This is at the heart of the resolution of the 7 judges of the home of Extraordinary Control of the SN, which is besides applicable to the efficiency of the courts, as there are many requests to exclude the judge. The president of this House, Joanna Lemanska, asked to resolve this issue, hoping to remove the discrepancy in this matter. According to the resolution, an applicant for the exclusion of a justice may besides request the exclusion of a justice who is to examine the application. I don't think that'll velocity things up.
He initiated the case M.J., which in the economical case (and there is simply a civilian procedure) requested the exclusion of the justice of the territory Court in Katowice from the ruling and then the exclusion from the ruling of that justice of the ultimate Court. Recognizing this second application by Joanna Lemanska, president of the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the SN, asked the wider composition of the SN to decide whether specified a procedure was acceptable in civilian procedure that the organization requested the exclusion of the appointed justice – let us add a drawn judge, to examine the request to exclude the erstwhile judge.
Pursuant to Article 49(1) of the NPC, which provides that a court shall exclude a justice at his request or at the request of a party, if there is simply a case of specified a nature as to give emergence to reasonable uncertainty as to the impartiality of the justice in the case.
In the explanatory memorandum of the question, president Lemańska pointed out that the case law of the civilian Chamber and the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the SN in the context of the explanation of Article 49(1) of the NPC allows specified multi-step conclusions.
On the another hand, the legitimate arguments argue that specified a subsequent application is inadmissible. In the light of the established position of the Constitutional Court, the right to court is not absolute, it does not give the organization unlimited protection of rights by court. Otherwise, procedural restrictions could be called into question which service to defend the rights and interests of the parties to the proceedings more rapidly and efficiently.
And in civilian matters, especially in fresh times, it happens that the parties instrumentally usage the exclusion of the judge. By making specified multi-step proposals, knowingly trying to prevent the adoption of a case within a reasonable time. specified abuse of procedural rights does not service the impartiality or integrity of the process defined in the Polish Constitution and the law of the European Union.
Nor does it service to build social trust in justice," said president Lemańska in a question which was not in the seven-member composition.
However, the 7 SN judges did not "block" the anticipation of submitting specified requests for the exclusion of another justice and, as a result, will indicate in the written justification.
Let us add, as is stated in the question, that in the case law of the Criminal Chamber of SN against the background of almost the same Article 41 of the NCP. The dominant position is that the organization may not request the exclusion of a justice appointed to examine a request for the exclusion of a judge.
The application to exclude a justice prolongs the procedure, so everything depends on the importance of the arguments that the applicant will make, if they are strong, then the application cannot be disregarded due to the fact that the justice should be impartial.
If there are no substantive objections to the impartiality of the judge, it means that the motion is intended to extend the proceedings, or even to prevent the judgment, and should be rejected,' Roman Nowosielski's lawyer assesses.
File number: I NZP 6/22
