Zaradkiewicz: Supreme Court will soon be worthy of the trust of the citizens in Poland

Share

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

More

New acting first president of the Supreme Court judge Kamil Zaradkiewicz asks the Supreme Court’s judges to refrain from public activity, in particular in the media



Authors: Mateusz Mikowski and Marcin Jabłoński, Polish Press Agency (PAP)

 

What follows is a translation of the Polish Press Agency’s article including statements of the acting First President of the Supreme Court Kamil Zaradkiewicz.

 

“In this difficult time, I have assumed the honourable function of leading the Supreme Court, and I declare that it is operating in accordance with the standards of independence and reliability, and with due attention to the highest standards of the functioning of the judiciary,” judge Kamil Zaradkiewicz said.

 

In a statement sent to the Polish Press Agency on Friday 1 May, judge Zaradkiewicz also assessed that we are witnessing a breakthrough in the functioning of justice which Polish society expects. He added that “soon the Supreme Court will be worthy of a positive assessment”.

 

On Thursday 30 April, the six-year term of office of the Supreme Court’s President Małgorzata Gersdorf expired. Pursuant to the entitlement arising from the Act on the Supreme Court, President Andrzej Duda entrusted the performance of the duties of the 1st President of the Supreme Court to Judge Kamil Zaradkiewicz on 1 May until the appointment of a new First President of the Supreme Court. During the next seven days, Zaradkiewicz should convene an assembly of the Supreme Court judges to select candidates for the new First President of this court.

 

In his statement to PAP, Judge Zaradkiewicz noted that due to the coronavirus epidemic, the implementation of this obligation “must take into account the provision of necessary precautions that will allow the judges to participate safely in the General Assembly and guarantee the safety of the Supreme Court’s employees.”

 

Zaradkiewicz emphasised that he would try to ensure that “the Supreme Court returns to fulfilling its obligations of jurisprudence while respecting the principles of the independence of courts and judges, the supremacy of the Polish Constitution and the rule of law.”

 

He noted that “the distortion of the essence of these basic values ​​in recent years has unfortunately had a significant impact on consolidating the negative image of the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, in public opinion.”

 

He appealed to the judges to “refrain from taking any actions, including public statements, that could weaken confidence in the independent judiciary, and even more so, could testify to the judge’s political motivation or lack of objectivity.” “I am asking the Supreme Court’s judges to refrain from public activity, in particular in the media, which could deepen divisions and consolidate the negative image of the judiciary,” Zaradkiewicz’s statement reads.

 

Judge Zaradkiewicz also appealed for the principles of independence and independence to be respected, and for abandoning what he sees as the undermining of the status of judges, something which is contrary to the Polish constitution. “I expect people to refrain from calling for specific decisions, or other attempts to interfere in the sphere of judicial independence, including those in an institutionalised form,” Zaradkiewicz stressed.

 

The judge emphasised that a real challenge for the judiciary was to account for those responsible for perpetuating the system of Communist lawlessness, stating that “in the common opinion the judiciary has failed to meet this challenge.” “I also hope that the time has come, several decades after the Republic of Poland regained its sovereignty, when the judiciary will free itself from the shameful heritage of legal crimes and the immensity of the injustices that have so far not been resolved,” Judge Zaradkiewicz emphasised in his statement.

 

In his opinion, “this will not be possible without judges who respect the principles of apoliticality and independence.” “Those who are unable to meet the above standards while performing their duties, and who are guided by their often undisguised political motivation, something typical of the period of the totalitarian Communist regime, should leave the judiciary,” he stressed.

 

Judge Zaradkiewicz also expressed the hope that “by introducing and consolidating the standards of independence and impartiality necessary for the proper functioning of the judiciary (…) the Supreme Court, as a constitutional public authority, will soon be worthy of the positive assessment and the trust of the citizens.”

 

Translated by Jim Todd



Author


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


More

Published

May 4, 2020

Tags

Supreme Courtdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawjudicial independenceDisciplinary ChamberPolandEuropean CommissionjudgesZbigniew ZiobroCourt of Justice of the EUNational Council of the JudiciaryConstitutional TribunalEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeAndrzej DudaIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemMinister of Justicepresidential electionsjudiciarypreliminary rulingsdemocracyJarosław Kaczyńskielections 2020Beata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsCJEUmuzzle lawCommissioner for Human RightsMałgorzata ManowskaEuropean Arrest WarrantCOVID-19European Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary commissionerPresidentAdam Bodnarfreedom of expressionHungaryKamil ZaradkiewiczOSCEMateusz MorawieckiProsecutor GeneralLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJNational Prosecutorelectionsacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsWaldemar Żurekmedia independenceAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczEAWmediaAnna DalkowskaCouncil of Europe2017freedom of assemblyJulia PrzyłębskaFreedom HouseExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberVenice CommissionSupreme Administrative CourtEU budgetConstitutioncriminal lawMinistry of JusticeC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionWojciech HermelińskiAndrzej ZollMarek SafjanGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesAleksander StepkowskiPresident of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesSejmMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramdefamationTHEMISMaciej NawackiTVPLex Super OmniaPaweł JuszczyszynBelgiumNetherlandsNational Public ProsecutorPiotr SchabPrzemysław Radzikdemocratic backslidingcriminal proceedingsViktor OrbandecommunizationNext Generation EUPrime MinistervetopoliceJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJLech GarlickirecommendationHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeSupreme Court Presidentreportmedia freedomArticle 7European ParliamentZiobroconditionalityPM Mateusz MorawieckiEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawcoronavirusPiSresolution of 23 January 2020Stanisław PiotrowiczPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakLeon KieresPKWMałgorzata Gersdorfinfringment actionEU valuesENCJlex NGOcivil societyRussiaIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtPresident of the Republic of PolandLGBT free zonesequalityChamber 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. 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 broadcasterAdam Tomczyńskiimmunitymutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamBogdan Święczkowskithe Regional Court in WarsawUnited Nationsjudcial independenceLeszek MazurMaciej Miterapopulisminterim measuresOLAFautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingequal treatmentabortionprotestsfundamental rightsthe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońCT PresidentGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUJustice Defence Committee – KOSC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeEUStanisław BiernatTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaWhite PaperKazimierz DziałochalustrationMirosław Granattransitional justiceAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiEwa ŁętowskaMarek MazurkiewiczAndrzej MączyńskiJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław Rymarpublic opinion pollFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiJerzy Stępień2018Piotr TulejaNations in TransitSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczCouncil of the EUMirosław WyrzykowskiBohdan ZdziennickiMarek Zubikmedia taxStanisław Zabłockiadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerDidier ReyndersKlubrádióSLAPPLIBE 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-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 CzubieniakJustice FundGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote bill