The names of the judges in cases concerning defective cast should not be anonymised

Facts

The case active the suspect J.T., whose judgement was retained by the territory Court in Warsaw in April 2022. The ultimate Court, in examining the cassation, annulled the contested judgement on the basis of the absolute reason for the appeal referred to in Article 439(1)(2) of the NCP, i.e. the incorrect cast of the court. The justice was a justice X.Y. (indicated in sources by name and surname in the context of criticism of anonymization) which received a judicial nomination at the request of the KRS in the manner defined by the Act of 8.12.2017 amending the Act on the National Judicial Council and any another laws (Journal of Laws of 2018 item 3). The ultimate Court examined the judge's professional way in detail, pointing to a number of circumstances that undermine the standard of independency and impartiality in the social audience. The case was referred to the territory Court in Warsaw for retrial in appeal proceedings.

However, the key to judicial practice resulting from the judgement in question is not so much the question of the assessment of independency and impartiality by the court involving judges active in the nomination procedure involving the defectively planted KRS, as are the issues concerning the practice of anonymising the data (names and surnames) of the judges in the justifications for the independency test.

SN position

This practice does not change despite the explicit indication in the judgement of the ultimate Court of 11.4.2024, III KK 74/22 and the judgement of 17.4.2024, II KK 168/23, Legalis, that the particulars of a justice who was a associate of the appeal court or the court of First Instance are not protected from disclosure in the justification of the sN of the remedy, since they are given to a public officer strictly in connection with his exercise of public authority.

In addition to the arguments contained in the above judgments, the ultimate Court stressed that:

1. Anonymisation of the individual data of judges who participated in the issuing of decisions subject to interior control (but besides of another persons, specified as those on the National Judicial Board), constitutes a violation of Paragraph 8(1)(1)(1) in fine Order No 137/2023 of the First president of the ultimate Court of 12.10.2023 on the making available of decisions of the ultimate Court, the vocad and information on judicial matters in the ultimate Court and the making public of judgments of the disciplinary courts on the subject-matter side of the ultimate Court (as well as the erstwhile § 8(1) point 1) in fine Order No 131/2022 of the First president of the ultimate Court of 4.10.2022).
2. The secrecy of the judge's data constitutes a real obstacle to obtaining access to public information, which is guaranteed at the level of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland (Article 61(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland), and can so be regarded as an act to the detriment of the public interest.