On the prosecutor general’s motion to the Constitutional Tribunal regarding the European Convention (case K 7/21)

Share

Co-founder and editor of Rule of Law in Poland and coordinator of The Wiktor Osiatyński Archive, a rule of law…

More

Just like the Prime Minister’s motion and the Constitutional Tribunal’s judgment of 7 October, the prosecutor general's motion in case K 7/21 contains criticism of the European Court of Human Rights acts, that are nowhere to be found in the courts' case law.



A case K 7/21 concerns Prosecutor General Zbigniew Ziobro‘s second motion to the Constitutional Tribunal to examine whether the interpretation of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights is compatible with the Polish Constitution.

The contested Convention’s passage reads: ‘In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law when deciding on his civil rights and obligations or on the merits of any criminal charge against him’.

The applicant asks whether it is compatible with the Polish Constitution that it arises from this passage that:

  • the European Court of Human Rights is creating a right for a judge to perform an administrative function in the organizational structure of the judiciary in Poland; 
  • in the meaning of what a ‘court established by law’ is, the ECtHR does not take into account the provisions of the Polish Constitution, statutes, and judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal;
  • national or international courts assess statutes regarding the structure of the judiciary, the jurisdiction of the courts, and the National Council of the Judiciary as to their conformity with the Polish Constitution and the Convention.

Reaction to the ECtHR judgment

A motion formulated in this way is a direct reaction to the judgment of the ECtHR of 8 November in Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v Poland. In that judgment, the ECtHR ruled that the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs, which PiS had added to the Supreme Court in 2018, breached the right to an independent and impartial court established by law, protected by Article 6(1) of the Convention. It awarded the two applicants 15,000 euros each, payable after the judgment becomes final.

 

Maria Ejchart-Dubois and Sylwia Gregorczyk-Abram from the Justice Defence Committee (KOS) represented Judges Monika Dolińska-Ficek from the District Court in Mysłowice and Artur Ozimek from the Regional Court in Lublin.

 

The Court ruled that the Polish government must take fast action to address the lack of independence of the National Council of the Judiciary.

 

The ECtHR used a three-stage test of an independent court established by law when assessing the Chamber. The Court had developed this test on the basis of a case involving judges from Iceland. The ECtHR delivered its judgment in Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v Iceland (Application no. 26374/18) on 1 December 2020.

 

The ECtHR emphasized that the crux of the problem with the Chamber is that the new National Council of the Judiciary, which is not sufficiently independent of the executive and the legislature, took part in staffing it after the amendment of the law in 2017.

 

It pointed out that the change in the method in which the NCJ was elected should be considered in the broader context of coordinated changes in the judiciary in Poland, which have raised the concerns of numerous international organizations and bodies, such as the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe and the European Commission, and have become the subject of several proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union.

 

The ECtHR also referred to the resolution of the three legal chambers of the Supreme Court on 23 January 2020, when it held that the NCJ was not independent. It ruled that it did not agree with the ‘arbitrary’ assessment of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal that this resolution was in conflict with the Constitution.

 

In addition, the ECtHR ruled in July that, when adjudicating on the disciplinary case of Attorney-at-Law Joanna Reczkowicz, the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court breached her right to a trial, which is protected by Article 6(1) of the Convention. As in the Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek judgment, the ECtHR held that the new NCJ was responsible for this in the procedure of appointing people to the Disciplinary Chamber.

 

The motion seeks to overturn some of the ECtHR judgments

The ECtHR has received a total of 57 complaints from Poland with regard to various elements of the ‘reform of the judiciary’. In February, the ECtHR announced that it was examining them in an expedited procedure. It issued four judgments from May to November, all of which were unfavourable for the Polish government.

 

Just as Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki’s application to the Constitutional Tribunal on the interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty on European Union and the Constitutional Tribunal’s judgment in the matter on 7 October, Ziobro’s motion on the European Convention on Human Rights intends to reject some of the ECtHR’s judgments which the ruling party does not like – including the judgments in Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek and Reczkowicz.

 

And just like the Prime Minister’s motion and the Constitutional Tribunal’s judgment of 7 October, Ziobro’s motion in case K 7/21 contains criticism of the ECtHR’s alleged acts, which do not exist in the case law of the ECtHR.

 

This is about the request to examine whether the ECtHR is creating ‘the right of a judge to hold an administrative position within the organizational structure of the judiciary in Poland’.

 

Poland has no constitutional personal right of a judge ‘to hold a specific official position in a specific court’, which the Ombudsman, among others, has confirmed.

 

The Constitutional Tribunal headed by Julia Przyłębska ruled twice that the right of a judge to decide or at least jointly decide on the place of adjudication does not arise from the provisions of the Constitution and statutes (case ref. SK 30/14).

 

The ruling party cites the lack of right of judges to occupy specific positions within the structure of the judiciary when judges are seconded to the Ministry of Justice, judges are transferred to other court divisions – which is a form of repression of judges who criticize the government’s policy on the rule of law – or further changes are announced in the structure of the judiciary.

 

But attempts to create such a right cannot be found in the ECtHR rulings.

 

On 29 June, the ECtHR ruled that the inability of judges Alina Broda and Mariusz Bojara to appeal to a court against the decision of the Minister of Justice removing them from their positions as vice-presidents of the Regional Court in Kielce breaches their right to a trial, which is protected by Article 6(1) of the Convention. The judgment became final on 29 September.

 

In paragraph 95 of this judgment, the ECtHR emphasized that ‘Article 6(1) of the Convention does not guarantee that civil “rights and obligations” have a specific substantive content in the legal order of the Contracting States: The Court cannot create a substantive right which has no legal grounds in the given State through an interpretation of Article 6(1).’

 

However, in its case-law, the ECtHR has acknowledged for years that the correctness of the appointment of a judge is an element that is encompassed by the requirements of Article 6(1) of the Convention.

 

In raising the second allegation that ‘the understanding of what a “court established by law” is does not take into account the provisions of the Polish Constitution, statutes and judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal”, the prosecutor general raises the criticism that the ECtHR, the CJEU and the national courts do not refer, among other things, to the statutes passed by PiS and the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal, which is subordinated to the politicians.

 

Indeed, in the ECtHR’s judgment in Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek, the Court referred to the judgments of the CJEU and the legitimate Supreme Court from 2017–2021, stating that the Constitutional Tribunal had presented a conflicting interpretation. The ECtHR also criticized the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal regarding the new NCJ (paragraphs 290–295 of the judgment), as well as the CT’s judgment acknowledging that the Supreme Court overstepped its powers when issuing the resolution of 23 January 2020 (paragraph 316). It assessed the Constitutional Tribunal’s arguments as being ‘arbitrary’ (paragraph 317).

 

The ECtHR also referred to its own case law: the judgment of 7 May in Xero Flor v Poland, in which the Court ruled that the Constitutional Tribunal with ‘stand-ins’ in its membership breached the right of the applicants that is protected by Article 6(1).

 

The response to this judgment was that the Prosecutor General applied to the Constitutional Tribunal in case K 6/21 to examine whether the interpretation of Article 6(1) of the Convention, in which the Polish Constitutional Tribunal is a court, is in line with the Constitution. On 24 November 2021, the Constitutional Tribunal ruled that it was not.

 

 

Russian variant?

 

The motions of the Disciplinary Chamber and Prime Minister Morawiecki to the Constitutional Tribunal regarding the provisions of the Treaty on EU, and in fact the rulings of the Court of Justice of the EU, and now the two motions of the Prosecutor General, which apply to the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, and in fact the rulings of the ECtHR, are currently dangerous precedents. They may soon be the norm.

 

This can lead to the situation that every time a national, EU or international court refers to the provisions of an international agreement and passes a sentence which is not to the liking of the ruling party, the Constitutional Tribunal, which is subordinated to politicians, will rule that, in this respect, these provisions are inconsistent with the Constitution.

 

While formally remaining within the system of EU law or the European Convention on Human Rights, Poland will treat them selectively. This will have an effect mainly domestically, on Polish judges who may be penalized on disciplinary charges for failing to comply with rulings of the Constitutional Tribunal.

 

As well as on Polish citizens, who will not be sure whether, if they file a complaint with the ECtHR against Poland, Poland will recognize a judgment that is unfavorable to the authorities at all. And this is now a scenario taken directly from Russia.

 

Translated by Roman Wojtasz

 

The article is adapted from the text published in Polish at OKO.press on 15 November 2021.



Author


Co-founder and editor of Rule of Law in Poland and coordinator of The Wiktor Osiatyński Archive, a rule of law…


More

Published

January 19, 2022

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandrule of lawZbigniew Ziobrojudicial independenceCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean CommissionNational Council of the JudiciaryjudgesEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemEuropean Court of Human RightsCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeMateusz MorawieckiJarosław KaczyńskiWaldemar Żurekmuzzle lawpresidential electionsjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsdemocracyK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020Kamil ZaradkiewiczBeata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme Courtprosecutorsdisciplinary commissionerEuropean Arrest WarrantProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19Maciej NawackiPrzemysław RadzikJulia PrzyłębskaPresidentmedia freedomfreedom of expressionCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynNational Public ProsecutorPiotr Schabcriminal proceedingsPrime Ministerfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetWłodzimierz WróbelCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational Prosecutordisciplinary liability for judgeselectionsWojciech HermelińskiStanisław PiotrowiczAndrzej ZollMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisK 7/21May 10 2020 electionsLex DudaNational Council for JudiciarySejmXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v Polandmedia independenceIustitiaSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczTHEMISEAWmediaimmunityAnna DalkowskaCouncil of Europe2017policeFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaŁukasz PiebiakP 7/20Justice FundPiSC-791/19National Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Piotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaNational Reconstruction PlanJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesReczkowicz and Others v. PolandKrystian MarkiewiczMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczdefamationcourtsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsArticle 6 ECHRUrsula von der LeyenEwa WrzosekEU law primacyTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independencedemocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetoJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJJustice Defence Committee – KOSrecommendationTeresa 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 PietruszyńskiPiotr GąciarekRegional Court in KrakówPiebiak gatehuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyneo-judgescoronavirusXero 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 lawpolexitNational Recovery PlanDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeProfessional Liability ChamberFirst President of the Suprme CourtsuspensionPaulina 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 WośUkrainemedia lawRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtKonrad WytrykowskiJarosław DudziczPrzemysła RadzikJakub IwaniecAntykastaSenateMarcin WarchołElżbieta 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 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 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 StatetransferPechOlsztyn courtKochenovPrzemysła CzarnekEvgeni TanchevEducation MinisterFreedom in the WorldKrystyna PawłowiczECJIpsosFrackowiakOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeretirement ageMariusz MuszyńskiAmnesty InternationalHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr Bogdanowicztrans-Atlantic valuesPiotr BurasLSOauthoritarian equilibriumlawyersArticle 258Act of 20 December 2019clientelismoligarchic systemRecovery FundEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officerepressive actPolish National FoundationLux VeritatisKoen LenaertsMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykharrassmentMarian BanaśAlina CzubieniakSupreme Audit OfficeTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediapostal voteKrakówRzeszówDagmara Pawełczyk-Woickaborderpostal vote billprimacy