpson judgmentForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited NationsLeszek Mazurinterim measuresautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingproteststhe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europemedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióGazeta WyborczaPollitykaBrussels IRome IIArticle 2Forum shoppingtransparencyEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian KaletaC-156/21C-157/21Marek PiertuszyńskiNational Prosecutor’s OfficeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOlsztyn courtPrzemysła CzarnekEducation MinisterIpsosOlimpia Barańska-MałuszeHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr Burasauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258clientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's OfficePolish National FoundationLux VeritatisMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykTVNjournalistslexTVNPolish mediaRzeszówborderprimacyEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej RutkiewiczMirosław Wróblewskiright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMichał WośMinistry of FinanceJacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryMarek AstCourt of Appeal in KrakówPutinismKaczyńskiPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderekct on the Protection of the Populatiolegislationlex WośRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtAntykastaStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczKatarzyna ChmuraGrzegorz FurmankiewiczMarek JaskulskiJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaKasta/AntykastaAndrzej SkowronŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiEmilia SzmydtTomasz SzmydtE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał Dworczykmedia pluralism#RecoveryFilesrepairing the rule of lawBohdan BieniekMarcin KrajewskiMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsWiesław KozielewiczNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeGrzegorz PudaPiotr MazurekJerzy KwaśniewskiPetros Tovmasyancourt presidentsODIHRFull-Scale Election Observation MissionNGOKarolina MiklaszewskaRafał LisakMałgorzata FroncJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiSebastian MazurekElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikSzymon Szynkowski vel SękJoanna Scheuring-Wielgusinsulting religious feelingsoppositionAdam GendźwiłłDariusz Dończyktest of independenceTomasz KoszewskiJakub KwiecińskidiscriminationAct on the Supreme Courtelectoral commissionsEuropean Court of HuKrzysztof RączkaPoznańKoan LenaertsKarol WeitzKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiRThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFJustyna WydrzyńskaAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszJoanna KnobelCrimes of espionageextraordinary commissionZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaCourt of Appeal in WarsawOsiatyński'a ArchiveUS State DepartmentAssessment Actenvironmentinvestmentstrategic investmentgag lawsuitslex RaczkowskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActdisinformationNational Broadcasting Councilelection fairnessDobrochna Bach-GoleckaRafał WojciechowskiAleksandra RutkowskaGeneral Court of the EUArkadiusz RadwanLech WałęsaWałęsa v. Polandright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawpilot-judgmentDonald Tusk governmentSLAPPscivil lawRadosław Baszuk