Human resources revolution in Warsaw courts! Bodnar's got 12 neo-prizes and their replacements off the table

Minister of Justice Adam Bodnar stands on the threshold of crucial changes in the management of six Warsaw courts, including the territory Court in Warsaw – the largest court in Poland. All these positions were filled by the nominees of Minister Zbigniew Ziobry. The decision of the College of the territory Court in Warsaw, which agreed to appeal most of these people, opened the way for their resignation.

Consent of the College of the territory Court

On Monday, July 15, 2024, after all-day deliberations, the College of the territory Court in Warsaw gave a affirmative opinion on almost all requests by Minister Bodnar to cancel Ziobra denominations. In this way, the procedure of their resignation has been completed and the formal decision of the minister can be signed at any time. The College defended only 1 vice president of the territory court and the presidents of 2 territory courts.

Reasons for staff changes

Capital lawyers have long been waiting for these changes for respective reasons. Firstly, Minister Bodnar has already made staff changes in key courts in Poland, recalling the denominations of Minister Ziobra, specified as Maciej Nawacki, president of the Olsztyn territory Court, and Rafał Puchalski, president of the Rzeszów Appeal Court. Both are members of the illegal neo-KRS.

Warsaw regional courts and territory court for the left-hand part of the capital were the last large bastion of Ziobra denominations, where there has been a fresh revolt against change.

Secondly, Warsaw courts are peculiarly crucial due to their jurisdictions covering the most crucial offices and office of companies. Therefore, changes in these courts are crucial.

Taking control and fresh governors

The dismissal of the Presidents and Vice-Presidents of the courts from the left-hand part of Warsaw ends staff changes in the capital courts, which were divided into 3 stages. The first step was to appeal at the beginning of 2024 the president of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw, Piotr Schab, who for a period resisted resignation, occupying the cabinet of the president of the Court. 2 of his deputies were then called off and the 3rd deputy resigned.

The next phase was the dismissal of the Presidents and Vice-Presidents of the Warsaw-Prague territory Court, where the positions were lost by the president Michał Bukiewicz and Vice-President King Kubuj. Both were neojudges.

The 3rd phase included the present dismissal of the presidents and vice presidents of the courts from the left-hand side of Warsaw, which besides resulted in rebellion. Minister Bodnar had to initiate the appeal procedure twice as the presidents and vice presidents convened nightly College meetings, negatively giving their appeal an opinion. Bodnar didn't find these meetings legal.

New nominations in capital courts

Regardless of staff changes in the capital, Minister Adam Bodnar appointed fresh presidents and vice presidents in another courts in Poland. fresh nominations include:

• President of the Białystok territory Court: Wiesław Żywolewski
• President of Kalisz territory Court: Małgorzata Pilarczyk
• President of the Reich territory Court: Lesław Zawada
• Vice-Presidents of the Appeals Court in Katowice: Robert Kirejew, Ewelina Kocurek-Grabowska, Małgorzata Wołczańska
• President of Bielsko Podlaski territory Court: Jan Kapelka

Who will Minister Bodnar cancel?

Thanks to Monday's decision of the College, almost the full management of the territory Court in Warsaw is already practically cancelled, including:

• President Joanna Przanowska-Tomaszek, who received 2 nominations from the neoKRS and has served as president of the largest court in Poland since mid-2022.
• Vice president of civilian Affairs Agnieszka Sidor-Leszczyńska, erstwhile Vice president of the territory Court for Warsaw-Żoliborz.
• Vice president of Criminal Affairs Radosław Lenarczyk, erstwhile president of the Piaseczno territory Court.
• Vice president of economical Affairs Patrycja Czyżewska.
• Vice president of civilian and household Affairs Małgorzata Kanigowska-Wajs.

The College did not only give approval to appeal the Vice president of Labour and Social safety Marcin Rowicki, who is the neo-judge of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw.

Justice Minister Adam Bodnar is preparing to dismiss the leadership of 5 capital territory courts. These decisions are part of a broad improvement of the judiciary, which aims to break the influence of the denominations of Minister Zbigniew Ziobra. Below are the details of the planned changes and the context in which they are taken.

Appealed Presidents and Vice-Presidents

District Court for Warsaw

• Maximilian Wesołowski – The president of the territory Court for the city of Warsaw, neo judge, signed letters of support for the neoKRS. He was a proxy for Stanisław Zdun erstwhile he competed for the second word of the neoKRS. Until recently, Wesołowski ruled on a delegation to the Court of Appeal in Warsaw. Minister Bodnar besides planned to appeal Vice president Beata Kaszuba, besides neo-judges, who signed letters of support to the neoKRS. The appeal procedure was postponed due to the inability to notify the College.

District Court for Warsaw-Mokotów

• Joanna Puppet – The president of the territory Court for Warsaw-Mokotów, a neo judge, signed letters of support for the neoKRS. Together with her the position is lost to Vice President, neo-Judge Stanisław Gradus-Wojciechowski. Minister Bodnar besides wanted to cancel the another 2 presidents: Grzegorz Krysztofiuk and Żaneta Seliga-Kaczmarek, but they both resigned before the procedure was completed.

District Court for Warsaw-Żoliborz

• Anna Jagodzińska-Bajkowska – The president of the territory Court for Warsaw-Żoliborz, neo judge, signed letters of support for the neo-KRS. Together with her, Vice president Piotr Sysik will be recalled, but the College defended Vice president Isabella Gębala from resigning. The Żoliborski judges appealed for changes in management.

District Court in Pruszków

• Luke Kluska – The president of the territory Court in Pruszków, neo judge, signed letters of support for the neoKRS. He is associated with erstwhile Deputy Minister of Justice Luke Piebiak.

District Court in Grodzisk Mazowiecki

• Iwona Strączyńska – president of the territory Court in Grodzisk Mazowiecki, neo judge.

The college saved the neo-president of the court for Wola Warsaw

The College of the territory Court for Warsaw-Wola did not agree to appeal the President, neo-Judge Sebastian Ladosia, despite appeals by the judges from Wola. Minister Bodnar originally besides wanted to dismiss Vice-President Michał Wójcicki, but withdrew from this after the defence of the Wola judges.

No change in 2 courts

The Ministry of Justice does not plan to change staff in 2 courts of left-hand Warsaw – the territory Court for Warsaw-Śródmieście and the territory Court in Piaseczno. Those holding these positions are not neo-judges, they did not sign a letter of support for the neo-KRS, and their work raises no objections among the judges.

It is worth noting, however, that in the court in Piaseczno, the president tolerated neo-Judges Barbara Kamińska – the wife of criminal Mariusz Kamiński, who in terms of extortion the chrobry, who served her to participate in protests before the punishment plant in which her husband was staying. The president of Piaseczno Court continues to legalize the work of neojudges in this court.

In the light of the above, we should ask the president of the SR in Piaseczna the question: Does this disregard of the law inactive let them to legitimise themselves with the request of immaculate character required for the position of judge.

Background and Importance of Change

Changes in the management of capital regional courts are part of a broad improvement aimed at restoring the independency of the judiciary in Poland. Minister Adam Bodnar has consistently conducted appeals against the denominations of Minister Ziobra, who are associated with the neoKRS, an institution declared illegal by many lawyers and global organizations.

Warsaw regional courts play a key function in the Polish justice system, serving matters of large political and economical importance. These appeals are so applicable not only from a individual but besides systemic point of view, with a view to restoring the regulation of law and transparency in the functioning of the courts.

Who has already been dismissed by Minister Bodnar – 41 courts

To date, Minister Bodnar has dismissed the Presidents of the Courts and their deputies in 38 courts:

• President of the Poznań Court of Appeal, neo-Judge Matthew Bartosz and vice-presidents of neo-Judge Przemysław Radzik and neo-Judge Sylvia Dembska
• President of the Court of Appeals in Krakow, neo-Judge Sigismund Drożdżejka and vice-president, neo-Judge Katarzyna Wysońska-Walenciak
• President of the Kielce territory Court, neojudge Paul Stępnia
• President of the Poznań territory Court, neo-Judge Daniel Jurkiewicz and Vice-President Michał Inglot
• President of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw, neo-Judge Piotr Schab. At first, he did not accept Bodnar's decision. Eventually, however, on 22 March 2024 he left the President's office. Minister Bodnar besides dismissed Vice Presidents of this court, neo-judges Edyta Dzialinski and Agnieszka Stachniak-Rogalska. And the 3rd vice president, neojudge Arkadiusz Ziarko, resigned himself
• President of the Olsztyn territory Court, neojudge Michał Lasota and his deputies, neojudges Tomasz Kosakowski and Marcin Czapski
• President of the Olsztyn territory Court Maciej Nawacki and his deputies, neojudges Tomasz Koszewski and Adam Jaroczyński
• President of the Regional Court of the Bishop, neo-Judge Tomasz Turkowski

• President of the Krakow territory Court, neo-Judge Bartłomiej Migda and his deputies: neo-Judge Michał Puza, associate of the neo-KRS Irena Bochniak and neo-Judge Piotr Kowalski.
• President of the territory Court for Krakow-New Huta, neojudge Maciej Pragłowski and vice president of that court, neojudge Łukasz Felisiak
• President of the territory Court for Krakow-Podgórze, neojudge Marcin Cichoński.
• President of the territory Court for Krakow-Śródmieście, neojudge Piotr Skrzyszowski.
• President of the Myślenice territory Court, neojudge Margaret of the Saints
• President of the territory Court of Wieliczka Ewa Motyczyńska-Pałys
• President of the Court of Appeal in Katowice Katarzyna Frydry, erstwhile Deputy Minister of Justice in the Law and Justice Government
• President of the Warsaw-Prag territory Court, neo-Judge Michał Bukiewicz and Vice president of Kinga Kubuj
• President of the Ostrołęka territory Court Jarosław Teklinski
• President of the territory Court of Gliwice neo-Judge Patrick Poniatowski and Vice president of neo-Judge Wojciech Głowacki
• President of the Gliwice territory Court Joanna Zachorowska and 2 vice presidents of that court, neojudge Anna Jaworska-Much (formerly asessor) and Barbara Klepacz
• President of the territory Court in Ruda Śląska Ewa Żarkiewicz-Marek and Vice president Adrian Klanek.
• President of the territory Court of Rybnik Bartłomiej Witek and Vice Presidents of neo-Judge Paul Stępnia and neo-Judge Eve Janik
• Vice president of the Poznań-Grunwald territory Court and Marek Jaskulski, associate of the neo-KRS
• President of the Gorzów Wielkopolski territory Court Anna Kuśnierz-Milczarek and Vice president of that court, neojudge Kinga Wochna
• President of the Gorzów Wielkopolski territory Court Jarosław Dudzicz and Vice president Dorothy Bobrowicz
• President of Elbląg territory Court, neojudge Agnieszka Walkiak
• President of Sulęcin territory Court Ewa Kuś-Wasilewska
• President of the Toruń territory Court Krzysztof Dąbkiewicz
• President of the Rzeszow territory Court, neojudge Waldemar Krok and vice president, neojudge Grzegorz Plis
• President of the territory Court in Rzeszów, neo-Judge Tomasz Berezowski
• President of the Białystok territory Court, neojudge Ewa Kołodziej-Dubowska and vice president Dorothy Sosna
• President of the Bialystok territory Court, neo-Judge Paul Dziensus and Vice-President Alina Kreiza-Alekseyuk
• President of the territory Court in Bielsko Podlaski Mirosław Mironiuk
• President of Dębica territory Court Katarzyna Radzik
• President of the territory Court of Piotrków Trybunalski Bartłomiej Szkudlarek
• President of the Koszalin territory Court, neojudge Justyna Celińska and Vice president Tomasz Krzemianowski
• President of the Appellate Court in Rzeszów, neo-Judge Rafał Puchalski and vice-president, neo-Joseph Pawłowski
• President of the Konin territory Court, neo-Judge Michał Jankowski and Vice-President, neo-Judge Kinga Śliwińska-Buśkiewicz
• President of the Słupsk territory Court Agnieszka Leszkiewicz and Vice president Ryszard Błencki
• President of the territory Court of Krosno, neojudge Grzegorz Furmankiewicz. He's a associate of the illegal neo-KRS. Vice-President Mariala Olszewska was besides recalled
• President of the Brzozów territory Court Daniel Radwański
• President of the Krosno territory Court Krzysztof Szmidt and Vice-President Ewelina Lis

Who resigned alone – 39 people

Another presidents and vice presidents of the courts resigned themselves. They're under force from the judges. These are:

• President of the Poznań-New Town and Wilda territory Court Michał Tasarek
• President of the Koszalin territory Court, neojudge Piotr Boguszewski
• Vice president of Elbląg territory Court, neojudge Anna Długaczyk
• President of Bełchatów territory Court, neojudge Robert Sobczak
• President of the Lublin Court of Appeal, neojudge Jerzy Daniluk
• Vice-President of the Lublin Court of Appeal, neojudge Piotr Czerski
• President of the Elbląg territory Court, neojudge Jacek Bryl
• Vice-President of the Elbląg territory Court, neojudge Katarzyna Jacewicz-Okuniewicz
• Vice president of the Warsaw-Prague territory Court Przemysław Chrzanowski
• President of Tarnowskie Góra territory Court Marcin Kulikowski
• President of the Poznań-Grunwald territory Court and the Jeżyce Tomasz Sroka and Vice president of Sylwester Priest
• Vice president of the Kielce territory Court, neojudge Monika Wron
• Vice president of the Gliwice territory Court Gabriela Sobczyk
• Vice president of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw, neojudge Arkadiusz Ziarko. He resigned late However, he helped Minister Bodnar to make staff changes in this court at a crucial minute erstwhile the rebel president of this court Peter Schab was rebelling
• Vice president of the Legnica territory Court Paweł Oborski
• President of the Ropczyce territory Court Anna Zieć
• President of the territory Court of Bytowo Patrycja Bona
• President of the territory Court of Kraśnik Anna Plewa
• President of the territory Court of Żagań Michał Volowicz
• President of the territory Court for Łódź-Śródmieście Artur Wióra
• Vice-President of the territory Court of Grace Magdalena Socha
• Vice president of the Łódź territory Court Michał Krakowiak
• Vice president of Bielsko Podlaski territory Court Marcin Mosiołek
• Vice president of the territory Court of Żory Miłosz Dubiel
• Vice president of the territory Court for Krakow-Śródmieście Grzegorz Kurczab
• Vice-President of the Roman Sołtysek territory Court of Wadowice
• Vice president of the territory Court for Łódź-Śródmieście Janusz Pelczarski
• Vice president of the Łomża territory Court Wiesława Kozikowska
• Vice president of the Bydgoszcz territory Court Sylwia Suska-Obidowska
• Vice president of the Bydgoszcz territory Court Iwona Piekańska-Szymańska
• Vice president of the territory Court of Białystok Piotr Wypych
• Vice president of the territory Court in Rzeszów Wojciech Dudek
• President of the Poznań-Old City territory Court, neo-Judge Danuta Felińska-Żukowska (retired)
• Vice-President of the territory Court of Piotrków Trybunalski Krystyna Gajdzińska-Modro
• President of the Łódź-Vidzew territory Court Marek Pietruszka
• President of Anna Kampa territory Court
• President of the territory Court of Kostanie Mariusz Przybylak
• Vice president of the territory Court for Warsaw-Mokotowa, neojudge Grzegorz Krysztofiuk
• Vice-President of the territory Court for Warsaw-Mokotów, neo-Judge Zaneta Seliga-Kaczmarek

For a moment, Minister Adam Bodnar did not get approval to dismiss the management in the Bielsko-Biala territory courts and in Sosnowiec. Kolegia besides refused to accept resignations of regional court presidents in Bartoszyce, Kętrzyn, Miechów, Chrzanów, Olkusz, Wadowice, Sucha Beskidzka, Lesko and Vice Presidents of Myślenice.

Summary

The appeals of 5 regional capital courts by Minister Adam Bodnar are also step in the process of clearing the Polish justice strategy from political influence. These decisions aim to guarantee that justice is applied impartially, in accordance with the regulation of law. These changes, although faced with resistance, are essential to reconstruct citizens' assurance in the Polish judicial system.

How do we reconstruct the regulation of law?

In our opinion, solving the problem of neojudges, which would be without prejudice to any legal rules, would require zeroing out everything these judges have done. For applicable reasons, it is unacceptable.

If we are to decide individually about the position of neojudges, we are faced with a choice: we can either search the most (apparently) legal solution, which, however, will contain a hidden political decision, or we can adopt a solution openly violating the legal rules, but not concealing its political character.

And this choice, in itself, is simply a political choice.

We remind you that not only we and a large part of the legal community believe that neoKRS is an illegal institution. A akin view is given by justice Pszczółkowski, who, in a distant sentence, stated that the present KRS was not a body shaped as required by the Constitution.

Its arguments are based on the provisions concerning the composition of the National Court Board, in peculiar concerning Article 9a of the Act on the National Judicial Council. Changes in the membership of the KRS introduced in 2017 are contrary to Article 187(1) of the Constitution, according to justice Pszczółkowski.

The justice stresses that, in accordance with the Constitution, compliance with the requirements for the formation of the body, including the NRS, is simply a essential condition for that authority's ability to exercise its powers. In this context, it lists the anticipation of making applications to the Constitutional Court in cases relating to the independency of courts and the independency of judges.

This position is applicable for the assessment of the legitimacy of the National Court of Justice in proceedings before the Constitutional Court, especially in the context of budgetary issues and the freezing of judges' salaries. justice Pszczółkowski points out the importance of complying with constitutional standards in the formation of bodies which play a key function in the legal system, specified as the National Judicial Council.

"National Judicial Council in a composition formed pursuant to Article 9a of the Act of 12 May 2011 on the National Judicial Council (Journal of Laws of 2021 item 269, as amended; hereinafter: KRS Act) – added pursuant to Article 1 point 1 of the Act of 8 December 2017 on the amendment of the Act on the National Judicial Council and certain another laws (Journal of Laws of 2018 item 3; hereinafter: the Act of 2017) – is not a body shaped in the manner required by Article 187(1) of the Constitution," wrote a separate justice Piotr Pszczółkowski.

Further on, the TK justice explains why the current mechanics for shaping the composition of the KRS "shades the constitutional structure of this body".

‘This is for at least 2 reasons. Firstly, the legislator, by abandoning the established constitutional practice, entrusting the judges themselves with the election of judges – members of the National Court of Justice, and transferring this competence to the Sejm, granted this political authority a decisive influence on the cast of an excellent majority of the Council (i.e. the selection of 19 out of 25 members). Secondly, the legislator, erstwhile introducing a fresh mechanics for the selection of judges – the members of the NRS did not comply with the request that representatives of each group of judges of all types of courts mentioned in Article 187(1)(2) of the Constitution should be included in the Council,” states the separate sentence.

In the erstwhile period (i.e. from the establishment of the National Court registry in 1989 until the amendments were made in 2017), the selection procedure for the members of the Council was as follows: those elected from among the judges were selected by the judges themselves. More specifically, the 2 members of the National Judicial Board were elected by a general assembly of judges of the ultimate Court of that Court; 1 associate of the National Court of Justice was elected by a general assembly of judges of the ultimate Court of that Court of Justice; 2 members of the National Court of Justice were elected by a general assembly of judges of appeal courts of that court; and 9 members of the National Court of Justice were elected from among its members by meetings of representatives of general assemblies of judges in provincial courts. Additionally, 1 associate of the KRS was elected by the General Assembly of Military Court Judges from among the judges of those courts.

In the opinion of Piotr Pszczółkowski, the breach of the structural balance of the National Judicial Council resulting from the Constitution occurred erstwhile the legislature, by means of the 2017 Act, entrusted the Sejm with the power to elect 15 judges to be members of the National Court Register. According to the judge, the transfer of 19 people (including members of the CoR) from 25 seats in the Council to a single political authority made the bulk of the Council's composition dependent on the decision of the current parliamentary majority.

The Constitutional Court justice cites the judgments of the European Courts of Justice and Human Rights, which state that the National Judicial Council has lost the essential independency from political power and is incapable to make independent and nonsubjective selection of candidates for judges, nor to apply to the president of the Republic of Poland for the appointment of judges.

‘I believe that these reservations should be duly addressed besides to the ability of the Council to exercise another powers in the field of safeguarding the independency of courts and the independency of judges, including its usage to the Court of Justice with applications under Article 186(2) of the Constitution. I besides have the impression that the Constitutional Court has already seen the problem itself, refusing to mention to the case. K 12/18 examination of the legitimacy of the National Judicial Council to request only to confirm its own legal position. “” states the judge.

Piotr Pszczółkowski draws attention to the issue of representativeness of members of the National Court Register, which has been examined by the Constitutional Tribunal.

"The present model regulation makes the KRS, a body which, in accordance with Article 186 of the Constitution, is to uphold the independency of the courts and the independency of the judges, a body with much more crucial political support than the judge's."

The justice emphasises that, in accordance with Article 11a(2) of the Act on the National Judicial Council, entities specified as a group of at least 2 1000 citizens or twenty-five judges are entitled to apply for a candidate as a associate of the Council, excluding those who are at rest.

"There is now a request for very advanced political support in the selection of members of the CoR: Members who elect members of the Council (model 276, out of 460 Members), while requiring a very low minimum threshold of support for a associate of the Council expressed by the judiciary (only 25 judges of around 10,000 Judges). Similarly, the request for a candidate to be a associate of the Council to get the support of a minimum of 2,000 citizens of nearly 38 million people should be classified as a tiny representative," explains Piotr Pszczółkowski.

The justice recalls that the Constitutional Court, through its judgement in Case K 12/18 of 25 March 2019, decided to waive the constitutional review of Article 11a of the Act on the National Judicial Council, which gives emergence to a problem concerning the representativeness of the National Court of Justice and the procedures for collecting letters of support for candidates for that body. According to the judge, this decision was taken hastily and may lead to a misconception that the effect of the Constitutional Court ruling on the anticipation for politicians to elect members of the National Court of Justice means compliance with the Constitution besides in the remaining scope of the regulation on the selection of members of the National Court of Justice.

"A holistic knowing of the Constitution requires that, in order to effectively carry out the constitutional tasks of the National Courts: to diagnose the threats of the independency of courts and the independency of judges and to prevent specified threats, it is essential to have the legitimacy of a large part of the judicial community that can objectively measure the work and attitude of a candidate for a associate of the Council. The reason and experience of life propose that, in order to keep the constitutional balance of authorities, the participation and support of the judiciary community in the selection of members of a constitutional body to safeguard the independency of judges and the independency of courts should not be little than the participation and support of another authorities – those before which the KRS is tasked to safeguard the judiciary."

Thus, the justice of the Constitutional Tribunal confirmed our position regarding the deficiency of power to issue judgments by neo-Judges who usage an illegal body nomination.

The deficiency of power to give judgments by persons utilizing nominations issued on the basis of illegal competitions organised by a criminal body impersonating the KRS is besides justified in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (judgment of 22 July 2021 – complaint No 43447/19, Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek against Poland of 8 November 2021 – complaint No 49868/19 and 57511/19, Advance Pharma sp. z o.o. v. Poland of 7 February 2022 — complaint No 1469/20, Broda and Bojar v. Poland of 29 June 2021 — complaint No 26691/18 and 27367/18, Grzępa v Poland of 15 March 2022 — Complaint No 43572/18, Wałęsa v Poland of 23 November 2023 — action No 50849/21), judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (of 19 November 2019 — Case AK of the combined actions C 585/18, C 624/18, C 625/18, judgement of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 October 2021 in Case C-487/19), judgement of the Polish ultimate Court (judgment of 5 December 2019 III PO 7/18, OSNP 2020/4/38, order of the ultimate Court of 15 January 2020 III PO 8/18, OSNP 2020/10/114, resolution of the Joint Chambers of the ultimate Court of Justice of 23 January 2020 (BSA 1-4110-1/20) and judgement of the ultimate Administrative Court of 26 June 2019, Il GOK 2/18, judgement of 11 October 2021, Il GOK 9/18, judgement of Il GOK 10/18, Il GOK 11/18, Il GOK 11/18, Il GOK 12/18, Il GOK 12/18, Il GOK 13/18, Il GOK 21, Il GOK 20/18, Il 21).

We remind you that the case law issued by the neo-judges is repealed by law. In the case of civilian proceedings pursuant to Article 379(4) in fine k.p.c. and criminal proceedings pursuant to Article 439(1)(6) in fine k.p.k.

What is neo-KRS and neo-Judge

The National Judicial Council was elected in a manner incompatible with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, which makes it impossible for the Court of Justice to recognise it in the light of the adopted line of the jurisprudence of the ultimate Court and the TEU as a body acting as acting and having the power to appoint judges. Any justice appointed by that unconstitutional authority and appointed by the president to execute is besides served by a noe-judge who has no legal capacity to issue judgment,

At this point it will be justified to rise that the problem of vocations of "judges" after the formation of the "National Judicial Council" as a consequence of changes in 2017 has respective aspects. The first is related to the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, which impose on public authorities, including the legislator, the work of specified appointment of judges to judicial duties, which guarantees the essential minimum independency and independency of the bodies active in the nomination process. This body is the National Judicial Board. engagement in constitutional standards for shaping the judicial composition of this body, creating an chance for politicians to form the Council, i.e. the election of members of the judges of the Council in their entirety by parliament (excluding the 1st president of the SN and the president of the NSA), has caused this body to neglect to meet constitutional requirements. This makes in any event the appointment of a justice question arise, which accompanies any man who puts his case under the judgement of the court, whether this court is simply a constitutional court.

In addition, this is the second aspect – in the doctrine to which I have given my hand, and in the case-law, there has been a method of verifying the correctness of the appointment of judges based on tools that have been in the strategy since forever, but mostly not utilized to measure the fulfilment of minimum conditions of impartiality and independence. It is the institutions (in the case of preventive control) – iudex sspectus and iudex inhabilis, and in the case of follow-up control – the absolute appeal condition, which is the incorrect cast of the court. On this thought the position of the resolution of the 3 Joint Chambers of the ultimate Court of January 2020 was placed. The resolution contained not precisely the right differentiation: indicating that, in the case of an SN, due to the nature of that authority, judges appointed after a advice of the KRS formed after 2017, do not supply guarantees of independent and impartial ruling. For this reason, it was considered that only this organization flaw justifies the claim that specified judges are deprived of material votum. The resolution did not competition that these persons had obtained the position of SN judges, but it was found that they had no power to issue judgments.

The judgments of specified ‘judges’ so far have been affected by the defect, given the inadequate cast of the court, which should be regarded as a failure to fulfil the constitutional request of the competent court referred to in Article 45(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. Failed judges should not rule. From the date of the resolution, these judges shall be incapable to rule. They do not have a material votum, although they have the position of judges. In the light of the above, it should be considered that, pursuant to Article 91(2) and (3) of the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and of the ECHR, the rule of precedence of the application of the law

This is justified in the judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 October 2021 in Case C-487/19, as well as in the erstwhile judgement of the European Court of Human Rights of 7 May 2021, action No 4907/18. I remind the hooded court that, in accordance with Article 9 of the Constitution, the Republic of Poland is obliged to respect its binding global law. In accordance with Article 91(2) of the Constitution, an global agreement ratified with the prior consent expressed in the Act shall take precedence over the law if that law cannot be reconciled with the agreement. The position of judges and the guarantees of the independency of courts, which constitute the essence of the right to a fair trial, are enshrined in the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and are further confirmed in Article 6(3) of the Treaty on EU. In the present case, the judgement given on 7 October 2021 by the Constitutional Court in the present – defective – composition of the case in Case No. K 13/21, which reconciles the interests of citizens.

Our position on the neo-CRS and neo-Judges appointed by this unconstitutional body confirms the position of the European Commission, which decided on 15 February 2023 to mention Poland to the Court of Justice of the European Union in connection with the controversial ruling of the Polish Constitutional Court. The Commission opened infringement proceedings against Poland on 22 December 2021. – The reason was the judgments of the Polish Constitutional Court of 14 July 2021 and 7 October 2021, in which it declared the provisions of the EU treaties to be incompatible with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, explicitly questioning the rule of primacy of EU law. Without doubt, in light of the content of the judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber) of 19 November 2019 (Nos C 585/18, C-624/18, C 625/18) and the resolution of the full composition of the ultimate Court of 23 January 2020 (BSA I-4110-1/20), there is simply a basis for concluding that the institution designated to guarantee the regulation of law is breaking the law and commits the crime.

We remind you that the case law issued by the neo-judges is repealed by law. In the case of civilian proceedings pursuant to Article 379(4) in fine k.p.c. and criminal proceedings pursuant to Article 439(1)(6) in fine k.p.k.

You request legal assistance, compose us or call us right now.

579-636-527

Contact@legartis.pl