Łętowska: A wise, forward-looking resolution by the Supreme Court

Share

Professor at the Institute of Law Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences, member of the Polish Academy of Sciences…

More

The Supreme Court’s resolution avoids the competence dispute that political decisions sought to force it into. In its resolution of 23 January, it explained what an independent court is. It also told judges to be careful when ruling, for them to be sure they and their colleagues are all above board.



On 23 January, three chambers of the Supreme Court adopted a resolution with the force of a rule of law, meaning it is binding on all chambers of the Supreme Court.

 

The Supreme Court ruled that because of the manner in which it was constituted, the present National Council of the Judiciary („the Council”) does not guarantee that an individual appointed to the bench by the President on the Council’s recommendation is a proper member of an adjudicating panel.

 

This is why the Supreme Court ruled that all panels convened by the Supreme Court are defective when they include individuals appointed based on a recommendation by the current Council. It also held that adjudicating panels in common and military courts that include individuals appointed with the recommendation of the current Council may be subject to review.

 

The Supreme Court has chosen to split the baby. To avoid legal chaos, the only verdicts subject to review will be those issued following the announcement of the resolution on 23 January with the participation of judges selected by the new Council. However, this restriction does not apply to rulings of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court.

 

On Friday 24 January, Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki filed an application with the Constitutional Tribunal for it to review the constitutionality of the provisions based on which the Supreme Court issued its resolution.

 

Yesterday, Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro said that “the Supreme Court has acted in gross violation of the law, and its so-called ‘resolution’ has no practical legal effect.” The Ministry of Justice published a statement immediately after the adoption of the resolution by the Supreme Court, in which it declared it held the resolution… invalid.

 

Supreme Court Justice Włodzimierz Wróbel explained for non-lawyers that the resolution adopted by the Supreme Court is a safety valve for judicial independence. He suggested that by issuing resolutions, the Supreme Court can only seek to calm the chaos evoked by politicians.

 

Ewa Łętowska: A wise and forward-looking resolution

 

“This is a very wise and forward-looking resolution. It clearly steps away from the competence dispute that political decisions attempted to force it into. It is clear that there is no mention of questioning the competence of the bodies listed in the application filed by Speaker of the Sejm Elżbieta Witek with the Constitutional Tribunal.

 

This is a resolution that imposes some order on the present situation, but – significantly – places the decision as to how to proceed when confronted with an improperly constituted court in the hands of the courts and the parties themselves. And the improper constitution of the court is based on the participation of judges with recommendations from the new Council. Thus, justices with recommendations from the new National Council of the Judiciary should refrain from adjudicating. If they fail to do so, the court will be improperly constituted. This should be examined ex officio, and parties will certainly seek to do so; it may also be the case that other judges, who are not “defective”, may apply to be excluded from cases involving those justices with recommendations form the new Council.

 

The status of the Disciplinary Chamber in the Supreme Court is a special issue. Earlier, on 5 December 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that it did not meet the criteria for an independent and impartial court. All of its rulings are and will be null and void, regardless of when they were issued.

 

Other judges selected with the involvement of the new Council are suspecti – their position is in doubt, but they are judges, nobody is questioning their appointment as done by the President. However, their rulings will be subject to review owing to the defective composition of the court.

 

A separate problem is that of verdicts issued prior to 23 January 2020 with the participation of judges contaminated by the involvement of the new Council in their appointment. All rulings of common courts remain in effect. The simple fact of the new Council’s presence in the process of appointing judges does not automatically lead to the defectiveness of verdicts. But if it is demonstrated (in respect of common court judges) that there are some particular circumstances related to the nomination process, then there will be a path available by which their verdicts can be questioned.

 

The Supreme Court wisely limited itself to indicating strictly procedural, judicial instruments for assessing the propriety of court compositions, placing the decisions in the hands of judges themselves.

 

In the resolution, the Supreme Court referred to the criteria of independence and impartiality of courts and judges, and clearly followed its jurisprudence in the verdict of 5 December 2019.

 

The Supreme Court has not ordered anybody to do anything. It has not struck down the muzzling law. Because this is not its place, and it will not be able to do so. It did not say that the judges who were appointed by the President with the recommendation of the new Council are not judges. It said that there are doubts as to the independence and impartiality of courts and judges, and explained how to remove those doubts. It also indicated the means available to parties and courts to defend those principles in court proceedings.

 

What consequences will result from this resolution? We shall see. Perhaps those judges will of their own accord decide that they should not issue verdicts. Or perhaps we will see further confrontation?

 

The Supreme Court did not insert itself into a competence dispute. It did not undermine the President’s judicial nominations, nor did it order the Sejm to do anything. The muzzling law passed by the Sejm today changes nothing in this respect.

 

However, the moment is a dramatic one. Without the cooperation of the legislature, who has been given a way out by passing a new law on the National Council of the Judiciary, chaos will remain. But this is not the role of the courts; rather, it is for the legislature to handle. However, if politicians continue to pursue their campaign against their co-equal branch of government, another wave of tumult awaits us. For the Supreme Court’s resolution is only a partial, fragmentary defence against that wave. We are still expecting the response of the EU Court of Justice to the complaint brought by the European Commission, as well as to motions for preliminary rulings on the Disciplinary Chamber and the nature of disciplinary proceedings.

 

In its resolution of 23 January, the Supreme Court explained what an independent court is. It also told judges to be careful when ruling, for them to be sure they and their colleagues are all above board. And if you are not careful, your rulings can be overturned on appeal, or by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said “primum non nocere” – firstly, do no harm.



Author


Professor at the Institute of Law Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences, member of the Polish Academy of Sciences…


More

Published

January 24, 2020

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