The Ombudsman of the Court of Justice of the European Union assessed that the dismissal of the justice of the Warsaw territory Court from the conduct of the cases assigned without justification violated Community law. According to Dean Spielmann, the decision was made with the approval of the justice himself.
The Opinion of Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union Dean Spielmann referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling District Court in Warsawwho wanted clarifications on the transparency and regularity of the SLPS.
The Ombudsman assessed on Thursday that the dismissal of the justice of the territory Court in Warsaw from the conduct of the cases assigned without justification breached European Union lawEven if it happened with her permission.
Decision of the Warsaw Court under the eye of the Advocate General
It's about the situation erstwhile they got to court II. two cases, which in 2024 were randomly assigned through the SLPS of 1 judge. The justice was later transferred to another department of the same court, after which the College of the territory Court dismissed her, without justification, from conducting 100 cases previously assigned to her, including 2 appeals mentioned at the outset.
This was at the request of the justice himself who agreed. However, that decision did not contain any justification.
These cases, at the request of the president of the department, went back to the SLPS pool and were drawn among the another judges, most of which, 56 cases, were assigned 1 judge. another judges received small or no cases. Referee appealed against the decision, arguing this with an uneven workload, but her complaint was dismissed.
The justice doubted whether the court could be regarded as independent, impartial and established by law within the meaning of EU law if the investigating justice was designated by the SLPS in circumstances of doubt on the correctness and transparency of the process. The justice stressed in peculiar that the erstwhile justice was arbitrarily removed from the case and the fresh justice - chosen by the strategy created by the executive authority (Ministry of Justice). She noted that the SLPS algorithm is opaque, the strategy could lead to the unequal burden on judges, exists risk of manipulation and mistake in drawing, and the deficiency of an effective remedy to challenge decisions on the allocation of cases.
The Ombudsman gave an opinion. "Inconsistent with EU law"
On Thursday, the spokesperson for the EUSEC decided that dismissing a justice from conducting cases without justification was against EU law. According to him, the deficiency of criteria and the work to justify specified a decision may pose a hazard of arbitrary and unauthorised interference in the allocation of cases. It does not substance if the justice has agreed to this, as this consent may have been due to force from superiors, their expectations or collusion.
With respect to SLPS, the Ombudsman found that The specified usage of the case draw strategy raises no objections - provided that it is based on transparent, nonsubjective and pre-known rules. However, the Ombudsman considered that the deficiency of publication of the origin code (computer recording) from the SLPS did not give emergence to a uncovering that there was an irregularity, as the publication of the algorithm and the draw reports provided a adequate warrant of transparency of the system. The participation of the Minister of Justice in the establishment of the strategy and the definition of the rules for the allocation of cases besides appears to be of an organisational nature and does not give emergence to any reservations as to the impact on the process of the allocation of cases.
Finally, according to the Ombudsman, EU law does not require that the correctness of assigning a case to a justice be necessarily verified at his request. However, it should be possible to carry out this inspection either at the request of the organization or - in case of serious doubt - from the public office.
Opinions of the Advocates-General of the TEU precede the judgement of the tribunalby making proposals for a resolution. The judges usually keep the position taken by the spokespersons, but this is not binding.
Did you see anything important? Send a picture, a movie, or compose what happened. usage our Inductors
