Ziobro ready to assume control of Polish judiciary

Share

Journalist covering law and politics for OKO.press. Previously journalist at Gazeta Wyborcza, Rzeczpospolita, Polska The Times, Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.

More

Through a reorganization of existing courts and the establishment of new ones, the Ministry of Justice will achieve total control over the entirety of the justice system. The reorganization will put all judges under a microscope and facilitate a far-ranging purge of the courts. There may not be enough places for independent-minded judges in the “new” courts, or perhaps they will be exiled someplace far away from their present posts.



The plans for establishing new courts were made public by the Rzeczpospolita national daily, which described the assumptions of “the second phase of reform of the judiciary.” The first phase was the takeover of the National Council of the Judiciary, partial takeover of the Supreme Court, and replacement of Presidents of Courts with loyal judges.

 

The second phase will consist in the liquidation of courts of appeals, circuit courts and district courts. They will be replaced with new regional courts (to perform the functions of the present circuit courts and courts of appeals) and circuit courts (instead of the present district courts).

 

This course of events was hinted at last year. The elimination of courts of appeal was to be the final step in the takeover of the independent judiciary by the ruling party.

 

A review, or in other words, a purge

 

The new courts are in fact a massive reorganization providing Justice Minister Ziobro with a means of reviewing and replacing judges around the country. This is because judges will either be assigned to new courts or will be formally re-appointed to the bench.

 

There will no longer be circuit court judges or district court judges. All judges will have the same status, as common courts judges, and they will work on a rotating basis in circuit and regional courts. Their remuneration will depend on such factors as length of service.

 

To see how this reorganization looks in practice, it is enough to review the example of the public prosecutorial service, where the two highest rungs of the ladder were eliminated, and new ones were appointed. This facilitated a review of the prosecutors, and the defiant ones were stripped of their posts and degraded to the lowest level. The others chose to retire.

 

The same thing may happen in the courts. What’s more, there could be a “shortage” of available posts for independent justices in the “new courts,” and they will be offered an early retirement. If they insist on remaining and working as judges, they could be delegated to a distant court. Such distant courts could still be within their districts, as it cannot be excluded that the reorganization will involve a redrawing of the district boundaries. Both scenarios are possible under Article 180 of the Polish Constitution.

 

Judges may voluntarily leave the bench themselves, for the simple reason of not wishing to work in the new courts, or out of a feeling of professional degradation.

 

In this manner, the present government is seeking to dispose – without disciplinary procedures – of judges who today speak out in support of free courts, and of defiant judges who issue verdicts based on the law and their conscience, rather than seeking to satisfy the expectations of the ruling party.

 

The “social factor” – justices of the peace

 
That is not all. Ziobro’s ministry is also planning the introduction of another element of the so-called social factor. In 2018, this came in the form of lay judges being introduced into the Supreme Court.

 

In the common courts, this social factor will consist of justices of the peace. They would be competent to rule on misdemeanour cases, as well as some labour law and consumer law cases, which they would take over from judges.

 

The Ministry of Justice is proposing that those seeking to serve justices of the peace should be at least 35 years old, but they will not need to be lawyers. Life experience would be the only requirement. Appeals against their verdicts would be heard by a common court.

 

Justices of the peace would be chosen in county-wide elections. Candidates would be barred from belonging to a political party, but this does not mean that those cooperating with the Law and Justice party could not become justices of the peace.

 

Justices of the peace would rule on the actions of citizens who are today protesting against the current ruling party, for which the police are systematically harassing them by bringing charges. At present, professional judges are acquitting these citizens. Will justices of the peace in such verdicts also invoke human rights, the Constitution, international law? Will they continue to acquit those charged after attempting to block marches by right-wing extremist groups?

 

Councils over courts

 

Another aspect of the social factor in courts will be advisory councils attached to regional courts. As Rzeczpospolita reports, they are designed to increase oversight by the public over courts.

 

These councils will be composed of representatives of local communities selected by local self-government, judges, prosecutors, and members of “other legal professions.”

 

The council will be entitled to express opinions and submit reports concerning the functioning of courts within the entire region. This will include providing opinions on candidates for the position of judge, reviewing complaints filed by citizens, and demanding the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against judges.

 

The announcement of the proposal to form new courts by way of a leak to Rzeczpospolita, just two months before elections to the European Parliament, gives rise to a question: why is the Ministry of Justice signalling now that it wants to complete the process of assuming control over the entire Polish court system and the exchange of judges to install “their” loyalists?

 

Considering what Law and Justice has done in recent years, it is difficult to give credence to the notion of “reform.” At present, the ruling party is merely exchanging personnel.

 

A trial balloon?

 

The article in Rzeczpospolita may be nothing more than a trial balloon to judge the mood among public opinion. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that, in a year during which elections will be held to the European Parliament and the Sejm, the government would engage in a potentially explosive confrontation over the courts. Citizens have demonstrated their desire for independent courts, taking to the streets to do so. The EU is also vocal about its stance regarding the Polish judiciary.

 

Furthermore, the issue of rule of law in Poland may impact the upcoming 2021-2027 EU budget. Initiating a total takeover of the common courts at this moment will harm Poland’s negotiating position. Perhaps, then, this is only a preview of what Law and Justice will do if they win the autumn elections to the Polish parliament.

 

It may, however, also be the case that Law and Justice is seeking to make the fight with the “judicial caste” one of its key themes in the election campaign. This will again see society encouraged to turn against judges, who are – similarly to the LGBT community – a potential target for harassment and a means of mobilizing voters loyal to the ruling party.

 

Today, this is speculation, but the plan for taking over the courts is a real one that has been the subject of discussion within the Ministry of Justice for months. The present ruling party has demonstrated that it will not tolerate independent judges.

 

Disciplinary spokespersons appointed by Ziobro are going after them. But the judges are not afraid. They are more united than ever before, defending their independence and handing down rulings that the authorities are not always happy with.

 

However, the Law and Justice party does need the courts. This is the last large public institution that the authorities have not yet brought under their control. And the courts are supposed to rubber-stamp whatever the prosecutorial service brings to them from Zbigniew Ziobro and his allies.

 

The plan for liquidating courts of appeal would perhaps already be carried out, if not for the breakdown of the offensive against the Supreme Court last year.

 

The intentions of Ziobro’s ministry, which speaks in official language about “reform” and “courts closer to the people,” can be understood by a tweet sent out by the troll account @KastaWatch on Twitter: “This will be the beginning of the end of the CASTE. We can already hear the moaning and tears from the judges on their high horses.”

 

The activity of this account has been described by OKO.press in recent articles. All signs point to the authors of its messages as having informants inside the Ministry of Justice.

 

[translated by Matthew La Fontaine]



Author


Journalist covering law and politics for OKO.press. Previously journalist at Gazeta Wyborcza, Rzeczpospolita, Polska The Times, Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.


More

Published

April 15, 2019

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional TribunalPolandjudgesdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroCourt of Justice of the EUNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionMałgorzata ManowskaAndrzej DudaCourt of JusticeIgor TuleyaEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary systemMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiMateusz MorawieckiCJEUmuzzle lawCommissioner for Human RightsNational Recovery PlanAdam BodnardemocracyWaldemar ŻurekPrzemysław Radzikcriminal lawpresidential electionselectionsKamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerPiotr Schabmedia freedomneo-judgeselections 2023judiciaryFirst President of the Supreme Courtpreliminary rulingsSupreme Administrative CourtHungaryelections 2020K 3/21Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaNational Council for JudiciaryharassmentJulia PrzyłębskaProsecutor GeneralprosecutorsŁukasz PiebiakMichał LasotaBeata MorawiecPaweł JuszczyszynCourt of Justice of the European UnionPrime MinisterPresidentConstitutionCOVID-19European Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiCriminal ChamberRegional Court in KrakówRecovery FundExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberEU budgetfreedom of expressiondisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanMałgorzata GersdorfSejmMaciej Ferekfreedom of assemblyconditionalityLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeJustice FundNational ProsecutorPiSStanisław PiotrowiczAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPresident of the Republic of PolandIustitiacourtsTHEMISimmunityAnna DalkowskaNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsStanisław Biernatconditionality mechanismWłodzimierz WróbelLabour and Social Security Chambercommission on Russian influence2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiNational Electoral CommissionJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsPresident of PolandLGBTXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. Polandmedia independenceKrystian MarkiewiczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczMichał WawrykiewiczArticle 6 ECHREAWUrsula von der LeyenTVPmediaLex Super OmniaLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationAndrzej StępkaPiotr GąciarekcorruptionP 7/20K 7/21Lex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanProfessional Liability ChambersuspensionparliamentJarosław DudziczChamber of Professional Liabilityelectoral codePiotr Prusinowskidemocratic backslidingdecommunizationLaw on the NCJrecommendationHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europepublic opinion pollreportEuropean ParliamentZiobrointimidation of dissenterstransferretirement agePiebiak gatehuman rightsEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawcoronavirusC-791/19Piotr PszczółkowskiGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaJarosław GowinLGBT ideology free zonescriminal codeSenateZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczMarcin WarchołdefamationFree CourtsEwa WrzosekEU law primacyAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej MiteraViktor OrbanOLAFNext Generation EUvetoabortionJózef IwulskiTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiMarek MazurkiewiczAndrzej MączyńskiJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław RymarFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskiBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersSLAPPOKO.pressDariusz ZawistowskiMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiMarian BanaśSupreme Audit OfficeAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyKrakówXero Flor v. PolandAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Civil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaPegasusMariusz KamińskisurveillanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraEdyta Barańskaright to fair trialUkraineKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecDariusz DrajewiczRafał Puchalskismear campaignmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentMarzanna Piekarska-Drążekelectoral processWojciech Maczugapublic medialexTuskcourt changeselections integrityelections fairnessabuse of state resourcesPATFoxpopulismequal treatmentfundamental rightsCT PresidentEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justice2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUStanisław ZabłockiLIBE CommitteeFrans TimmermansUS Department of StateSwieczkowskiadvocate generalpress releaseRights and Values ProgrammeC-619/18defamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardWojciech SadurskijudgePechKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakAmnesty Internationaltrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote billresolution of 23 January 2020Leon KieresPKWinfringment actionEU valuesENCJIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawPrzemysła RadzikElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsC-487/19Article 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentSimpson judgmentForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited NationsLeszek Mazurinterim measuresautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingproteststhe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europemedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióGazeta WyborczaPollitykaBrussels IRome IIArticle 2Forum shoppingtransparencyEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian KaletaC-156/21C-157/21Marek PiertuszyńskiNational Prosecutor’s OfficeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOlsztyn courtPrzemysła CzarnekEducation MinisterIpsosOlimpia Barańska-MałuszeHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr Burasauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258clientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's OfficePolish National FoundationLux VeritatisMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykTVNjournalistslexTVNPolish mediaRzeszówborderprimacyEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej RutkiewiczMirosław Wróblewskiright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMichał WośMinistry of FinanceJacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryMarek AstCourt of Appeal in KrakówPutinismKaczyńskiPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderekct on the Protection of the Populatiolegislationlex WośRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtAntykastaStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczKatarzyna ChmuraGrzegorz FurmankiewiczMarek JaskulskiJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaKasta/AntykastaAndrzej SkowronŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiEmilia SzmydtTomasz SzmydtE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał Dworczykmedia pluralism#RecoveryFilesrepairing the rule of lawBohdan BieniekMarcin KrajewskiMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsWiesław KozielewiczNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeGrzegorz PudaPiotr MazurekJerzy KwaśniewskiPetros Tovmasyancourt presidentsODIHRFull-Scale Election Observation MissionNGOKarolina MiklaszewskaRafał LisakMałgorzata FroncJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiSebastian MazurekElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikSzymon Szynkowski vel SękJoanna Scheuring-Wielgusinsulting religious feelingsoppositionAdam GendźwiłłDariusz Dończyktest of independenceTomasz KoszewskiJakub KwiecińskidiscriminationAct on the Supreme Courtelectoral commissionsEuropean Court of HuKrzysztof RączkaPoznańKoan LenaertsKarol WeitzKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiRThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFJustyna WydrzyńskaAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszJoanna KnobelCrimes of espionageextraordinary commissionZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaCourt of Appeal in WarsawOsiatyński'a ArchiveUS State DepartmentAssessment Actenvironmentinvestmentstrategic investmentgag lawsuitslex RaczkowskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActdisinformationNational Broadcasting Councilelection fairnessDobrochna Bach-GoleckaRafał WojciechowskiAleksandra RutkowskaGeneral Court of the EUArkadiusz RadwanLech WałęsaWałęsa v. Polandright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawpilot-judgmentDonald Tusk governmentSLAPPscivil lawRadosław Baszuk