The Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court as an exceptional court

Share

professor of the Jagiellonian University, Head of the Department of Criminal Law of the Jagiellonian University, Head of the Chair…

More

The Disciplinary Chamber satisfies features of an exceptional court, despite its nominal inclusion in the structure of the Supreme Court. As a result, fundamental doubts arise as to whether the rulings issued by this chamber are judicial decisions in the meaning of the Constitution - argues prof. Włodzimierz Wróbel (Jagiellonian University)



Article 175, para. 2 of the Polish Constitution only provides for the ability to establish exceptional courts during wartime. The Constitution also rules out the functioning of courts other than those specified in Article 175 of the Constitution.

 

A feature of an exceptional court is organizational separation, autonomy with respect to other courts, a specific way of appointing judges to such a court, a special scope of cases examined in terms of time, entity and subject matter, and a specific procedure.

 

The Disciplinary Chamber satisfies these features of an exceptional court, despite its nominal inclusion in the structure of the Supreme Court. As a result, fundamental doubts arise as to whether the rulings issued by this chamber are judicial decisions in the meaning of the Constitution.

 

Prof. Włodzimierz Wróbel analyzed detailed regulations establishing the organizational unit, which the lawmakers called the “Disciplinary Chamber” in the Supreme Court. He concluded that this unit fulfills criteria of “exceptional court” and discusses grave constitutional consequences that it entails.

 

Read the full analysis in English here.

 



Author


professor of the Jagiellonian University, Head of the Department of Criminal Law of the Jagiellonian University, Head of the Chair…


More

Published

January 3, 2020

Tags

rule of lawSupreme Courtdisciplinary proceedingsjudicial independenceCourt of JusticeNational Council of the JudiciaryEuropean CommissionDisciplinary ChamberjudgesConstitutional TribunalZbigniew ZiobroAndrzej DudaEuropean Unionjudiciarypreliminary rulingsMinister of JusticeCJEUPresidentProsecutor Generalprosecutors2017Freedom HouseExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberVenice Commissiondemocracymuzzle lawCourt of Justice of the EUIgor Tuleyademocratic backslidingdecommunizationfreedom of assemblyLaw on the NCJrecommendationFirst President of the Supreme CourtAdam BodnarHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropereportZiobroConstitutionfreedom of expressionLaw and Justiceprosecution11 January March in WarsawPolandJarosław KaczyńskipopulismMateusz MorawieckiPrime Ministerequal treatmentfundamental rightspoliceCT PresidentJulia PrzyłębskaJustice Defence Committee – KOSEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justicepublic opinion pollSupreme Court President2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUStanisław ZabłockiArticle 7European ParliamentLIBE CommitteeFrans TimmermansUS Department of StateSwieczkowskiSupreme Administrative Courtadvocate generalpress releaseRights and Values ProgrammeconditionalityEU budgetC-619/18PM Mateusz Morawieckidefamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardintimidation of dissentersWojciech SadurskijudgetransferPechKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakretirement ageAmnesty InternationalŁukasz PiebiakPiebiak gatehuman rightstrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersAct of 20 December 2019European Association of JudgesNCJrepressive actKoen LenaertsHungarycriminal lawharrassmentAlina CzubieniakMinistry of JusticeJustice FundGerard BirgfellerNational ProsecutorEwa Maciejewskadisciplinary systemelections 2020postal votecoronavirusCOVID-19