The Polish Government is looking for candidates to the office of judge of Court of Justice of the EU

Share

Co-founder and editor of Rule of Law in Poland and coordinator of The Wiktor Osiatyński Archive, a rule of law…

More

The recruitment for the office of judge of the Court of Justice of the European Union can be entered up to 19 July. An inter-ministerial group will assess the candidates. We explain the procedure and the achievements of the most probable candidates



Professor Marek Safjan’s 6-year term of office as judge of the Court of Justice of the European Union ends in October. The government announced the recruitment on 5 July, in which it will choose Poland’s nominee for the position of judge of the CJEU. This will be handled by the newly established Inter-Ministerial Group for selecting candidates for the office of judge and Advocates General of the CJEU, as well as judges of the General Court of the EU, chaired by the Minister for European Union Affairs, Konrad Szymański.

 

An announcement by the Minister for EU Affairs about the opportunity to ‘apply for nomination by the Republic of Poland for the office of judge of the Court of Justice of the European Union’ was published in Poland’s national dailies on 5 July. Applications may be submitted up to 19 July to the Chancellery of the Prime Minister.

 

The Court has 27 judges, one from each EU country. They are appointed with the consent of the governments of the Member States after consulting an expert advisory panel, which is required by Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.

 

Article 253 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU and Article 19 of the Treaty on European Union state that the judges of the CJEU should have the qualifications required for the highest judicial office in their respective countries or be recognized legal experts. There must be no doubt as to their independence.

 

Ombudsman Adam Bodnar appealed to Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki to select a person nominated by the Polish government to be a CJEU judge.

 

Two-stage procedure

The CJEU judge nominee will be selected in accordance with the procedure specified in Order No. 84 of the Prime Minister of 24 June 2021 on the Inter-Ministerial Group for the selection of candidates for the office of judge and the office of Advocate-General of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as well as the office of judge of the General Court of the European Union, published on 29 June 2021 in Monitor Polski (item 592).

 

The Inter-Ministerial Group is chaired by the Minister for EU Affairs, Konrad Szymański. The team will also include:

  • a representative of the Minister for EU Affairs,
  • two representatives of the Minister of Justice (Zbigniew Ziobro),
  • and a representative of the Head of the Chancellery of the Prime Minister (Michał Dworczyk).

‘A person of unquestionable authority in legal studies or in the application of the law’ may also be appointed to the group. The first committee meeting must be held before 10 August. Participation in the group’s work is unpaid.

 

The qualification procedure includes a formal assessment of the applications and an interview.

 

The formal requirements include Polish citizenship, full public rights, impeccable character, a Master’s degree in law, obtained in Poland or abroad and recognized in Poland, at least 10 years of experience as an attorney-at-law, legal counsel or notary public, or as a president, vice-president, senior counsel or counsel at the General Counsel to the Republic of Poland.

 

This last requirement does not apply to people holding the academic title of professor or a post-doctorate degree in legal studies. In addition, knowledge of Polish, French and a third or more official EU languages is required.

 

The substantive qualifications of the candidates are to be assessed in the second stage, during the interview, including:

  • whether they satisfy the conditions of Article 253(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (they are persons whose independence is beyond doubt and who possess the qualifications required for appointment to the highest judicial offices in Poland or who are jurisconsults of recognised competence);
  • whether they have extensive legal knowledge of EU law and experience regarding its implementation into the Polish legal order and its application;
  • their familiarity with the case law of the CJEU;
  • their familiarity with Polish law and experience related to its application;
  • their academic achievements. 

 

After holding the interviews, the Inter-Ministerial Group will select no more than 3 candidates, from among whom the Council of Ministers will choose a person nominated by Poland for the position of a judge of the CJEU.

 

The expert panel established in accordance with Article 255 of the Treaty on European Union will give its opinion on the nominated person. If the person receives a positive opinion, the EU governments will have to agree to his appointment to the office of judge of the CJEU. If the experts reject the nomination, the procedure will start from the beginning.

 

Who will be appointed to the CJEU?

According to our findings, it is said among specialists in EU law that the ruling party would be happy to see applications from Professor Dr Hab. Marek Szydło, Professor Dr Hab. Leszek Bosek or Dr Hab. Waldemar Gontarski. 

 

Professor Gontarski told us in e-mail that he is not planning to take part in the recruitment. Professor Szydło and Professor Bosek have not yet answered our questions. Both of them have extensive academic and expert achievements and professional experience, which the current government has already valued.

 

Dr Hab. Leszek Bosek, professor of the University of Warsaw, has been a judge of the Supreme Court since 2018. He was nominated by President Andrzej Duda in a procedure with the involvement of the new National Council of the Judiciary. He adjudicates in the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs. Previously, under the PiS government, he was president of the office of the General Counsel to the Republic of Poland. He wrote his doctoral thesis under the supervision of CJEU judge, Professor Marek Safjan. He heads the Department of Medical Law and Biotechnology at the University of Warsaw. In 2002-2006, he worked as a case law counselor in the Office of the Constitutional Tribunal, and in 2006-2011 he was a counselor at the General Counsel to the Republic of Poland.  Until 2016, he was head of the Legislative Analyses Department at the Sejm’s Bureau of Research.

 

While he was President of the General Counsel to the Republic of Poland, he co-wrote the 2016 Act on the Office of the General Counsel. He is the author of more than 100 academic publications and co-editor of the six-volume medical law system series, System Prawa Medycznego. He was an expert for the Association of Large Families. In the Supreme Court, he was in the panels that overruled the resolutions of the new NCJ on judicial appointments. But he himself abstained from ruling when three chambers of the Supreme Court passed resolutions on the status of judges nominated by the new NCJ.

 

Dr Hab. Marek Szydło, professor at the University of Wrocław, manages the Competition Law and Sector Regulation Unit of the Faculty of Law, Administration, and Economics at the University of Wrocław. He is a legal counsel. He also works as an expert on legislation in the Sejm’s Bureau of Research at the Chancellery of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland. He chairs the Legislative Council.

 

He is the author of numerous academic publications, including 14 monographs; he managed projects at the National Science Centre. He received a scholarship from the Foundation for Polish Science for young scientists (2003-2004), an award of the ‘Polityka’ magazine for the best young scientists (2007), a distinction in the competition of the magazine ‘Państwo i Prawo’ for the best habilitation thesis (2008) and a scholarship of the Minister of Science and Higher Education for outstanding young scientists (2012).

 

As Professor Szydło states on his website, he prepared legal opinions and expert opinions for public institutions (the Sejm, the Supreme Audit Office, ministries, central offices and local government units) as well as for enterprises (including PKN Orlen, PGNiG, KGHM Polska Miedź S.A., the former Telekomunikacja Polska S.A.), and expert legislative opinions on draft laws being processed in the Sejm, draft positions of the Sejm for the Marshal of the Sejm, as well as positions for proceedings before the Constitutional Tribunal. Professor Szydło represented the Polish government before the Constitutional Tribunal on an alleged competence dispute between the Supreme Court and the President.

 

In 2017, he gave a negative opinion on the draft law on civil partnerships filed by the opposition parties. This was the first such radical expert opinion submitted to the Sejm in the history of work on bills on civil partnerships.

 

Professor Szydło did not answer our question as to whether he was the author of the justification of the Prime Minister’s motion to the Constitutional Tribunal on the constitutionality of the provisions of the EU treaty.

 

In addition to choosing a nominee for the office of judge of the CJEU, the Polish government also needs to re-submit three candidates for the office of judge of the European Court of Human Rights. The Council of Europe has rejected three candidates submitted to date.



Author


Co-founder and editor of Rule of Law in Poland and coordinator of The Wiktor Osiatyński Archive, a rule of law…


More

Published

July 7, 2021

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandZbigniew Ziobrorule of lawEuropean CommissionjudgesCourt of Justice of the EUNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaCourt of JusticeMałgorzata ManowskaIgor TuleyaEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary systemMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiWaldemar Żurekmuzzle lawdemocracypresidential electionsKamil ZaradkiewiczNational Recovery Plandisciplinary commissionerPiotr SchabPrzemysław RadzikjudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme CourtAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsSupreme Administrative CourtK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020Beata MorawiecprosecutorsŁukasz Piebiakneo-judgeselectionsNational Council for JudiciaryMichał LasotaEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiPrime MinisterJulia PrzyłębskaPresidentmedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19Małgorzata GersdorfPaweł Juszczyszynfreedom of expressionCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawDagmara Pawełczyk-Woickadisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPresident of the Republic of PolandSejmimmunityAnna DalkowskaNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamberconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetWłodzimierz WróbelCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorStanisław PiotrowiczJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisK 7/21May 10 2020 electionsLex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanProfessional Liability ChamberPresident of PolandLGBTMaciej FerekXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. Polandmedia independenceIustitiaJarosław DudziczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczArticle 6 ECHRTHEMISEAWUrsula von der LeyenChamber of Professional LiabilityTVPmedia2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaPiotr GąciarekRegional Court in KrakówRecovery FundP 7/20Justice FundPiSC-791/19National Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Piotr PszczółkowskiPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikorasuspensionJarosław GowinLGBT ideology free zonesparliamentUkraineKrystian MarkiewiczKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczDariusz DrajewiczRafał PuchalskidefamationcourtsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsharassmentMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekEwa WrzosekEU law primacyLex Super OmniaAdam Tomczyńskielections 2023BelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej Miterademocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetoJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJrecommendationTeresa 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 Laskowskiintimidation of dissentersMarek PietruszyńskitransferKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiPiebiak gatehuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyKrakówcoronavirusXero 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 lawpolexitDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościLGBT free zonesAct sanitising the judiciaryequalityMarek AstChamber 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 PopulatiolegislationRafał Trzaskowskilex Wośmedia lawRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtPrzemysła RadzikAntykastaSenateStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczMarcin WarchołKatarzyna ChmuraElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiGrzegorz FurmankiewiczJacek CzaputowiczMarek JaskulskiPrzemysław CzarnekJoanna Kołodziej-Michałowiczlegislative practiceEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaENAPaweł StyrnaZbigniew BoniekKasta/AntykastaAndrzej SkowronŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoOmbudsmanMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiKraśnikEmilia SzmydtNorwayTomasz SzmydtNorwegian fundssmear campaignNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał DworczykC-487/19media pluralism#RecoveryFilesArticle 10 ECHRmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentRegional Court in Amsterdamrepairing the rule of lawOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentBohdan BieniekSimpson judgmentMarcin KrajewskiForum Współpracy SędziówMałgorzata Dobiecka-Woźniakelectoral processChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairspublic broadcasterWiesław KozielewiczNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeGrzegorz PudaPiotr MazurekJerzy Kwaśniewskimutual trustPetros Tovmasyancourt presidentsLMODIHRIrelandFull-Scale Election Observation MissionNGOIrena MajcherWojciech MaczugaAmsterdamKarolina MiklaszewskaRafał LisakMałgorzata FroncJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiSebastian Mazurekthe Regional Court in WarsawElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikSzymon Szynkowski vel SękUnited NationsJoanna Scheuring-Wielgusinsulting religious feelingsLeszek Mazuroppositionelectoral codeAdam Gendźwiłłpopulisminterim measuresPiotr PrusinowskiLabour and Social Security ChamberDariusz Dończykautocratizationtest of independenceMultiannual Financial FrameworkTomasz Koszewskipublic mediaJakub Kwiecińskiabortion rulingdiscriminationequal 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 OfficeWojciech SadurskiBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberjudgeTribunal of StatePechOlsztyn courtKochenovPrzemysła CzarnekEvgeni TanchevEducation MinisterFreedom in the WorldECJIpsosFrackowiakOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeretirement ageAmnesty InternationalHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr Bogdanowicztrans-Atlantic valuesPiotr BurasLSOauthoritarian equilibriumlawyersArticle 258Act of 20 December 2019clientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officerepressive actPolish National FoundationLux VeritatisKoen LenaertsMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykharrassmentMarian BanaśAlina CzubieniakSupreme Audit OfficeTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediapostal voteRzeszówborderpostal vote billprimacy