Supreme Court Chamber: Judges Could Sign a Letter to OSCE Regarding Presidential Elections. They Cannot Be Prosecuted for This

Share

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

More

The New Supreme Court Chamber Ultimately Acquits Belchatow Judge of Absurd Charges – Over the Letter from Polish Judges to OSCE. The Chamber ruled that judges have the right to speak out. This verdict is a failure for the local disciplinary spokesperson, who was the sole prosecutor against judges for this letter.



This is the first definitive and final verdict in this controversial and highly publicized case. It was issued on Wednesday, March 13, 2024, by the Professional Responsibility Chamber of the Supreme Court (SN) composed of the legitimate SN judge Wiesław Kozielewicz, neo-SN judge Paweł Wojciechowski, and lay judge Radosław Jeż.

 

The Chamber upheld the judgment of the disciplinary court at the Appellate Court in Łódź from May 2023. In this judgment, Judge Piotr Nowak from the District Court in Bełchatów was acquitted.

 

Judge Nowak was one of the 1278 signatories of the letter from Polish judges to the OSCE requesting monitoring of the planned postal presidential elections in 2020 amid the epidemic. The judges criticized changes to electoral law and expressed concerns about the fairness of such elections.

 

Judges were concerned that votes would only be cast by mail. Initially, the elections were supposed to be organized by the Polish Post, but the PiS government ultimately withdrew from this plan. The judges also wrote to the OSCE stating that protests against the elections and their validity would be decided by the Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamber established by PiS within the Supreme Court. Recent judgments by the ECtHR and the CJEU have deemed it illegal, as it consists solely of flawed neo-judges.

 

The signing of this letter led to reprisals against district judges from courts in Bełchatów, Piotrków Trybunalski, and Tomaszów Mazowiecki. Fifteen judges, including Vice President of Iustitia Tomasz Marczyński, are awaiting disciplinary proceedings.

 

The disciplinary actions were initiated by the deputy disciplinary spokesperson at the District Court in Piotrków Trybunalski, neo-judge Anna Gąsior-Majchrowska, who began to advance under the PiS regime. The illegal National Council of the Judiciary (KRS) nominated her as a neo-judge of the District Court in Piotrków Trybunalski. Gąsior-Majchrowska also briefly adjudicated on delegation at the Appellate Court in Warsaw.

 

As the only one in Poland, she pursued judges for the letter to the OSCE. Not even known for prosecuting judges, Chief Disciplinary Spokesperson Piotr Schab and his two deputies, Michał Lasota and Przemysław Radzik, decided to bring disciplinary actions. The latter merely sent a letter to local disciplinary spokespeople, demanding explanations if they were prosecuting signatories of the letter to the OSCE. It turned out that only Gąsior-Majchrowska was doing so.

 

And she suffered defeat. The disciplinary court at the Appellate Court in Łódź acquitted three judges. Gąsior-Majchrowska, the illegal National Council of the Judiciary, and former Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro appealed against it.

 

But the spokesperson from Piotrków lost for the second time. The New Chamber upheld the acquittal, considering the judgment of the disciplinary court in Łódź exemplary. “A judge cannot be repressed for legal views in judgments and legal views expressed in the public sphere,” justified the verdict of the new Chamber’s presiding judge, legitimate SN judge Wiesław Kozielewicz.

 

He added: “Judges have a sacred and constitutional right to express themselves publicly. A judge cannot be mute, for example, in matters of lawmaking. They can express their position in a letter, interview, or in the position of a judicial association.”

 

Judge Kozielewicz emphasized that the disciplinary spokesperson did not act wisely by taking repressive actions for permissible behavior. He further argued that judges should speak without emotions and with restraint. However, the letter to the OSCE did not exceed the limits of expression; it was balanced.

 

The right to speak on matters concerning the rule of law and the judiciary was also granted to judges a few years ago in a judgment by the ECtHR. Referring to this judgment, the deputy disciplinary spokesperson at the Appellate Court in Kraków, Tomasz Szymański, refused to prosecute Kraków judges for statements and participation in the Tour de Constitution.

 

The Deputy Disciplinary Spokesperson at the District Court in Piotrków Trybunalski, neo-judge Anna Gąsior-Majchrowska, brought forth an extensive disciplinary charge against judges from the Piotrków district. She accused them of engaging in public activity and taking a stance in the current political dispute by signing the letter, formulating their own views, and opposing the solutions proposed by PiS in the amendments to electoral law.

 

According to the disciplinary spokesperson, in doing so, the judges violated the constitutional prohibition of judges’ political involvement expressed in Article 178 para 3 of the Constitution. It states that “A judge cannot belong to a political party, a trade union, or engage in public activities incompatible with the principles of independence of courts and the impartiality of judges.”

 

She also accused the judges of questioning the legality of the Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamber established by PiS, in which judges appointed by the neo-National Council of the Judiciary sit.

 

In the justification for the mass disciplinary action against judges from the Piotrków district, the disciplinary spokesperson argues that they expressed their views contrary to one of the parties (PiS). In her opinion, a judge should not betray their “political beliefs” or participate in public debate.

 

The act of signing the letter to the OSCE was classified as a disciplinary offense under Article 107 paragraph 1, points 3, 4, 5 of the Act on the Structure of Common Courts. Point 4 prohibits “public activities incompatible with the principles of independence of courts and the impartiality of judges.” Point 5 refers to a breach of the dignity of a judge. Point 3 prohibits “questioning the existence of the employment relationship of a judge, the effectiveness of the appointment of a judge, or the constitutional authorization of a body of the Republic of Poland.”

 

The latter point was introduced into the law on courts by PiS through a muzzle law. It was intended to prevent judges from questioning the status of the neo-National Council of the Judiciary, the Disciplinary Chamber, the Control Chamber, or the neo-judges. In June 2023, the CJEU ruled that the muzzle law was incompatible with EU law.

 

All disciplinary actions against judges from Piotrków initially went to the illegal Disciplinary Chamber, which PiS abolished in 2022. They were then taken over by the Professional Responsibility Chamber. At the request of the defense attorney of the prosecuted judges, Radosław Skiba, three cases were transferred to the disciplinary court at the Appellate Court in Łódź. This was because the adjudicating panels deemed that the new Chamber was not competent as a first-instance court. In these cases, acquittal judgments were issued.

 

The disciplinary spokesperson from Piotrków Trybunalski, the illegal National Council of the Judiciary, and former Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro appealed against these judgments. The remaining 12 disciplinary cases await a decision from the new Chamber as a first-instance disciplinary court.

 

The Disciplinary Spokesperson’s Defeat in the New Chamber

On Wednesday, March 13, 2024, the new Chamber reviewed the first appeal against the acquittal verdict of Judge Piotr Nowak from the District Court in Bełchatów.

 

The case was heard by a panel involving a flawed neo-Supreme Court judge because the defense attorney’s request for a neo-judge test was not granted. During the trial, the defense lawyer submitted a request to exclude the neo-judge. However, the adjudicating panel decided that it would be addressed later and proceeded with the trial.

 

It turned out during the proceedings that the new Minister of Justice, Adam Bodnar, withdrew the appeal against the acquittal verdict filed by Minister Ziobro. As a result, this appeal was left unaddressed. The appeals of the spokesperson and the neo-National Council of the Judiciary remained in play.

 

The Deputy Disciplinary Spokesperson at the District Court in Piotrków Trybunalski, Anna Gąsior-Majchrowska, supporting the motion to penalize Judge Nowak, merely stated that she stood by what she wrote in the motion. She demanded a 15 percent reduction in the judge’s salary for a period of 6 months or a financial penalty equivalent to one month’s salary. No one from the neo-National Council of the Judiciary appeared at the hearing. They demanded in writing that the case be reconsidered.

 

On the other hand, Judge Nowak’s defense attorney, Radosław Skiba, requested that the acquittal verdict be upheld. During the trial, he stated: “Judges, as citizens, have the right to express their opinions on important matters. The letter to the OSCE does not exceed the limits of expression, and it does not contain statements that violate the dignity of the judicial office. There is no political entanglement in it.”

 

He emphasized: “The letter reflects the concerns of judges about postal voting. It is a concern for the public good.” Skiba also pointed out that judges were disciplined for stating in the letter to the OSCE that members of the Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamber were appointed in a legally flawed nomination process, which compromised the independence of this Chamber.

 

“However, they referred to the resolution of the full Supreme Court from January 2020. Quoting this resolution cannot be considered a disciplinary offense,” Skiba stressed.

 

In this historic resolution, the Supreme Court questioned the legality of the Disciplinary Chamber, the neo-National Council of the Judiciary, and the neo-judges, including the neo-Supreme Court judges. Only such flawed judges sit in the Control Chamber. Therefore, it is illegal.

 

After a brief deliberation, a verdict was reached maintaining the acquittal verdict. First, it was justified by neo-Supreme Court Judge Paweł Wojciechowski, who was the rapporteur for the case. Then, a few sentences were added by legitimate Supreme Court Judge Wiesław Kozielewicz, the presiding judge (his justification was described at the beginning of the text).

 

The panel concluded that the disciplinary court at the Appellate Court in Łódź was the appropriate first-instance court to consider this case. And its verdict was correct. Neo-judge Wojciechowski justified that the letter to the OSCE was not addressed to a politician but to an international institution. It was balanced and devoid of political declarations.

 

“Judges may express their opinions on public matters, but in a balanced and restrained manner. And this letter is such,” Wojciechowski reasoned. He emphasized that there is only one paragraph in the letter concerning the Control Chamber, referring to the full Supreme Court resolution from January 2020. This passage discusses the flawed appointment process of the judges to this Chamber.

 

He added that legal opinions on this issue are divergent. While the CJEU and the ECtHR question the status of neo-judges, the Constitutional Tribunal does not. “However, legal opinion and taking a stance by a group of judges cannot be considered a disciplinary offense,” Wojciechowski concluded.

 

He did not mention that the Tribunal under Przyłębska’s presidency is an untrustworthy constitutional body, and its judgments issued with the participation of substitutes are not binding.

 

The article was published in Polish in OKO.press on 13 March 2024.



Author


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


More

Published

March 25, 2024

Tags

Supreme CourtPolandConstitutional TribunalDisciplinary Chamberjudgesrule of lawdisciplinary proceedingsZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of Justice of the EUjudicial independenceEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaCourt of JusticeMinister of JusticeEuropean Court of Human RightsAdam BodnarIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemmuzzle lawJarosław KaczyńskiNational Recovery PlanCJEUMateusz Morawieckineo-judgesCommissioner for Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European UnionPrzemysław RadzikWaldemar ŻurekdemocracyNational Council for JudiciaryPiotr Schabelectionspresidential electionsKamil ZaradkiewiczJulia Przyłębskamedia freedomcriminal lawelections 2023disciplinary commissionerharassmentprosecutionSupreme Administrative CourtHungaryelections 2020preliminary rulingsjudiciaryDagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaK 3/21First President of the Supreme CourtPaweł JuszczyszynNational ProsecutorRecovery FundPresidentMichał LasotaProsecutor GeneralŁukasz PiebiakBeata MorawiecprosecutorsEuropean Arrest Warrantfreedom of expressionConstitutionPrime MinisterSejmimmunityMaciej NawackiIustitiaRegional Court in KrakówCriminal ChamberCOVID-19Maciej FerekOSCEMałgorzata GersdorfcourtsVenice CommissionMarek SafjanMinistry of JusticeExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberEU budgetdisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiPiSNCJKrystian MarkiewiczStanisław PiotrowiczPresident of the Republic of PolandAleksander Stepkowskicommission on Russian influenceJustice FundTHEMISLabour and Social Security ChamberLaw and JusticeNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsconditionalitycorruptionStanisław BiernatreformsAnna Dalkowskafreedom of assemblyconditionality mechanismWłodzimierz WróbelsuspensionPiotr GąciarekOrdo IurisReczkowicz and Others v. PolandparliamentMarcin RomanowskiAndrzej Stępkamedia independenceChamber of Professional LiabilityBroda and Bojara v PolandXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandP 7/20K 7/21LGBTPresident of PolandNational Reconstruction PlanJarosław DudziczLex DudaProfessional Liability ChamberMay 10 2020 electionsStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationPiotr PrusinowskidefamationLex Super OmniamediaUrsula von der LeyenKrzysztof ParchimowiczEAWabortionMichał Wawrykiewiczelectoral codeAmsterdam District CourtNext Generation EUSLAPPConstitutional Tribunal PresidentDidier ReyndersTVPEwa ŁętowskaSenateParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeLech GarlickiSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramArticle 6 ECHRAndrzej ZollNational Electoral CommissionFreedom HouseJarosław WyrembakJustice Defence Committee – KOSreformArticle 7acting first president of the Supreme CourtSupreme Court President2017PM Mateusz MorawieckipolicePiotr TulejaJerzy StępieńAndrzej RzeplińskiFerdynand RymarzStanisław RymarMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaDariusz ZawistowskiOKO.pressreportSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskiMarek ZubikDariusz KornelukMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekEuropean Parliamentmilestoneselectoral processAndrzej MączyńskiJózef IwulskiWojciech MaczugavetoOLAFViktor OrbanSzymon Szynkowski vel SękMaciej Miterajudcial independencecourt presidentsJanusz NiemcewiczTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaMarek MazurkiewiczZiobroMirosław GranatWojciech ŁączkowskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaStefan JaworskiAdam JamrózKazimierz Działochainsulting religious feelingsrestoration of the rule of lawright to fair trialXero Flor v. PolandLaw on the NCJKrakówstate of emergencydecommunizationBelarusAdam SynakiewiczAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Joanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraCentral Anti-Corruption BureausurveillanceMariusz KamińskiPegasusEdyta BarańskaJoanna Misztal-KoneckaCivil ChamberUkraineSupreme Audit OfficeMarian BanaśKrystyna PawłowiczCCBERafał PuchalskiThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeMarek PietruszyńskiMichał Laskowskipublic opinion pollsmear campaignMariusz MuszyńskiHuman Rights CommissionerMaciej TaborowskiPaweł FilipekInternational Criminal CourtKonrad WytrykowskirecommendationaccountabilityJakub IwaniecDariusz DrajewicztransparencyFree CourtsBohdan Zdziennickiretirement ageSLAPPsPATFoxLGBT ideology free zoneslexTuskAdam Tomczyński11 January March in Warsawabuse of state resourcesEuropean Association of Judgespublic mediaEwa Wrzosekcourt changesC-791/19democratic backslidingcoronavirushuman rightscriminal codePiebiak gateelections fairnessZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczJarosław GowinEU law primacyPiotr PszczółkowskiBelgiumtransferNetherlandscivil societyRussiaBogdan Święczkowskielections integrityintimidation of dissentersMarcin Warchołlex NGOGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszCrimes of espionageNCBiRJoanna KnobelKasta/AntykastaThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentHater ScandalPaweł StyrnaGrzegorz FurmankiewiczDariusz BarskiJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczJustyna WydrzyńskaKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczEwa ŁąpińskaIrena BochniakZbigniew ŁupinaNational Broadcasting CouncilKatarzyna ChmuraStanisław ZdunLasotaAntykastaEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFMarek JaskulskiRome StatuteCourt of Appeal in Warsawlex RaczkowskiCourt of Appeal in KrakówNational Council for the JudiciaryMarek Astgag lawsuitsAssessment ActAct sanitising the judiciaryenvironmentPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAgreement for the Rule of LawMaria Ejchart-DuboisPaulina Kieszkowska-Knapikstrategic investmentPiotr HofmańskiUS State DepartmentPutinismKaczyńskilex Wośdisinformationextraordinary commissionlegislationthe Spy ActZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaHelsinki Foundation for Human RightsinvestmentMałgorzata Wąsek-WiaderekOsiatyński'a ArchiveJarosław MatrasPaulina AslanowiczPiotr Raczkowskict on the Protection of the PopulatioAndrzej SkowronoppositionDariusz DończykPetros TovmasyanJerzy KwaśniewskiPiotr MazurekGrzegorz PudaNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeinsultState TribunalDonald Tusk governmenttest of independencepilot-judgmentVěra JourováTomasz Koszewskiright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawJakub KwiecińskidiscriminationAnti-SLAPP DirectiveODIHRcivil lawDonald TuskJustice MinistryJoanna Scheuring-WielgusAction PlanAdam GendźwiłłElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikSebastian Mazurekjustice system reformJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiEuropean Court of HuMałgorzata FroncRafał LisakKarolina MiklaszewskaRadosław BaszukNGOFull-Scale Election Observation MissionWałęsa v. PolandAct on the Supreme CourtLech WałęsaMichał DworczykDworczyk leaksAleksandra RutkowskaE-mail scandalRafał WojciechowskidelegationsTomasz SzmydtEmilia SzmydtWatchdog PolskaArkadiusz CichockiKaspryszyn v PolandDobrochna Bach-GoleckaMonika FrąckowiakNCR&Delection fairnessIvan Mischenkomedia pluralism#RecoveryFilesWiesław Kozielewiczelectoral commissionsMarcin MatczakChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakArkadiusz RadwanMarcin KrajewskiBohdan BieniekGeneral Court of the EUKrzysztof Rączkarepairing the rule of lawPoznańNational School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (KSSiP)Koan Lenaertscodification commissionKarol WeitzŁukasz BilińskiPKWhate speechGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawPrzemysła RadzikElżbieta KarskaJacek Czaputowiczhate crimesChamber of Extraordinary Verificationinfringment actionEU valuesENCJIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceAK judgmentSimpson judgmentpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawOpenbaar MinisterieRegional Court in AmsterdamENAZbigniew BoniekOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsC-487/19Article 10 ECHRUnited NationsLeon KierespopulismLIBE CommitteeFrans TimmermansUS Department of StateSwieczkowskiadvocate generalpress releaseRights and Values ProgrammeC-619/18defamatory statementsStanisław ZabłockiCouncil of the EUequal treatmentfundamental rightsCT PresidentEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justice2018Nations in TransitWorld Justice Project awardWojciech SadurskiAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote billlawyersLSOjudgePechKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakAmnesty Internationaltrans-Atlantic valuesresolution of 23 January 2020Olsztyn courtoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's OfficePolish National FoundationLux VeritatisMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykTVNjournalistslexTVNclientelismArticle 258Przemysła CzarnekEducation MinisterIpsosOlimpia Barańska-MałuszeHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr Burasauthoritarian equilibriumPolish mediaRzeszówMichał WośMinistry of FinanceJacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitRoman GiertychWiktor JoachimkowskiborderprimacyEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej RutkiewiczMirosław Wróblewskiright to protestSławomir JęksaDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandTribunal of StateLeszek MazurCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActForum Współpracy Sędziówmedia taxGermanyMariusz Krasońinterim measuresautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingproteststhe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandadvertising taxmediabezwyboruArticle 2Forum shoppingEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian KaletaC-156/21C-157/21Marek PiertuszyńskiNational Prosecutor’s OfficeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiRome IIBrussels IJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióGazeta WyborczaPollitykaDisicplinary Chamber