The pilot judgement of ETPCz in the case of Wałęsa completely undermines the operation of the neo-KRS and the issuance of judgments by neo-Judges

The judgement of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on Lech Walesa’s complaint (No. 50849/21) against Poland is applicable and symbolic for respective reasons. Lech Wałęsa, erstwhile president of Poland, filed a complaint with ETPCz in connection with the annulment of the court's favorable judgement concerning the violation of individual property by his erstwhile associate, Krzysztof Wyszkowski. The Court of Appeal in Gdańsk in 2011 obliged Wyszkowski to print an apology, but later political action undermined this decision.

ETPCz considered that there was a violation of Lech Wałęsa's right to court and the right to privacy. The Court found that the rulings sought to block and offset the effects of adverse judicial decisions on Wyszkowski. This judgement was considered to be a alleged pilot judgement concerning the systemic problem of violations of the regulation of law in Polish judiciary, government and practices.

A peculiarly crucial component is the designation by the ETPC that the functioning of the neo-KRS, the procedure of appointing neo-Judges, the deficiency of independency of the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the ultimate Court, as well as the shortcomings of the extraordinary complaint are a systemic problem. The Court obliged the Polish authorities to take effective steps to remedy the situation, including ensuring compliance of Polish law with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights. The request for access to an independent and impartial court and for the rule of legal certainty was identified.

This provision is crucial not only for Lech Wałęsa, but besides for the full judicial strategy in Poland, ordering the authorities to take action to remedy systemic problems that violate the regulation of law and respect human rights.

The ETPC Decision clearly exposes various aspects of serious violations of the right to court and demolition of the regulation of law in Poland over the last 8 years. However, following the judgment, the Polish government issued an authoritative message claiming that this decision is illegal, has no force, and was issued in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

We remind you that the case law issued by the neo-judges is repealed by law.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]