Bodnar takes the first steps on the neojudges. NeoKRS is outraged

Adam Bodnar presented a draft amendment to the Minister of Justice's Regulation on the Rules of Procedure of the General Courts, which was submitted to interministerial arrangements. The initiative is criticised, among others, by the National Judicial Council.

The Ministry of Justice argues that the proposed provisions will guarantee that: ‘Exempt requests ‘Judge‘ due to the way he was appointed to the judiciary, they will not be recognized by ‘Judges‘ appointed in the same mode. This solution will prevent the participation of persons appointed by the National Judicial Council as shaped by the KRS Act of 8 December 2017 in the examination of specified applications. These judges will not be included in the assignment of cases by the Random Assignment System." – indicates the ministry.

According to the Ministry of Justice, the amendment is due to the fact that ‘the Act of 8 December 2017 on the National Judiciary Council introduced a way of selecting the judges-members of the National Court registry which is contrary to the Constitution’.

– "By this, this key body standing defender for the independency of the courts and the independency of the judges lost its independence, and the way the Council and the president of Poland appointed and promoted the judges became flawed. This was confirmed by a number of judgments of Polish courts and global tribunals. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly indicated that the composition of the KRS as constituted by the Act of 8 December 2017 is contrary to Article 187 of the Polish Constitution. The Council is not independent of the executive and legislative authority, and its appointed judges are not independent and impartial due to the fact that their appointment has been in breach of this procedure." - We read.

– "The second crucial issue contained in the draft amendment to the Regulation – Rules of Procedure of the General Court – concerns the work to take into account the precedence and direct application of EU and global law erstwhile drawing up judgments and judicial justifications. This is due to the fact that in the last fewer years the hierarchy of legal sources and the 3 divisions of power in Poland have been distorted. Legal changes have been introduced to restrict the independency of the judiciary and to enable disciplinary proceedings to be conducted against judges applying Union law and global conventions in the case law. Amendment of the Regulation – Rules of Procedure of the General Court is the first component of restoring standards in the Polish judiciary. However, the process of repair requires further action, including the restoration of the independency of the KRS by amending the Law on the National Courts and amending the Law on the strategy of the General Courts, which will reconstruct the function of judicial authorities in the nomination and promotion of judges.” – points out the Ministry of Justice.

NeoKRS criminals take criticism of changes in regulations

The initiative has already been criticised, including through neoKRS (criminal organization completely politicized, which appoints disguises in robes to rule) and erstwhile Deputy Minister of Justice Sebastian Kaleta. The NeoKRS warns that if the proposed regulation of the Minister of Justice is real, it can be considered as an effort to modify the strategy of the Republic of Poland by means of a simple regulation.

It is simply a pity that these criminals impersonating the court do not announcement what they have done with the aid of Ziebra since 2017 with the justice system. I wonder erstwhile this band, acting under the cover of the “Court”, will be deprived of liberty for participating in an organized crime group led by Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woick.

On the another hand, Sebastian Kaleta (Ziobra's collegiate man liable for the demolition of the judiciary) points out that Adam Bodnar "aims to exempt judges appointed after 2018 and to order the omission of TC judgments on judicial nominations". "These are highly unconstitutional proposals, even if they were enforced by the bill. But Adam Bodnar intends to issue these provisions in a regulation, or 1 person. Who'd he send for an opinion? To allied, politicized judicial associations," he points out.

"What is crucial is that the draft justifies its opinion that the reformed KRS is unconstitutional. In this way, the Minister of Justice wants to measure the constitutionality of the laws. It's putting you on your head. Fortunately, judges will not be bound by specified unconstitutional rules, as regulations are lower in the hierarchy of sources of law than the Constitution and the Act," Kaleta points out.

Also the Rector of Collegium Intermarium, Dr. Bartosz Lewandowski, expressed his position on this issue.

"They haven't played this yet. The Minister of Justice-Procurator-General (executive authority) introduces by regulation an work for judges (judicial authority) to include circumstantial content in the justifications of the courts and tries to regulate the allocation of cases in courts outside the law. Interesting concept. Unfortunately, it does not comply with the Constitution of Poland. Apart from the question of balance and division of authorities (Article 10(1)), in accordance with Article 178(1) of the Constitution, judges in the exercise of their office shall be independent and subject only to the Constitution and to laws.” – emphasizes another supporter of criminals in toga.

Above all, those who talk of changes to the laws to deprive the costumers of certain legal protection in togas in connection with their actions violating the right of citizens to an impartial and legal court, it should be recalled that the legal SN has already spoken on this issue.

The neo-Judge of the ultimate Court, who was appointed to office in a controversial competition procedure organised by an illegal, unconstitutional and political neo-KRS body, cannot carry out an impartial and independent test of another SN judge, against whom there is raised uncertainty based on specified an allegation," stated the ultimate Courtin the order of 28 June 2023, act number V KB 9/22.

Of course, we are aware that a group of demoralized neo-KRS criminals and supporters of the actions of fallen Ziobry do not accept specified decisions.

We wrote more about this in the article: The neo-judge does not have the authority to execute the independency test of another neo-judge, stated SN

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.

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

579-636-527

[email protected]