Statement by 50 Supreme Court judges regarding irregularities in the selection of candidates for the position of the First President of the Supreme Court

Share

Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland

More

Statement by 50 Supreme Court judges   Warsaw, 23 May 2020   In recent days, we have been dealing with events in the Supreme Court whose formal objective was to select five candidates for the position of the First President of the Supreme Court. In fact, the aim was to include among the candidates a […]



Statement by 50 Supreme Court judges

 

Warsaw, 23 May 2020

 

In recent days, we have been dealing with events in the Supreme Court whose formal objective was to select five candidates for the position of the First President of the Supreme Court. In fact, the aim was to include among the candidates a person who, prior to the General Assembly meeting, had already been decided by the decision-makers to hold this position. This is demonstrated by the following circumstances, in addition to the recent changes to the provisions of the Supreme Court Act, which have been amended several times in recent times:

 

– The manner in which the General Assembly of the Supreme Court judges was conducted first by SSN Kamil Zaradkiewicz and then by SSN Aleksander Stępkowski, consisting in rejecting – not putting to a vote – practically all motions submitted by the judges, also when the motions were submitted by the majority of the members of the Assembly; the motions for setting the agenda of the Assembly and establishing the rules of procedure were not put to a vote, despite the fact that the deliberations were held in conditions of epidemic threat, in several rooms;

 

– completely arbitrary rejection by the Chairman of the results of the secret ballot for the members of the Ballot Committee, established by the Committee appointed jointly by the Assembly, composed of representatives of each of the Chambers of the Supreme Court. Chairman Kamil Zaradkiewicz, independently and contrary to the Committee, established the result of this vote;

 

– unlawful, non-compliant with art. 13 § 7 of the Act on the Supreme Court, rejection by Chairman Aleksander Stępkowski of the motion to elect a person who will present the President of the Republic of Poland with a list of candidates for the position of the First President together with the voting record;

 

– unjustified and illegal rejection by Chairman Aleksander Stępkowski of a motion for the General Assembly to adopt a resolution to present five candidates to the President, even though the obligation to adopt such a resolution arises under Article 183(3) of the Constitution and has been confirmed by a decision of the Constitutional Tribunal. The absence of a resolution results in the fact that the election procedure has not been completed, and thus the first President cannot be appointed. It should be added that only one candidate, SSN Włodzimierz Wróbel, received over 50% of votes.

 

The number and scale of these violations, including infringements of the law, will cause the position of the First President of the SC (regardless of who he/she is) to be challenged and weak, as the allegations of illegality of the procedure that led to the appointment may be raised. This will weaken not only the credibility of the First President, but also the authority of the Supreme Court.

 

Today, on Justice Day, we wrote to the President of the Republic of Poland with a letter describing in detail the irregularities that occurred, and we count on the President’s deep reflection on whether the appointment of the First President of the Supreme Court in these conditions will contribute to the improvement of the rule of law in Poland and strengthen confidence in the Supreme Court.

 

Finally, on behalf of the judges I would like to thank everyone for the support they have given us in various forms, judges of common courts, organizations and citizens who did it through social media, as well as those who supported us here in front of the building of the Supreme Court, exposing themselves to the interventions of the Police.



Author


Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland


More

Published

May 25, 2020

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