Why do politicians need to take over the Supreme Court? Judge Wróbel explains

Share

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

More

"It is not necessary to change the laws in order for politicians to gain full control over the Supreme Court.  It is sufficient that some of the judges who have been duly appointed be removed from adjudication by the Disciplinary Chamber at the request of the prosecution, which is subordinate to the politicians."



Prof. Włodzimierz Wróbel, Supreme Court judge in the Criminal Chamber posted his sharp and short analysis regarding an ongoing assault on the independence of the Supreme Court.

 

Judge Wróbel is a legal authority in Poland, a professor of Jagielloński University in Kraków. Crucially, he was a judge-rapporteur of the landmark resolution of the three Supreme Court chambers of 23.01.2020, following the Court of Justice of the EU A.K. ruling.

He was contra-candidate of Mrs. Manowska to the post of First President of SC. Judge Wróbel received some 50 votes of support, Mrs. Manowska only half of that. However, the President of the Republic Andrzej Duda, who had the discretion to do so, appointed Mrs. Manowska to be the First President of the Supreme Court. Recently the National Prosecutor applied to the Disciplinary Chamber in the Supreme Court to waive judge Wróbel’s and two other judges of the Criminal Chamber’s immunity.

 

“Why do politicians need to take over the Supreme Court?

1. The First President of the Supreme Court directs the Tribunal of State, which tries and punishes politicians for violating the Constitution.

 

2. The Supreme Court ultimately decides whether elections are valid or should be repeated.

 

3. The Supreme Court decides whether to take money away from political parties for their activities.

 

4. The Supreme Court can overturn the ruling of any court in the country in a criminal, civil, or business case if the ruling is not to the liking of the government: whether it concerns citizens or politicians.

 

5. The Supreme Court can decide how laws should be interpreted and then overturn the decisions of courts that don’t want to follow it.  So instead of debating laws in parliament, politicians can use the Supreme Court to change the content of the law at will.

 

6. The Supreme Court can remove any judge or prosecutor from the profession or extend a protective umbrella over any lawyer, shielding them from professional liability.

 

7. The Supreme Court may withdraw preliminary questions submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union and thereby block the Court’s rulings on the independence of the judiciary in Poland.

 

8. It should be remembered that Supreme Court decisions are final and are not subject to review by other courts.

 

It is not necessary to change the laws in order for politicians to gain full control over the Supreme Court.  It is sufficient that some of the judges who have been duly appointed be removed from adjudication by the Disciplinary Chamber at the request of the prosecution, which is subordinate to the politicians.

 

As a result, politically friendly or silent lawyers will be able to fill the positions of presidents of chambers or chairpersons of departments and will be free to decide who and how to hear cases important to the government.

 

A trap is being laid for these lawyers: those appointed to the Supreme Court in flawed, politicized procedures become hostages of a particular parliamentary majority, as the stability of their appointments depends solely on the maintenance of power by that particular majority. In other words, if the power changes, they too may lose their positions.

 

Such a scenario of taking over the Supreme Court means the ultimate exclusion of politicians from any control and responsibility.

 

The Supreme Court in this scenario becomes at the same time a dangerous institution for citizens, because it can be used to eliminate real protection of their rights in court, allowing political power to make the final decisions in individual cases. Will such a scenario be realized?

In an authoritarian state, there was never a need to replace and subordinate all judges. It was enough to take de facto political control over the Supreme Court and persons performing administrative functions in the courts. Then the mechanism worked on its own.”



Author


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


More

Published

March 30, 2021

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandrule of lawjudicial independenceZbigniew ZiobroCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean CommissionjudgesNational Council of the JudiciaryEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeAndrzej DudaIgor TuleyaMałgorzata Manowskadisciplinary systemCJEUMinister of JusticeCommissioner for Human RightsEuropean Court of Human RightsMateusz MorawieckiJarosław Kaczyńskipresidential electionsjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsdemocracymuzzle lawHungaryelections 2020Beata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsK 3/21Kamil ZaradkiewiczWaldemar Żurekdisciplinary commissionerEuropean Arrest WarrantProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19Julia PrzyłębskaPresidentfreedom of expressionCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawMarek SafjanOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynNational Public ProsecutorPiotr SchabPrzemysław Radzikcriminal proceedingsPrime MinisterStanisław BiernatExtraordinary 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 GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaArticle 7Venice CommissionWłodzimierz WróbelPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaP 7/20Ministry of JusticeC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesSejmXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. PolandMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramdefamationcourtsTHEMISEU law primacyTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independencedemocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetopoliceJózef 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 RzeplińskiSupreme Court PresidentJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskireportBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersEuropean ParliamentZiobroMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiPiotr Gąciarekhuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiJustice FundAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyneo-judgescoronavirusPiSXero Flor v. PolandEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtAstradsson v IcelandMaciej Rutkiewiczresolution of 23 January 2020K 6/21Mirosław WróblewskiLeon 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 PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawIustitiaKrystian MarkiewiczPrzemysła RadzikSenateMarcin WarchołElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsC-487/19Article 6 ECHRArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieUrsula von der LeyenEwa WrzosekAK 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 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 WawrzykharrassmentMarian BanaśAlina CzubieniakSupreme Audit OfficeTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediapostal voteKrakówRzeszówDagmara Pawełczyk-Woickaborderpostal vote billprimacy