New Supreme Court judges rule their appointments were proper; European Commission questions status of Disciplinary Chamber

Share

Journalist at OKO.press and Archiwum Osiatyńskiego

More

The Disciplinary Chamber is populated entirely by justices selected since Law and Justice came to power. In a resolution of 10 April, they declared that the process by which they were appointed was entirely proper. The new members of the Supreme Court are rushing to “legalise themselves” in order to head off the “older” judges, who believe their new counterparts should not be allowed to rule. They were appointed in a faulty process and with the participation of a politicised KRS.



The Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, populated exclusively by judges appointed after the PiS-led “reforms”, ruled on 10 April that the process by which they were appointed was conducted properly.

 

The “new staff” of the Supreme Court from the Disciplinary Chamber had to rush to beat the “old staff” in the Criminal and Civil Chambers. The judges in place before the “good change” earlier sought to examine whether the judges appointed by the politicised National Council of the Judiciary were entitled to rule.

 

If they were not, they would be subject to exclusion from judicial panels. In addition, the president’s proclamation on the drafting of new justices to the Supreme Court was issued without the required countersignature of the prime minister, which would render the entire process of their appointment invalid.

 

Why do 3,000 Polish judges want the dismissal of the National Council of the Judiciary?

 

The decision of the Disciplinary Chamber, handed down at an unusually quick pace, blocked the proceedings of the Criminal and Civil Chambers. The question remains of whether the resolution will be submitted to the combined chambers or entire bench of the Supreme Court.

 

“A resolution adopted by the full membership of a Chamber has the force of a legal rule. It is binding on all judicial panels ruling in the Supreme Court. All judges will be bound by today’s resolution until such time as it is amended by a potential later ruling. This can be done by a resolution of combined chambers, or the entire bench of the Supreme Court,” the Court’s spokesperson Michał Laskowski said shortly after the decision was announced.

 

The resolution is also ethically questionable. The judges ruled in a case that directly concerns their appointment to the bench, but they claim otherwise.

 

“I would say that it would be better if justices ruled in this case who were not personally affected by issues and doubts surrounding the manner of their appointment. The ruling would then be more convincing, more reliable. This is only my personal impression, the Disciplinary Chamber today expressed an entirely different view,” said judge Laskowski.

 

“Absolutely no doubts”

 

In the ruling, the President of the Disciplinary Chamber, Tomasz Przesławski, emphasised that the announcement of the drafting of judges to the Supreme Court constitutes “an emanation of the prerogative of the president” as set out in Article 179 of the Polish Constitution. As such, it would not require the prime minister’s countersignature.

 

Legal experts have a different opinion, however, who point out that official acts of the president such as announcements of drafting of judges require a countersignature in order to be valid. This is clearly stipulated by Article 144(2) of the Constitution.

 

The status of the Disciplinary Chamber was also taken up recently by the European Commission. On 3 April, the Commission initiated infringement procedure against Poland and requested that the government supply its explanation.

 

Read the European Commission’s press release of 3 April on Poland’s new disciplinary regime for judges

 

The “new” judges also lent their support in defence of the new National Council of the Judiciary, which was politicised following the transition to power of Law and Justice.

 

In the ruling, judge Przesławski stated that the status of the Council now gives rise to “absolutely no doubts”. He also referred to how the justice system is configured in other European countries, such as Germany, the Czech Republic, Austria and Spain. In the opinion of the justices of the Disciplinary Chamber, the new legal solutions adopted in Poland will ensure greater participation of the judicial community in the appointment of the Council than is the case in the referenced countries.

 

On multiple occasions we have shown that this is not the case.

 

Read more on the unaddressed recommendations of the European Commission concerning the National Council of the Judiciary

 

[text: Maria Pankowska, translation: Matthew La Fontaine]



Author


Journalist at OKO.press and Archiwum Osiatyńskiego


More

Published

April 24, 2019

Tags

Supreme Courtdisciplinary proceedingsDisciplinary Chamberrule of lawjudicial independencePolandEuropean CommissionConstitutional TribunaljudgesCourt of Justice of the EUZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of JusticeEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaIgor TuleyaMałgorzata Manowskadisciplinary systemMinister of JusticeCommissioner for Human Rightspresidential electionsjudiciarypreliminary rulingsdemocracyCJEUmuzzle lawJarosław Kaczyńskielections 2020Beata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsHungaryEuropean Arrest WarrantMateusz MorawieckiAdam BodnarCOVID-19Kamil ZaradkiewiczEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary commissionerPresidentfreedom of expressioncriminal lawOSCENational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberProsecutor GeneralSupreme Administrative CourtconditionalityConstitutionCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJNational ProsecutorelectionsMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsWaldemar Żurekmedia independenceAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczEAWmediaPaweł JuszczyszynimmunityAnna DalkowskaCouncil of EuropePrime Minister2017freedom of assemblyJulia PrzyłębskaFreedom HouseVenice CommissionEU budgetWłodzimierz WróbelPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaMinistry of JusticeC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionWojciech HermelińskiAndrzej ZollMarek SafjanGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesAleksander StepkowskiPresident of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesSejmMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramdefamationTHEMISMaciej NawackiTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan ŚwięczkowskiPiotr SchabPrzemysław Radzikdemocratic backslidingViktor OrbandecommunizationNext Generation EUvetopoliceJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJLech GarlickirecommendationHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeSupreme Court Presidentreportmedia freedomArticle 7European ParliamentZiobroconditionality mechanismMichał LaskowskiMarek Pietruszyńskihuman rightsEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawcoronavirusPiSresolution of 23 January 2020Stanisław PiotrowiczPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakLeon KieresPKWinfringment actionEU valuesENCJlex NGOcivil societyRussiaIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtPresident of the Republic of PolandLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechcriminal codeGrzęda v PolandXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara 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 measuresOLAFautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingequal treatmentabortionprotestsfundamental rightsthe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońCT PresidentGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUJustice Defence Committee – KOSC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeEUStanisław BiernatTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaWhite PaperKazimierz DziałochalustrationMirosław Granattransitional justiceAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiEwa ŁętowskaMarek MazurkiewiczAndrzej MączyńskiJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław Rymarpublic opinion pollFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiJerzy Stępień2018Piotr TulejaNations in TransitSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczCouncil of the EUMirosław WyrzykowskiBohdan ZdziennickiMarek Zubikmedia taxStanisław Zabłockiadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerDidier ReyndersKlubrádióSLAPPLIBE 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 StatetransferK 3/21PechOlsztyn courtKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakretirement ageAmnesty InternationalŁukasz PiebiakPiebiak gatetrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakJustice FundGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote bill