The Disciplinary System of Judges Under the Control of the Minister of Justice

Share

Lawyer at Civil Development Forum (FOR). PhD student at the Leon Kozminski University. She also graduated from international relations at…

More

Through the Act of 8 December 2017 on the Supreme Court, drafted by the President of the Republic of Poland Andrzej Duda, the Law and Justice party has made radical changes in the system of judges’ disciplinary responsibility



As a result of these changes, important powers have been transferred to the Minister of Justice and the Prosecutor General, who can now influence the conduct of disciplinary proceedings against judges, both directly and through the selection of disciplinary spokespersons. Such a system creates the danger that it will be used in order to intimidate judges.

 

The disciplinary spokespersons (prosecutors in disciplinary proceedings of judges) Piotr Schab, Michał Lasota and Przemysław Radzik, appointed by the Minister of Justice and Prosecutor General Zbigniew Ziobro, are calling on judges to account for their participation in the mock proceedings held during the Pol’and’Rock festival, for addressing questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, as well as for statements and criticism in the media of changes to the judiciary and in defence of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland.

 

The actions of these disciplinary spokespersons are contrary to the logic and the principle of impartiality. On the one hand, the ground given for initiating proceedings against some judges is their alleged politicization, while on the other hand, the actions of the Minister of Justice, Prosecutor General and politician of the ruling party, Zbigniew Ziobro, and his collaborators among a minority of judges (e.g. the disciplinary spokespersons themselves) are somehow not considered politicized.

 

Prior to the amendment of the provisions of the Law on the System of Common Courts in 2018, disciplinary spokesmen were appointed by the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ), which comprised a majority of judges not appointed by politicians. There were also no special disciplinary courts. The 2018 Act amending the Law on the System of Common Courts granted the Minister of Justice important powers in disciplinary proceedings against judges. At present, the Minister of Justice appoints disciplinary spokespersons operating at the central level, assigns to selected justices the duties of a disciplinary court judge, may apply for initiating proceedings against selected judges, and may object to the discontinuance of proceedings. Indirectly, through his authority over the Disciplinary Spokesperson of the Judges of the Common Courts, he influences the selection and activities of disciplinary spokespersons at the courts of appeal and district courts. The Minister of Justice did not enjoy such powers before 2018.

 

Changes in the disciplinary proceedings of judges were made under amendments to the Law on the System of Common Courts, introduced by the Act of 8 December 2017 on the Supreme Court. The Act entered into force on 3 April 2018. The legislation was submitted by the President Andrzej Duda, who in July 2017 vetoed an earlier bill changing the operation of the Supreme Court. He accused it of making judges of the Supreme Court too dependent on the Minister of Justice and the Prosecutor General.

 

President Andrzej Duda argued, without providing any facts in support of his claims, that it was necessary to introduce changes to disciplinary proceedings against judges owing to “the incapacity of justices of the Supreme Court to enforce consequences for disciplinary offences by judges”. The changes were intended to ensure “better organization, and to increase the efficiency of the handling of disciplinary cases concerning those performing public trust professions, which are important for the authority of these professions”. No evidence was provided in the explanatory memorandum to the draft bill that the proposed amendments would improve the system governing the disciplinary liability of judges. The danger of judges being subjected to intimidation was also not taken into account.

 

The analysis of the disciplinary system for punishing judges concerns only judges in the common courts. Disciplinary proceedings in administrative courts remain unchanged. In this respect, the Supreme Administrative Court is the competent court for hearing disciplinary matters. The Disciplinary Spokesperson is the Disciplinary Spokesperson of the Supreme Administrative Court, who is elected by the College of this Court. Unlike common courts, disciplinary proceedings against judges of administrative courts have not yet been politicised.

 

This article is a summary of an analysis published by the Civil Development Forum [in Polish only]



Author


Lawyer at Civil Development Forum (FOR). PhD student at the Leon Kozminski University. She also graduated from international relations at…


More

Published

April 9, 2019

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary Chamberdisciplinary proceedingsPolandrule of lawConstitutional Tribunaljudicial independenceZbigniew ZiobroEuropean CommissionCourt of Justice of the EUjudgesNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of JusticeEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaIgor TuleyaMałgorzata Manowskadisciplinary systemMinister of JusticeCommissioner for Human RightsEuropean Court of Human RightsMateusz MorawieckiCJEUpresidential electionsjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsdemocracymuzzle lawHungaryJarosław Kaczyńskielections 2020Beata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsKamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerEuropean Arrest WarrantCOVID-19PresidentProsecutor GeneralConstitutionfreedom of expressioncriminal lawMarek SafjanOSCEWaldemar ŻurekPaweł JuszczyszynNational Public ProsecutorPiotr SchabPrzemysław Radzikcriminal proceedingsPrime MinisterJulia PrzyłębskaExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chambermedia freedomSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJNational ProsecutorelectionsWojciech HermelińskiStanisław PiotrowiczAndrzej ZollMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtAleksander StepkowskiOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsmedia independenceAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczMaciej NawackiEAWmediaimmunityAnna DalkowskaCouncil of Europe2017freedom of assemblyFreedom HouseLech GarlickiStanisław BiernatArticle 7Venice CommissionWłodzimierz WróbelPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaK 3/21P 7/20Ministry of JusticeC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesSejmBroda and Bojara v PolandMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramdefamationTHEMISTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskidemocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetopoliceJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJJustice Defence Committee – KOSrecommendationTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiEwa ŁętowskaHuman 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 ParliamentZiobroMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiPiotr Gąciarekhuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawCourt of Justice of the European UnionJustice FundAdam SynakiewiczcoronavirusPiSresolution of 23 January 2020Piotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakLeon KieresPKWinfringment actionEU valuesENCJlex NGOcivil societyRussiaIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechcriminal codeGrzęda v PolandXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. 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 broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited Nationsjudcial independenceLeszek 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 WyborczaOKO.pressUS 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 WawrzykPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiharrassmentMarian BanaśAlina CzubieniakSupreme Audit OfficeTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerBelarusEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediastate of emergencypostal votepostal vote bill