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 Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandZbigniew Ziobrorule of lawEuropean CommissionjudgesCourt of Justice of the EUjudicial independenceNational Council of the JudiciaryEuropean 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 JudiciaryPresidentfreedom of expressionŁukasz PiebiakCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawdisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanMałgorzata GersdorfAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynAnna DalkowskaNational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetWłodzimierz WróbelCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorDagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaStanisław 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 StępkaRecovery 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 MuszyńskiRegional Court in KrakówPiebiak gatehuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencycoronavirusXero 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 MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited 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 voteKrakówRzeszówborderpostal vote billprimacy