Translation of Polish Supreme Court resolution on judicial appointments

Share

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

More

Poland's Supreme Court has adopted a resolution on the legality of judicial appointments made by the reconstituted National Council of the Judiciary and on rulings by the new Disciplinary Chamber. What follows is a translation of that ruling into English.



Resolution of the Civil, Criminal and Labour & Social Security Chambers of the Supreme Court of 23 January 2020

 

After considering the motion of the First President of the Supreme Court of 15 January 2020 regarding the resolution of the discrepancies in the interpretation of the law in the case law of the Supreme Court, the Civil, Criminal and Labour & Social Security Chambers of the Supreme Court passed the following resolution at today’s session:

 

1. A bench is incorrectly selected in the meaning of Article 439 § 1, item 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or there is a conflict in the membership of the bench with the provisions of the law in the meaning of Article 379, item 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure if a person is appointed to the bench having been appointed to the office of judge of the Supreme Court on the motion of the National Council of the Judiciary formed in accordance with the provisions of the Act amending the Act on the National Council of the Judiciary and certain other acts of 8 December 2017 (OJ L 2018, item 3).

 

2. A bench is incorrectly selected in the meaning of Article 439 § 1, item 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or there is a conflict of the membership of the bench with the provisions of the law in the meaning of Article 379, item 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure if a person is appointed to the bench in an ordinary or military court having been appointed to the office of judge on the motion of the National Council of the Judiciary formed in accordance with the provisions of the Act amending the Act on the National Council of the Judiciary and certain other acts of 8 December 2017 (OJ L 2018, item 3), if the procedural defectiveness of the process of appointment leads, in specific circumstances, to a breach of the standard of independence and impartiality in the meaning of Article 45, item 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6, clause 1 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

3. The interpretation of Article 439 § 1, item 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 379, item 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure adopted in points 1 and 2 of this resolution does not apply to judgments issued by courts before the date of its adoption or to decisions that will be issued in proceedings that are pending on that date on the basis of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the given court.

 

4. Point 1 of this resolution applies to decisions issued with the involvement of judges of the Disciplinary Chamber established in the Supreme Court on the basis of the Act on the Supreme Court of 8 December 2017 (OJ L 2018, item 5, as amended) regardless of the date on which these judgments are issued.



Author


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


More

Published

January 24, 2020

Tags

Supreme Courtrule of lawdisciplinary proceedingsEuropean CommissionDisciplinary Chamberjudicial independenceNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of JusticeAndrzej DudaConstitutional TribunaljudgesPolandpresidential electionselections 2020European UniondemocracyZbigniew ZiobroCourt of Justice of the EUjudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme Courtpreliminary rulingsCJEUMinister of JusticeIgor TuleyaJarosław KaczyńskiCOVID-19Commissioner for Human RightsPresidentProsecutor GeneralprosecutorsLaw and Justicemuzzle lawdisciplinary systemelectionsacting first president of the Supreme CourtMay 10 2020 elections2017Freedom HouseExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberAdam BodnarVenice CommissionConstitutionNCJcriminal lawNational Electoral CommissionKamil ZaradkiewiczGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesAleksander StepkowskiEuropean Court of Human RightsPresident of PolandMałgorzata Manowskademocratic backslidingdecommunizationfreedom of assemblyJulia PrzyłębskaLaw on the NCJrecommendationHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropereportZiobroPM Mateusz Morawieckifreedom of expressionprosecutionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawHungaryNational ProsecutorcoronavirusC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesWojciech Hermelińskiresolution of 23 January 2020Stanisław PiotrowiczPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakLeon KieresAndrzej ZollPKWMarek SafjanMałgorzata Gersdorfinfringment actionEU valuesENCJlex NGOcivil societyRussiaIsraelforeign agents lawOrdo IurisOSCEOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtPresident of the Republic of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT free zonesequalityLGBT ideology free zonesSejmChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechcriminal codeGrzęda v PolandXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. PolandWaldemar ŻurekRafał TrzaskowskipopulismMateusz MorawieckiPrime Ministerequal treatmentfundamental rightspoliceCT PresidentJustice 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-619/18defamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardintimidation of dissentersWojciech SadurskijudgetransferPechKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakretirement ageAmnesty InternationalŁukasz PiebiakPiebiak gatehuman rightstrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakMinistry of JusticeJustice FundGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote billPiS