The Commissioner for Human Rights wants the President of the Constitutional Tribunal to be removed from the bench. This is about her husband’s statements

Share

Journalist at OKO.press and Archiwum Osiatyńskiego

More

The Constitutional Tribunal is about to issue a verdict that may finally remove Adam Bodnar from the post of Commissioner for Human Rights, even if he has no successor. The incumbent Commissioner considers that the President of the Constitutional Tribunal, Julia Przyłębska, is not impartial and should not rule in this case



Julia Przyłębska’s Constitutional Tribunal is to finally rule on 10 March 2021 on whether extending the term of office of the incumbent Commissioner for Human Rights, if his successor has not been elected, is constitutional.

 

The motion on this matter was submitted to the Constitutional Tribunal by two PiS deputies as early as in September 2020, while the date of the session has been postponed five times.

 

The bench will consist of the President of the Constitutional Tribunal, Julia Przyłębska (as the presiding judge) and Judges Stanisław Piotrowicz (as rapporteur), Justyn Piskorski, Wojciech Sych and Rafał Wojciechowski.

 

Adam Bodnar filed a motion to remove Przyłębska on 3 March 2021. In his opinion, she should not rule on the case because of public statements made by her spouse, Andrzej Przyłębski, Poland’s ambassador to Germany.

 

The Commissioner recalls that Przyłębski fiercely criticized his activities in a letter to the Federal Association of German-Polish Societies in October 2020. The ambassador explained in it why he did not intend to give a welcoming speech at the Polish Commissioner’s Dialogue Award giving ceremony. He made direct accusations about Bodnar.

 

‘During his time in office, Professor Bodnar has done everything to slow down the necessary reforms being implemented by a democratically elected parliament and its emanation, the government,’ wrote Ambassador Przyłębski. In his opinion, Bodnar was also alleged to have involved international institutions in an unauthorized manner in the case of the deprival of Judge Beata Morawiec’s immunity by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court.

 

Bondar points out that Przyłębski made these remarks ‘without any reference to the reasons for the Commissioner’s action in this case’. ‘These statements should be considered an attempt to disparage the constitutional body – the Commissioner for Human Rights – and personally Dr Hab. Adam Bodnar in Polish-German relations – as a biased body of the protection of civil rights,’ reads the motion for removal.

 

‘Reasonable doubts’

 

According to the Commissioner, Przyłębski’s statements ‘give rise to reasonable doubts’ as to whether his spouse is impartial. All the more so that she herself has publicly commented on the reform of the judiciary in a similar tone.

 

Bodnar refers to Article 39 of the Act on the proceedings before the Constitutional Tribunal, which lists the premises for removing judges from adjudication. In para. 2, item 2, it states that it is possible, among other things, when ‘there are other circumstances not mentioned in item 1 or para. 1 that may incite doubts as to his impartiality’.

 

The Commissioner refers to this premise with the knowledge that it is ‘of an evaluative nature’. However, he believes that Przyłębski’s statements satisfy the features of such circumstances. Especially as the matter in question is of great importance. As Bodnar emphasizes, its outcome can threaten the efficient functioning of a constitutional body, namely the Commissioner.

 

In his motion, Bodnar cites, among other things, the case law of the Supreme Court. In one of its judgments, the Supreme Court held that the grounds for removal could be ‘a set of personal relations that would make it difficult for a judge to retain an impartial attitude in resolving a dispute due to the emotional attitude to the given person’ or ‘connections influencing a judge’s interests or position in life’.

 

The need to maintain ‘impartiality and independence of the court in the eyes of the public’ was emphasized by the Constitutional Tribunal itself in its earlier judgments. This has been repeatedly pointed out by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the Court of Justice of the EU.

 

‘Situations such as the presentation of negative and emotional statements without specifying the grounds for the allegations “can give rise to reasonable doubts about the independence of this body of external factors in the minds of individuals,” thereby undermining “the trust that the judiciary should inspire in these individuals in a democratic society”,’ writes Bodnar, quoting the CJEU.

 

Initiative of PiS MPs

 

The case was referred to the Tribunal on 17 September 2020 by PiS MPs Marek Ast and Przemysław Czarnek (currently Minister of Science and Education). They asked the Constitutional Tribunal to rule on the constitutionality of the provisions of the Act on the Commissioner for Human Rights. This applies to the extension of the term of office of the incumbent Commissioner in the situation where a new person has not yet been elected.

 

If the Constitutional Tribunal decides that this provision is unconstitutional, the government will delete it from the Act. There will no longer be any grounds for extending Bodnar’s mandate, whose term of office formally ended on 9 September 2020.

 

A battle is currently in progress in parliament over the election of a new ombudsperson. PiS has twice rejected Zuzanna Rudzińska-Bluszcz, a former employee of the Commissioner’s Office who was supported by hundreds of social organizations. In her place, it tried to push through the candidacy of the current Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Piotr Wawrzyk. However, the Senate, which is dominated by the opposition, did not agree to his appointment.

 

According to Article 209(1) of the Constitution, the consent of the Senators is a necessary condition in the process of electing the Commissioner. Article 3, para. 6 of the Act on the Commissioner, which was contested by Ast and Czarnek, states that ‘the Commissioner to date holds his office until the new one takes office.’ PiS argues that this solution is in conflict with the principle of legalism contained in Article 7 of the Constitution.

 

Bodnar takes the position that the provision is consistent with the Constitution. As he emphasized in his letters to the Constitutional Tribunal, his removal would weaken the protection of rights and freedoms that the Commissioner is supposed to guarantee. In addition, similar provisions on the extension of the term apply to the heads of the National Bank of Poland and the Supreme Audit Office.

 

However, for the PiS government, Bodnar’s continuation in office is highly inconvenient, because the Commissioner and his Office meticulously monitor abuses of power, point out to unconstitutional ‘reforms’, and defend social groups marginalized by the authorities, such as LGBT people and refugees. This is almost certainly the reason for the attempt to end Bodnar’s term of office with the help of the politicized Constitutional Tribunal.

 

Others also to be removed

 

Bodnar has raised serious reservations about the legitimacy of this process and its possible consequences.

 

This is because it is unclear who would head the Commissioner’s Office in the situation where the Sejm and the Senate cannot agree on a successor. Bodnar has also already drawn attention to formal issues, demanding the removal of former PiS MP, Stanislaw Piotrowicz, and the ‘stand-in’ Judge Justyn Piskorski from the bench.

 

However, the Tribunal refused, arguing that Judge Piskorski’s status has already been confirmed by the Constitutional Tribunal, which consistently dismisses similar removal motions. In Stanislaw Piotrowicz’s case, the Tribunal stated that the ‘Commissioner Adam Bodnar’s subjective opinions’ about Piotrowicz’s statements from the time when he was an MP ‘are not relevant to the assessment of the independence of a judge of the Constitutional Tribunal’.



Author


Journalist at OKO.press and Archiwum Osiatyńskiego


More

Published

March 8, 2021

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