Stępkowski: The case of the Judge Tuleya’s immunity is not covered by the CJEU’s decision

Share

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

More

Proceedings on Judge Igor Tuleya’s immunity are not covered by the freezing order of the EU Court of Justice – Supreme Court press officer Judge Aleksander Stępkowski told journalists on the 27th of May



by Marcin Jabłoński

 

The article was published in Polish in Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.

 

Read more about the proceedings against judge Igor Tuleya here.

 

As the Supreme Court announced on Tuesday (the 26th of May), the date for examining the motion of the prosecution office to remove the immunity of Judge Tuleya from the Warsaw Regional Court was set for 9 June in the Disciplinary Chamber of the Regional Court. The prosecution office’s motion will be considered in camera by a single-judge bench.

 

In turn, on April 8 this year, the EU Court of Justice decided to obligate Poland to immediately suspend the application of the provisions regarding the Disciplinary Chamber in disciplinary cases of judges. The motion for a temporary suspension pending the final judgment has been submitted by the European Commission. The Polish government argued that the motion is unreasonable.

 

“The CJEU spoke out on disciplinary matters of judges. The immunity case is not a disciplinary matter, it is a criminal matter”, said Judge Stępkowski on Wednesday, when asked if the session on Judge Tuleya should be held. As he emphasized, “therefore, these are proceedings that are not covered by the freezing order of the CJEU”.

 

He added that the order of Judge Kamil Zaradkiewicz, who was acting first president of the Supreme Court at that time, since the beginning of May, regarding matters being received by the Disciplinary Chamber “precisely expressed the sentence of the freezing order of the CJEU”.

 

The Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court was originally supposed to consider the motion in Judge Tuleya’s immunity case on 20 March. However, due to the coronavirus threat, Supreme Court sessions – including in the case of this motion – were cancelled in the middle of March.

 

At the beginning of May, Judge Zaradkiewicz, who was acting first president of the Supreme Court, overruled the decision of the previous first president of the Supreme Court, Małgorzata Gersdorf, regarding the transfer of cases previously considered by the Disciplinary Chamber to other chambers of that court. He simultaneously decided that the disciplinary cases of judges being received would remain suspended until the Constitutional Tribunal’s judgment is issued or the CJEU‘s decision loses its effect.

 

The reason for the prosecution office’s motion with respect to Judge Tulea is the suspicion of the disclosure of information from the preparatory proceedings, as well as data and testimonies of a witness that jeopardized the course of the investigation. This applies to the proceedings regarding the session of the Sejm in the Column Room of 16 December 2016, which were discontinued twice by the prosecution office.

 

While referring to the prosecution office’s motion in February in an interview with PAP, Judge Tuleya said he did not feel as if he was at fault. However, he pointed out that he had no intention of appearing before the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court. “According to the resolution of the three chambers of the Supreme Court, the Disciplinary Chamber is not a court,” he emphasized. (PAP)

 

Translated by Roman Wojtasz



Author


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


More

Published

May 28, 2020

Tags

Supreme Courtdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawjudicial independenceDisciplinary ChamberEuropean CommissionjudgesPolandNational Council of the JudiciaryZbigniew ZiobroCourt of JusticeCourt of Justice of the EUConstitutional TribunalAndrzej DudaEuropean UnionIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemMinister of Justicepresidential electionsjudiciarydemocracyJarosław Kaczyńskielections 2020Beata Morawiecpreliminary rulingsCJEUmuzzle lawCommissioner for Human RightsFirst President of the Supreme Courtprosecutorsdisciplinary commissionerEuropean Arrest WarrantAdam BodnarCOVID-19OSCEPresidentProsecutor Generalfreedom of expressionLaw and JusticeNCJelectionsacting first president of the Supreme CourtMay 10 2020 electionsEuropean Court of Human RightsWaldemar Żurekmedia independenceAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczMateusz Morawiecki2017Freedom HouseExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberVenice CommissionConstitutionprosecutionHungarycriminal lawNational Prosecutordisciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionMarek SafjanKamil ZaradkiewiczGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesAleksander StepkowskiOrdo IurisPresident of PolandMałgorzata ManowskaJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesSejmMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramTHEMISMaciej NawackiEAWPaweł JuszczyszynAnna DalkowskaNetherlandsPiotr Schabdemocratic backslidingdecommunizationPrime Ministerfreedom of assemblyJulia PrzyłębskaLaw on the NCJrecommendationHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropereportArticle 7ZiobroSupreme Administrative CourtconditionalityPM Mateusz MorawieckiEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawcoronavirusPiSC-791/19Wojciech Hermelińskiresolution of 23 January 2020Stanisław PiotrowiczPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakLeon KieresAndrzej ZollPKWMałgorzata Gersdorfinfringment 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 BoniekdefamationcourtsOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian 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 SędziówTVPmediapublic broadcasterLex Super OmniaAdam Tomczyńskiimmunitymutual trustLMBelgiumIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamBogdan ŚwięczkowskiNational Public ProsecutorPrzemysław Radzikthe Regional Court in WarsawCouncil of EuropeUnited Nationsjudcial independenceLeszek MazurMaciej Miteracriminal proceedingspopulisminterim measuresViktor OrbanOLAFautocratizationMultiannual Financial FrameworkNext Generation EUequal treatmentfundamental rightspoliceCT PresidentJustice Defence Committee – KOSEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justicepublic opinion pollSupreme Court President2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUStanisław ZabłockiEuropean ParliamentLIBE CommitteeFrans TimmermansUS Department of StateSwieczkowskiadvocate generalpress releaseRights and Values ProgrammeEU budgetC-619/18defamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardintimidation of dissentersWojciech SadurskijudgetransferPechKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakretirement ageAmnesty InternationalŁukasz PiebiakPiebiak gatehuman rightstrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakMinistry of JusticeJustice FundGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote bill