by Jarosław Sidorowicz   An order in which Kraków-based Judge Waldemar Żurek asks his superiors whether they had taken steps to ensure that neo-judges did not issue rulings that could result in damages in the future was removed from his case files. Instead, a photocopy of the same document was inserted, but without that question. […]

Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro wants to remove the legal judges from the Supreme Court. The current Supreme Court is to be liquidated under the guise of implementing a CJEU ruling, to be replaced by a small Supreme Court with only 30 vetted judges. This radical plan is in conflict with Duda’s and PiS’s bills.

The Kraków judges have an uphill struggle. A special department has been formed. According to the president of the Regional Court – not against them. They, however, are of a different opinion.

The European Commission is to decide whether to unfreeze billions for Poland from the EU’s Reconstruction Fund. It should not ‘buy’ President Duda’s or the Law and Justice party’s (PiS’s) offer. It needs to demand the full restoration of the rule of law. Otherwise, it will condemn the courts to ultimate destruction, reward ‘sly judges’ and antagonise the judicial community.

A group of PiS MPs have submitted a bill to the Sejm which they claim will implement the CJEU ruling and unlock billions of euros for Poland. However, PiS does not want to liquidate the Disciplinary Chamber, but only take away its disciplinary cases regarding judges. PiS’s bill strikes at Duda’s initiative.

The Disciplinary Commissioner will be able to prosecute a judge who interprets that the Catholic Church is liable for the crime of paedophilia of its subordinates.  And this is just one of the possible dangers contained in the presidential bill.

Our proposal justly differentiates the situations of judges who knowingly chose promotion, while other boycotted defective recruitments – argue lawyers from the Free Courts initiative Michał Wawrykiewicz, Paulina Kieszkowska-Knapik, Sylwia Gregorczyk-Abram, Maria Ejchart-Dubois

A member of the government removes a judge from adjudicating during a court session, forcing the stoppage of adjudication. Such situations did not even arise under martial law.

Support from a part of the opposition for the presidential bill for revitalising the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court would, among other things, be in conflict with the recently concluded Agreement for the Rule of Law. And in conflict with the rulings of the European courts – in Luxembourg and Strasbourg.

The reform of disciplinary proceedings is to involve the – repeatedly announced – liquidation of the Disciplinary Chamber and the establishment of a new Chamber, the Professional Liability Chamber. The judges of what has been the Disciplinary Chamber to date are to be parcelled out to other chambers, which means they will be dominated by neo-judges. Well, unless they choose to retire – on very financially-attractive terms.