In the vapors of legislative madness

  •  In the vapors of legislative madness Contrary to the title, the current amendment to the Supreme Court Act is not pure madness, but a profoundly thought-out, next step in making the Supreme Court and common courts fully subservient of the power of politicians. I don’t want to comment on Politicians’ actions. For me its enough to tell that for every intelligent man (not only for a lawyer), it is quite clear that since the President appoints the First President of the Supreme Court from the candidates presented by the General Assembly of Supreme Court Judges, he cannot appoint the First President of the Supreme Court from among people who will cross his mind. It is just a triviality, something written in old parchments, but should we treat it seriously at once? As we know, the harsh problem of the Polish justice system are the hordes of judges who maraud the housing estates in the nightfalls and attack old women or even more- they traffic drugs near schools. There was a justified fear that among the judges of disciplinary courts who were personally appointed by Minister Ziobro might be such atheist judges, who might not believe in the word of honor, the evidence presented by the prosecutors subordinated to the Minister of Justice. Fortunately, there is a Supreme Court disciplinary chamber. Subsequently, there must be a reason why these ladies and gentlemen, who are curiously connected with the minister, were delegated to this body. As the consequence of those circumstances, the judge, and especially the judge, who exposed himself to the ruling party will be judged by a person who considers himself to be a judge of the Supreme Court. And then, a judge chosen by an unconstitutional National Judicial Council in an invalid competition will decide on the fate of the judge. The ruling would be based only on evidence prepared by prosecutors who were delegated to the National Public Prosecutor’s Office and who before the „Good Change” served in distant units. The career success of those prosecutors was not corresponding with their seniority and qualifications as their promotion only depended on the good feeling of the Minister of Justice who at the same time performs the function of the Prosecutor General.  Countermand against such a one-person decision to waive immunity or decision to give consent to arrest will be recognized by three illegal nominees from the disciplinary chamber. And in this way, we will exclude the risk that the independent judges who might have sit in the chamber of the disciplinary court would make a decision that the currently ruling party wouldn’t be fond of.  The decision that would be contrary to the ruling party expectations would be always considered as an unjust decision. Nevertheless, it is worth keeping hope in our hearts…With our own independence, courage, wisdom, and strength, we can survive the stupidest and the most unreasonable changes in legislation, even if sometimes we may have a lack of adequate response… We will survive. Even if in the approaching future for the judgment to be valid it will be necessary to get the minister’s personal acceptance or at least the personal approval of the head of the fish shop in Pułtusk with the countersignature of the gatekeeper from Włoszczowa station … 
  • Explanatory note:Repeal of the judge`s immunity: After the amendment comes into force, the members of a special court – the Supreme Court Disciplinary Chamber, elected by the politicized National Council of Judiciary with the majority of former prosecutors with connections with the Minister of Justice – Prosecutor General, will decide upon the judges` arrested and prosecution. The repeal of the judge`s immunity will be the competence of the Supreme Court Disciplinary Chamber in both instances – a single judge in the first instance and panel of three judges in the second instance. The nomination of the First President of the Supreme Court: Contrary to the previous provisions the amendment allows the President of the Republic of Poland himself to nominate the First President of the Supreme Court and the Presidents of the Supreme Chambers. In August 2019, the Supreme Court college may consist entirely of newly appointed judges of the Supreme Court and the newly appointed judges can be appointed by the President of the Republic of Poland to the Presidents of the Chambers. At present, the General Assembly of the Judges of the Supreme Court in the presence of a minimum of 2/3 of the candidates for the position of the First President of the Supreme Court elect and send nominations to the president of. If that does not work, 3/5 of the judges will suffice at the next meeting. Under the amendment, if there is no quorum at the second meeting, the next candidate may be approved regardless of the number of judges present. If that also fails, and the resolution about the candidates will not be sent to the president, the first president will be able to choose from all SN judges and appoint the president himself. The same applies to the Presidents of the Chambers. Appealing against the resolution of the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ): After the adoption of the amending Act, there will be no judicial review of the correctness of the competition procedure before NCJ. The amendment will affect the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court and, above all, the proceedings relating to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling, pending before the Court of Justice of the EU. Pursuant to the amendment, proceedings regarding appeals against resolutions of NCJ in individual cases regarding appointment to the office of judge of the Supreme Court initiated and not completed before the entry into force of this Act, are subject to discontinuation (Article 8 of the Amendment Act). Earlier, the Constitutional Tribunal considered the appeal against the resolution of NCJ to the Supreme Administrative Court to be inconsistent with the Constitution. In this situation, the amendment aims to annihilate the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Administrative Court to the CJEU regarding the competition for judges’ positions in the Supreme Court and to discontinue proceedings before the CJEU. Questions were asked after complaints from rejected candidates who invoked the invalidity of the competition procedure.


Wprowadź swoje dane lub kliknij jedną z tych ikon, aby się zalogować:


Komentujesz korzystając z konta Wyloguj /  Zmień )

Zdjęcie z Twittera

Komentujesz korzystając z konta Twitter. Wyloguj /  Zmień )

Zdjęcie na Facebooku

Komentujesz korzystając z konta Facebook. Wyloguj /  Zmień )

Połączenie z %s