Statement by retired judges of the Constitutional Tribunal on the Constitutional Tribunal judgment in case K 7/21

Share

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

More

Retired judges of the Constitutional Tribunal state that the judgment in question is another scandalous example of jurisprudence violating the Constitution. Challenging Article 6 of the ECHR for the second time in a short period of time (previously in the judgment of 24.11.2021, K 6/21) is a drastic jurisprudential excess.



Statement by retired judges of the Constitutional Tribunal on the Constitutional Tribunal judgment in case K 7/21

 

March 13, 2022

The retired judges of the Constitutional Tribunal feel morally obliged to publicly express their strongly critical position towards the issuance of the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal on 10.03.2022 in case K 7/21.

In this judgment, the  Tribunal ruled that the first sentence of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is incompatible with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland to the extent that it formed the basis for several judgments against Poland in 2021-2022 by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

These are judgments stating that Poland has violated the right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial court established by law as a result of the introduction and application of various provisions concerning the system of the judiciary.

According to the Constitutional Tribunal, the effect of its judgment is to remove from the Polish legal system the norms it has itself interpreted from Article 6 of the ECHR, as well as the ECtHR judgments indicated.

Retired judges of the Constitutional Tribunal state that the judgment in question is another scandalous example of jurisprudence violating the Constitution. It concerns, inter alia, the obligation to observe international law binding upon the Republic of Poland (Article 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland).

Challenging Article 6 of the ECHR for the second time in a short period of time (previously in the judgment of 24.11.2021, K 6/21) is a drastic jurisprudential excess. Numerous judgments in recent years, in which the incompatibility with the Constitution of judgments of the CJEU and the ECHR was ruled, not only go beyond the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Tribunal but testify to the intention to eliminate external control of legislation that violates the constitutional right to a court (Article 45) and the principles of independence of courts (Article 173) and independence of judges (Article 178).

This deepens the crisis of the constitutional state, including in particular the principle of a democratic state of law and the principle of separation of powers, and causes growing isolation of Poland in Europe.

The retired judges of the Constitutional Tribunal also draw attention to further circumstances surrounding the K 7/21 judgment:

Firstly, the judgment was issued several days after the beginning of the aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine. It is therefore worth recalling in this context the embarrassing fact that Poland became the second country, after Russia, in which the binding force of ECHR provisions and ECtHR judgments was questioned. What is more, this happened exactly on the same day that Russia announced its intention to withdraw from the Council of Europe and thus from the ECHR.

Secondly, the judgment was handed down at a time of protracted, acute conflict with the European Union over violations of the rule of law in Poland. Since fundamental rights, guaranteed by the ECHR, shall constitute general principles of the Union law (Article 6(3) TEU), the judgment is yet another example of the process of first negating and then destroying the foundations of the European Union.

Thirdly, the judgment was handed down in a formation of five judges, and the rapporteur was a person elected to the Constitutional Tribunal for the occupied judicial seats, and therefore not a judge, as is clear from the judgments directly concerning this person, i.e. the judgment of the  Constitutional Tribunal of 3.12.2015 in case K 34/15, as well as the judgment of the ECtHR of 7.05.2021 in case Xero Flor (4907/18).

This circumstance causes the judgment to be affected by a defect resulting in its non-existence in internal and international legal  space.

 

Stanisław Biernat

Teresa Dębowska-Romanowska

Kazimierz Działocha

Lech Garlicki

Mirosław Granat

Wojciech Hermeliński

Adam Jamróz

Stefan Jaworski

Leon Kieres

Biruta Lewaszkiewicz-Petrykowska

Wojciech Łączkowski

Ewa Łętowska

Marek Mazurkiewicz

Andrzej Mączyński

Janusz Niemcewicz

Małgorzata Pyziak-Szafnicka

Stanisław Rymar

Ferdynand Rymarz

Andrzej Rzepliński

Jerzy Stępień

Piotr Tuleja

Sławomira Wronkowska-Jaśkiewicz

Mirosław Wyrzykowski

Bohdan Zdziennicki

Andrzej Zoll

Marek Zubik



Author


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


More

Published

March 13, 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