Supreme Court queries ECJ about new appointee

Share

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

More

Controversy is growing around the forced transfer of judge and former National Council of Judiciary spokesperson, Waldemar Żurek, from the second instance district court in Cracow to a court of the first instance.



Alongside his parallel responsibilities as a justice and spokesperson of the district court in Cracow, Żurek was a two-term member and official spokesperson of the National Council of Judiciary until 2018. He is well known as being strongly opposed to changes made by the current ruling party to the justice system, including those concerning appointments of judges to the Supreme Court.

 

By the decision of the newly elected president of the district court in Cracow, Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woicka, who is known to be an acquaintance of the Minister of Justice as well as a recently appointed member of the KRS, Żurek was dismissed from his role as spokesperson of the court at the beginning of 2018. Later that year, a decision by the same president of the court forcefully transferred him from the court of the second instance to one of the first instance court, which is widely recognized as a career step-down. The decision was undertaken in the absence of consultations with the court college, which is usually a prerequisite, and can be seen as an attempt to intimidate judges advocating for the independence of the judiciary.

 

A statement of the Justice Defence Committee dated 8 September 2018 reads:

 

The Justice Defence Committee strongly objects to the transfer of judge Waldemar Żurek to another department of the District Court in Kraków against his will. The decision of the President of the District Court in Krakow, Dagmara Pawelczyk-Woicka, undertaken without consulting the court college, is a form of repression against the judge who, acting in accordance with the pledge, defends the foundations of the lawful state.

 

The Justice Defence Committee does not question the right of the president of the court to conduct personnel policy. However, it should be transparent, based on clear criteria, and done in accordance with applicable regulations, after consultation with the court college. Transferring Judge Waldemar Żurek to another department with immediate effect, without meeting these conditions, in a situation where there were still open cases requiring his assistance, has disorganized work within the court and is a form of harassment towards the judge.

 

The decision not only violates the rights of citizens to speedy resolution of their cases in court, but is a manifestation of disregard towards the rights of the bench’s self-government (no opinion of the college) and another attempt to intimidate judges and stop them from acting to defend the independence of the courts.

 

An appeal filed by Żurek against the decision to the Supreme Court was rejected single-handedly by its appointee Aleksander Stępkowski of the Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs Chamber. The problem with the legitimacy of this decision lies mainly in the fact that prior to the ruling Żurek petitioned for exclusion of all the judges of this Chamber from his case, as he did not accept their authority in light of their controversial appointment by the current government, and he feared that their decision might be politically driven. In addition, Żurek has been subject to disciplinary investigations, one regarding potential tax fraud, one about allegedly false accusations against fellow legal service officers, and one concerning participation in a public event promoting reform of judiciary.

 

Earlier this year, in May, the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court adjourned Żurek’s appeal and presented two questions of law to an enlarged panel of seven Supreme Court judges. The Supreme Court concluded that a serious breach of Polish law had taken place during the nomination proceedings, therefore casting doubt over whether a court whose members were chosen in such a way can still be considered impartial, independent and compliant with EU law. As a consequence, the following question was referred to the European Court of Justice:

 

“Should Article 2, Article 6(1) and 6(3) and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of European Union be interpreted as meaning that a court, composed of a person appointed as a result of a flagrant breach of Member State’s law on judicial appointments, in particular consisting in appointing that person despite: (1) prior appeal against nominating decision (2) the suspension of operation of that decision by a competent court (Supreme Administrative Court) and in line with national law, and (3) the proceedings before that have not been completed before the appointment took place, is not an independent and impartial court established by law?”

 

[by Martyna Olejnik and Patryk Wachowiec]

 



Author


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


More

Published

June 14, 2019

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandrule of lawZbigniew Ziobrojudicial independenceCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean CommissionNational Council of the JudiciaryjudgesEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeMałgorzata ManowskaAndrzej DudaIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemCommissioner for Human RightsEuropean Court of Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeMateusz MorawieckiJarosław Kaczyńskipresidential electionsjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsdemocracyK 3/21muzzle lawHungaryelections 2020Kamil ZaradkiewiczBeata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsWaldemar Żurekdisciplinary commissionerEuropean Arrest WarrantProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19Julia PrzyłębskaPresidentmedia freedomfreedom of expressionCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynNational Public ProsecutorPiotr SchabPrzemysław Radzikcriminal proceedingsPrime Ministerfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorelectionsWojciech HermelińskiStanisław PiotrowiczAndrzej ZollMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsBroda and Bojara v Polandmedia independenceAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczTHEMISMaciej NawackiEAWmediaimmunityAnna DalkowskaCouncil of Europe2017policeFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaArticle 7Venice CommissionWłodzimierz WróbelPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaP 7/20Justice FundPiSC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesSejmXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandReczkowicz and Others v. PolandIustitiaKrystian MarkiewiczMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramdefamationcourtsEwa 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 RzeplińskiSupreme Court PresidentJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskireportBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersEuropean ParliamentOKO.pressZiobroMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiPiotr Gąciarekhuman 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 2020K 6/21Mirosław WróblewskiCivil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaLeon Kieresright to protestSławomir JęksaPKWWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMariusz Kamińskiinfringment actionsurveillanceEU valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauENCJJacek SasinErnest Bejdalex NGOThe First President of the Supreme Courtcivil societyMaciej CzajkaRussiaMariusz JałoszewskiIsraelŁukasz Radkeforeign agents lawpolexitNational Recovery PlanK 7/21Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechcriminal codeGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawPrzemysła RadzikSenateMarcin WarchołElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsC-487/19Article 6 ECHRArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieUrsula von der LeyenAK 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 InternationalHudocŁukasz PiebiakRegional Court in KrakówPiebiak gateKonrad 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