Polish court challenges Disciplinary Chamber’s order. Judge Paweł Juszczyszyn can return to adjudicating

Share

Journalist covering law and politics for OKO.press. Previously journalist at Gazeta Wyborcza, Rzeczpospolita, Polska The Times, Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.

More

This is a precedent-setting and sensational judgment. For the first time, a Polish court has directly challenged a decision of the illegal Disciplinary Chamber. The judgment of the court in Olsztyn is immediately enforceable, which means that Pawel Juszczyszyn can return to work in court.



The judgment was issued on 10 May 2021 by a three-member bench of the Regional Court in Olsztyn.

 

It was issued by the judges of the civil division: Juliusz Ciejek (presiding judge), Przemysław Jagosz and Wojciech Wacław.

 

In the judgment, the court withheld the implementation of the decision of the illegal Disciplinary Chamber of February 2020 to suspend Paweł Juszczyszyn from his duties as a judge and cut his salary by 40%. The judgment was issued as a protective order ahead of the filing of a lawsuit against the Disciplinary Chamber and the First President of the Supreme Court by the judge.

 

This means that the judge should be admitted to perform his duties as a judge – including adjudicating – in his home District Court in Olsztyn from Wednesday 12 May. However, it should be expected that its president, Maciej Nawacki (a nominee of Ziobro’s ministry) and simultaneously a member of the new NCJ, will again obstruct the performance of the ruling which is favourable for Juszczyszyn.

 

‘The Regional Court in Olsztyn is another independent, impartial and brave court, which unequivocally states that my removal from adjudication is groundless. Because the so-called resolution of the Disciplinary Chamber that applies to me cannot constitute such grounds. This was not a decision of the Supreme Court,’ says Judge Paweł Juszczyszyn.

 

And adds: ‘In this situation, the president of the District Court has no right to claim that he is not allowing me to work because he is implementing the so-called resolution of the Chamber. Except, because I have just ended up in quarantine, I will make another attempt to take up work immediately after it ends’.

 

How did the precedent-setting ruling on the Disciplinary Chamber come about?

 

Judge Pawel Juszczyszyn applied for the protective order because he intends to sue the Disciplinary Chamber for the protection of his personal rights. In the statement of claim, he will demand the establishment that the decision to suspend him and reduce his salary is not a decision of a legal Supreme Court. He will also demand the removal of the decision from the court’s website.

 

In order to secure his rights pending a final ruling – the proceedings may last several years – the judge has applied for a so-called protective order. This is precisely what happened.

 

In this protective order, the Olsztyn court also ordered the Supreme Court to post information next to the decision to suspend Juszczyszyn stating that ‘the effectiveness and enforceability [of this decision of the Disciplinary Chamber – ed.] has been suspended for the duration of the proceedings on the establishment that the resolution described is not a decision of the Supreme Court’.

 

The decision of the court in Olsztyn is not final, but it is already enforceable. An appeal may be filed against it with the Supreme Court. The judgment was passed in camera and there is no written justification yet. However, the court in Olsztyn had to analyse the legality of the Disciplinary Chamber and the effectiveness of the decisions it issues.

 

Translated by Roman Wojtasz

 

This is a shortened version of an article posted on OKO.press on May 11, 2021.

 



Author


Journalist covering law and politics for OKO.press. Previously journalist at Gazeta Wyborcza, Rzeczpospolita, Polska The Times, Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.


More

Published

May 12, 2021

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary Chamberdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawjudicial independencePolandConstitutional TribunalEuropean CommissionjudgesZbigniew ZiobroCourt of Justice of the EUNational 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 Court of Human RightsEuropean Arrest WarrantMateusz MorawieckiAdam BodnarCOVID-19Kamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerPresidentfreedom of expressioncriminal lawOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynNational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsPrime MinisterExtraordinary 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 ParchimowiczMaciej NawackiEAWmediaimmunityAnna DalkowskaPiotr SchabPrzemysław RadzikCouncil of Europe2017freedom of assemblyJulia PrzyłębskaFreedom HouseVenice CommissionEU budgetWłodzimierz WróbelPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaMinistry of JusticeC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionWojciech HermelińskiStanisław PiotrowiczAndrzej ZollMarek SafjanGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesAleksander StepkowskiPresident of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesSejmMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramdefamationTHEMISTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskidemocratic backslidingViktor OrbandecommunizationNext Generation EUvetopoliceJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJJustice Defence Committee – KOSLech GarlickirecommendationHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europepublic opinion pollSupreme Court Presidentreportmedia freedomArticle 7European ParliamentZiobroconditionality mechanismMichał LaskowskiMarek Pietruszyńskihuman rightsEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawcoronavirusPiSresolution of 23 January 2020Piotr 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 PPUC412/20 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 RymarFerdynand 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 courtKochenovPrzemysła CzarnekEvgeni TanchevEducation MinisterPiotr GąciarekFreedom in the WorldKrystyna PawłowiczECJIpsosFrackowiakretirement ageAmnesty InternationalŁukasz PiebiakPiebiak gatetrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakJustice FundGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote bill