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 ChamberPolandEuropean CommissionjudgesZbigniew ZiobroCourt of Justice of the EUNational Council of the JudiciaryConstitutional TribunalEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeAndrzej DudaIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemMinister of Justicepresidential electionsjudiciarypreliminary rulingsdemocracyJarosław Kaczyńskielections 2020Beata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsCJEUmuzzle lawCommissioner for Human RightsMałgorzata ManowskaEuropean Arrest WarrantCOVID-19European Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary commissionerPresidentAdam Bodnarfreedom of expressionHungaryKamil ZaradkiewiczOSCEMateusz MorawieckiProsecutor GeneralLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJNational Prosecutorelectionsacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsWaldemar Żurekmedia independenceAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczEAWmediaAnna DalkowskaCouncil of Europe2017freedom of assemblyJulia PrzyłębskaFreedom HouseExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberVenice CommissionSupreme Administrative CourtEU budgetConstitutioncriminal lawMinistry of JusticeC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionWojciech HermelińskiAndrzej ZollMarek SafjanGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesAleksander StepkowskiPresident of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesSejmMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramdefamationTHEMISMaciej NawackiTVPLex Super OmniaPaweł JuszczyszynBelgiumNetherlandsNational Public ProsecutorPiotr SchabPrzemysław Radzikdemocratic backslidingcriminal proceedingsViktor OrbandecommunizationNext Generation EUPrime MinistervetopoliceJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJLech GarlickirecommendationHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeSupreme Court Presidentreportmedia freedomArticle 7European ParliamentZiobroconditionalityPM Mateusz MorawieckiEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawcoronavirusPiSresolution of 23 January 2020Stanisław PiotrowiczPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakLeon KieresPKWMałgorzata 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 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 broadcasterAdam Tomczyńskiimmunitymutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamBogdan Święczkowskithe Regional Court in WarsawUnited Nationsjudcial independenceLeszek MazurMaciej Miterapopulisminterim measuresOLAFautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingequal treatmentabortionprotestsfundamental rightsthe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońCT PresidentGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUJustice Defence Committee – KOSC412/20 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 Rymarpublic opinion pollFerdynand 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-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 CzubieniakJustice FundGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote bill