Will the convicted supervise the judges in Poland?

Share

Leading journalist and commentator on legal affairs in Poland, a columnist for Polityka weekly. Her latest book ‘Sędziowie mówią. Zamach…

More

In the Ministry of Justice, convicted persons without a higher education degree will be able to supervise courts and judges. An amendment to this end, using the insertion method, has been included in PiS’s draft amendment to the act on misdemeanours.



The public’s attention has been drawn to the fact that the draft amendments to the act on proceedings in misdemeanour cases which have been submitted by a group of MPs from PiS and Solidarna Polska will make it impossible to refuse to accept a fine.

 

If this amendment comes into force, it will be compulsory to accept and pay on-the-spot fines. The only recourse will be to fight in court for recognition that the fine was wrongly levied. ‘In court’, in this case, means that the case might not be heard by a judge, but by a court referendary – that is, an official whose independence cannot be guaranteed.

 

In addition, evidence of guilt need not be presented by the police, the municipal police or whichever other authority that issued the ticket; but the accused, rather, will have to prove their innocence. And all their evidence of innocence must be presented together with the appeal within a seven-day period. After that, nothing more can be added.

 

There are already memes circulating on the internet: ‘Citizen, prove that you didn’t piss in a public place a year ago.’

 

Finally: failing to pay the fine becomes a separate offence, for which another fine can be levied. And so on.

 

The bill has caused public outrage, and lawyers are protesting that the presumption of innocence is being abolished – something which makes the right to a fair trial, including the right to defence, completely illusory.

 

This is a practical implementation of the police state, where the police will pronounce on both guilt and punishment.

 

We will see whether PiS can force through this change. But, as usually happens with them, they are trying to smuggle through something else in this plan.

 

A gift for Ziobro

The Minister of Justice and Prosecutor General Zbigniew Ziobro has given himself a present, thanks to an inconspicuous change to the Civil Service Actm which reads as follows:

 

“In Art. 52 of the Civil Service Act, the current content is marked as para. 1, followed by para. 2 in the following wording: The provision of paragraph, 1 point 1 does not apply to undersecretaries of state in the Ministry of Justice, through whom the Minister of Justice exercises supervision over the activities of the courts.”

 

This paragraph 1, point 1 in Art. 52 of the Civil Service Act looks completely innocent, as it lists which positions are ‘more senior’ in the civil service.

 

It is proposed that the post of undersecretary of state, who is responsible for overseeing the judiciary, should not be classified as such a ‘senior’ position.

 

Special undersecretary

 

The applicants (we can see the hand of Minister Ziobro in this case) have justified this seemingly bizarre idea – of ​​distinguishing the undersecretaries of state dealing with supervision over the judiciary from all the undersecretaries of state in numerous other ministries – by saying that it is a contradiction to the provisions of the act on the system of common courts, which allows a judge to be delegated to the Ministry of Justice.

 

“It is obvious that a judge cannot be a member of the civil service corps at the same time,” they write.

 

First, there is no requirement for an undersecretary to be a judge.

 

Secondly: this contradiction should be resolved by eliminating the delegation of judges to the ministry, something which judicial organisations – including international ones – have long demanded.

 

Delegations for judges offer a lucrative, and thus a corrupt career path, and violate the ‘Chinese wall’ that should separate the judiciary from the executive.

 

The minister can monitor the competence of the judges’ work through visiting judges, who are not paid by the Ministry of Justice for this. Moreover, the minister can supervise the work of judges as administrative units through the directors of courts who are subordinate to him.

 

But the bill states that tan undersecretary of state is no more senior than other officials who supervise the judiciary.

 

Someone with a criminal record

 

However, as a consequence, the undersecretary who supervises the courts may be a person with a criminal record, and need not have higher education.

 

This is because the next, unchanged Art. 53 of the Civil Service Act says that persons holding ‘senior’ positions as listed in Art. 52 must have a university degree and cannot have any previous convictions.

 

So, if you do not hold a ‘senior’ position while supervising judges and the judiciary, you may have a criminal conviction, and you need not even have a high school diploma.

 

In a country where the judges of the Supreme Court or the Constitutional Tribunal may be persons whom statutorily appointed judges have declared incompetent, lacking sufficient experience, who have been subject to disciplinary accusations or have even been disciplinary punished – in such a country, the fact that supervision over courts and judges can be exercised by people who are convicted and who lack higher education, does not seem so strange.

 

However, if we stop being surprised by this, then the link binding us to the standards not even of the rule of law, but even of common sense and a feeling of shame, will be broken.



Author


Leading journalist and commentator on legal affairs in Poland, a columnist for Polityka weekly. Her latest book ‘Sędziowie mówią. Zamach…


More

Published

January 14, 2021

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