The Duda known for breaking the Constitution changes the SN's rules of procedure and thus wants to defend neojudges. Sparrow: Regulations will not defend them

Andrzej Duda – the pisovian president known for the widespread violation of the Constitution, for which he should be put under the Court of State – signed a regulation that modifies the rules concerning the functioning of the ultimate Court (SN). During his November speech, justice Włodzimierz Wróbel explained that the proposed amendments would open the way to a situation in which neojudges appointed in an incorrect manner could issue their own ruling on their case, while confirming their position as members of the ultimate Court. The fresh rules shall enter into force 14 days after the date of their authoritative publication.

On Tuesday, a Regulation of the president of the Republic of Poland dated 29 November 2023 was published in the authoritative of the Law, amending the Rules of Procedure of the ultimate Court.

Published in the authoritative diary of the Regulations, both Duda and two-week Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki were signed, who accepted and approved the order. It was the president in cooperation with the Prime Minister who modified the ultimate Court's Rules of Procedure, which the lawyers referred to as "an attack on the integrity of the ultimate Court".

The key point of the amended Rules of Procedure is to reduce the number of judges required to take decisions in the full composition of the ultimate Court, both in the united chambers and in the full Chamber. specified provisions are fundamental in the context of law and oblige all ultimate Court judges, regardless of the composition of the ruling. Furthermore, they affect another courts, based on the authority of the ultimate Court. At least two-thirds of the judges in each chamber are required to take a decision in the current form, but one-second is adequate after the amendments have been made.

An interesting aspect is the fact that more than half of the current "judgments" of the ultimate Court are neojudges, i.e. persons appointed with the participation of the politically active National Judiciary Council. Their dominance does not happen only in 2 chambers: Criminal and Labour and Social Insurance. However, this situation may change as the ultimate Court gradually reduces the “older” judges passing to rest. fresh judges are besides expected to be appointed by the President, who will be selected in the "competitions" conducted by the neoKRS. There is besides the likelihood of further illegal vacancy contests in the ultimate Court.

Sparrow: It is about the resolution of the 3 chambers of SN

"It is sewn with specified thick threads that it is astounding," commented prof. Włodzimierz Wróbel, justice of the Criminal Chamber of the SN.

"Only half of the judges are expected to be present for the resolution of the full SN. Thus, the judges themselves will be wrongly appointed to issue a ruling in their own case to confirm that they are judges of the ultimate Court," he added on the FB.

Sparrow is convinced that the president is modifying the Rules of Procedure intentionally in order to make a favourable basis for neojudges to change the resolution of the 3 ultimate Court chambers of 2020. It follows from the wording of this resolution that decisions of neo-Judges of the ultimate Court are subject to a permanent defect, which may besides undermine the provisions of the neo-Judges in the general courts.

It was in accordance with the provisions of this resolution that the courts assessed the independency of neo-Judges, and the decisions of those who did not comply were annulled.

"The resolution has made it much harder for politicians to take full power over the ultimate Court and general courts" – noted the justice of the Criminal Chamber.

The PiS government never accepted the resolution of the 3 chambers. Her “elimination” was announced by the neo-judge and then the first president of the ultimate Court, Małgorzata Manowska – a associate of the “elite” group of legally demoralized criminals from the neo-KRS – who previously served as deputy minister in the PiS government. "The ultimate Court has exceeded its powers, but I believe that erstwhile the emotion has subsided, the formal abolition of this resolution will not origin much controversy," she said in 2020, applying for the position of first president.

The Rules of Procedure will not repeal the ECHR’s judgments

"The president and the current Prime Minister signed changes to the Rules of Procedure of the ultimate Court invented by Prof. Małgorzata Manowska. But contrary to the intention of the authors of these changes, flawed appointments to positions in the ultimate Court will not become correct," commented justice Wróbel.

"No rules of procedure are capable of revoking decisions of global courts which have confirmed that defectively appointed persons cannot regulation as an independent and impartial court," he added.

The European Court of Human Rights has already ruled in 5 judgments that decisions of neo-judges of the ultimate Court do not warrant a fair trial, which results in Poland having to pay compensation for this. Recently, ETPC has besides confirmed that in Poland there are systemic human rights violations. Among the existing systemic problems, which require immediate amendments, a flawed procedure for appointing judges with the engagement of the politically active National Judicial Council has been identified.

President Duda's decree, aimed at establishing the ultimate Court by appointing persons of certain beliefs, will take effect 14 days after the date of publication. Another amendment then introduced will be the adjustment of the number of judges in individual chambers, for example, in the civilian Chamber an increase from 43 to 44 is planned. justice Wróbel expressed interest in asking rhetorically who this 1 additional place might be applicable to.

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

[email protected]