New legislation on Supreme Court published – PiS officially gives up

Share

Journalist at OKO.press and Archiwum Osiatyńskiego

More

The new Supreme Court Act came into effect on 1 January – the Supreme Court judges previously forced to retire are coming back to work. PiS ultimately gave up despite stalling for time until the last moment. Yet the fight for the rule of law continues, and Brussels has no plans to quit. In 2019, the Court of Justice will rule on the politicisation of the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS)



On 31 December 2018, the amended Supreme Court Act of 21 November was published in the official legislative gazette. By the same token, the bill drafted by MPs of Law and Justice (PiS) – considered their “surrender in the fight over the Supreme Court – came into effect on 1 January.

 

The amended act formally restores to the bench those justices of the Court who had been forced to retire. Their terms of office, including those of the presidents of chambers and the First President of the Court, are considered as uninterrupted.

 

The legislation flew through the lower and upper houses of Parliament at the end of November, but President Andrzej Duda took his time in signing the legislation, doing so on the last possible day of 17 December. There was also a delay in publishing the Act, which took 14 days from the day of its signing.

 

The slow pace is quite surprising in light of the way previous changes to the judiciary and court system have been handled by the Sejm. Previous amendments to the Supreme Court Act – in April, May, and July – were implemented at breakneck speed.

 

This time, members of the ruling party were anxious to delay this blow to its image. The calendar came to their aid. The President’s signature came just before Christmas, and publication at the new year. Public opinion was occupied with other matters.

 

We documented the statements of panicky PiS politicians who trained their fire on the “rotten” judiciary.

 

2018 will be remembered as the year of the battle over the Supreme Court. This makes us all the more proud of concessions won by defenders of the rule of law in Poland, after months of struggle and owing to support from Brussels. And what awaits them in 2019.

 

“A step in the right direction”

The new legislation was announced as a triumph for those battling on behalf of rule of law in Poland, as PiS reversed the majority of controversial provisions put into the Act on December 2017:

 

  1. New retirement age – 65 – only for new judges. The new legislation keeps the lowered retirement age. However, the new provisions specify that this applies only to judges appointed after its entry into force. Judges appointed prior to that will retire according to the old rules, at the age of 70.

 

  1. Dismissed judges return to work. The new Act returns justices of the Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court to the bench; under the previous law, they had been forced to retire. Their service on the bench will now be treated as uninterrupted.

 

  1. The terms of office of the First President and presidents of the chambers of the Supreme Court are now treated as uninterrupted.

 

The new legislation is also important for another reason – Jarosław Kaczyński’s political party has publicly acknowledged its mistakes and agreed with the arguments presented by the “other side.”

 

The authors of the legislation state in it that the version passed in December 2017 may violate the constitution. They invoke the applications for preliminary rulings filed by Polish courts with the Court of Justice of the European Union. The same ones whose legitimacy had been disputed multiple times by the ruling party.

 

Members of PiS also admitted that the decision to amend the Act was linked with criticism levelled at it by the European Commission, as well as in response to the 19 October injunction of the CJEU ordering Poland to suspend the law passed in December 2017.

 

This despite the fact that PiS politicians had previously questioned the role of the Commission as well as the authority of the Court of Justice.

 

Unnecessary law

While opponents of the PiS-led “reform” do have reason to cheer, we have already written that the new legislation was unnecessary. It arose almost in spite of the recommendations of the CJEU, expert opinions, and the Supreme Court itself.

 

The Court of Justice stated unequivocally that implementation of the provisions of the interim measure did not require changes in the law. Specialists in European Law warned that new legislation implemented before a final verdict by the CJEU would only deepen the chaos.

 

Nonetheless, PiS did its own thing. When the government grasped that it couldn’t win the fight with Brussels, it quickly drafted a bill to silence its critics. However, the legislation is not without “booby traps”:

 

  1. It discontinues all proceedings that were being conducted under the old rules. With this move, the authors “pulled the rug” from under the requests for preliminary rulings that Polish courts had filed with the CJEU. These included questions regarding the National Council of the Judiciary.
  2. The new Act attempts to entice judges sent into retirement to remain inactive. If they choose not to return to the bench, they can count on preferential treatment – 100 per cent of their pension instead of the standard 75 per cent. This is a difference of several thousand zlotys, and, as Professor Ewa Łętowska emphasises, bears the hallmarks of incitement to corruption

 

PiS still retains the capacity to influence the composition of the Supreme Court, such as through increasing the number of appointed justices. Jarosław Kaczyński’s party also continues to wield influence over other key institutions – the KRS and the Constitutional Tribunal. Politicisation of those bodies give the authorities the capacity to exert influence over the entire justice system.

 

What is the European Commission’s next move?

The new legislation meets some of the conditions of the European Commission, which sought to convince the government to reverse changes to the retirement age applicable to judges.

 

This is why the Commission had submitted a referral to the CJEU under Art. 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Court of Justice is to rule on whether the forced retirement of judges is a “failure to fulfil an obligation” by a Member State.

 

The Polish government is arguing that the new legislation removes the grounds for the Commission’s referral, and that it should be withdrawn from the Court of Justice.

 

The Commission does not, however, have to follow the government’s reasoning.

 

Indeed, the CJEU will be ruling on the law as of 14 September 2018 – prior to PiS conceding to the pressure of Brussels. In the opinion of dr Maciej Taborowski, the Commission has good reasons for not withdrawing the referral. A verdict issued by the CJEU regarding the old legislation would contribute to the development of EU law, and if the Court of Justice rules that the Treaty has been breached, this would serve to prevent future such improprieties across the entire EU.

 

Representatives of the European Commission have already declared they will continue to pursue the matter. The Court of Justice will rule on its referral under accelerated proceedings, and the verdict will likely be handed down in April 2019.

 

Referrals for preliminary rulings in 2019

Apart from the Commission’s application, in the coming months the CJEU will review issues raised by Polish courts in applications for preliminary rulings.

 

The Supreme Court, Supreme Administrative Court, and common courts in such cities as Łódź, Gorzów Wielkopolski, and Warsaw have made referrals over issues such as the independence of the KRS and disciplinary proceedings.

 

The government has made numerous attempts to force these courts to withdraw their referrals by removing the grounds for which they had been made.

 

The President of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, Jan Majchrowski, even went so far as to inform the President of the Court of Justice that the referrals were “null and void.” In response, the CJEU reminded Majchrowski that only the court that filed an application has the right to withdraw it.

 

Prosecutor General Zbigniew Ziobro also attacked the courts for their referrals. He has applied for review by the Constitutional Tribunal of the procedure under which they are issued, which has been called “a step towards Polexit.” OKO.press has written in detail about Ziobro’s actions.

 

To date, no court has elected to withdraw its applications. In mid-December, the Court of Justice announced 19 March 2019 as the date for hearings on the referrals submitted by the Supreme Court on 30 August and 19 September.

 

The CJEU will decide on such issues as whether the KRS – politicised by the PiS-led “reforms” – is capable of effectively defending the independence of the judicial system.

 

Its decision will be of key significance for defenders of rule of law in Poland. It may force the government to step back from another element of its controversial “reforms.”



Author


Journalist at OKO.press and Archiwum Osiatyńskiego


More

Published

February 22, 2019

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary Chamberdisciplinary proceedingsPolandrule of lawConstitutional Tribunaljudicial independenceZbigniew ZiobroEuropean CommissionCourt of Justice of the EUjudgesNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of JusticeEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaIgor TuleyaMałgorzata Manowskadisciplinary systemMinister of JusticeCommissioner for Human RightsEuropean Court of Human RightsMateusz MorawieckiCJEUpresidential electionsjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsdemocracymuzzle lawHungaryJarosław Kaczyńskielections 2020Beata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsKamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerEuropean Arrest WarrantCOVID-19PresidentProsecutor GeneralConstitutionfreedom of expressioncriminal lawMarek SafjanOSCEWaldemar ŻurekPaweł JuszczyszynNational Public ProsecutorPiotr SchabPrzemysław Radzikcriminal proceedingsPrime MinisterJulia PrzyłębskaExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chambermedia freedomSupreme 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 DalkowskaCouncil 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 ZubikDidier ReyndersEuropean ParliamentZiobroMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiPiotr Gąciarekhuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawCourt of Justice of the European UnionJustice FundAdam SynakiewiczcoronavirusPiSresolution 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 MinisterFreedom 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 TaborowskiharrassmentMarian BanaśAlina CzubieniakSupreme Audit OfficeTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerBelarusEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediastate of emergencypostal votepostal vote bill