Four recently elected Members, who are now members of the illegal and politicized by Ziobra of the National Judicial Council, i.e. Kamila Gasiuk-Pihowicz, Tomasz Zimoch, Robert Kropiwnicki and Anna Maria Żukowska, appeared this morning at the Tuesday gathering of this body. They were besides accompanied by Senator Krzysztof Kwiatkowski, who has been a associate of the KRS for respective years.
Already before entering the seat of the National Court Register, the first dispute concerning the authorisation of journalists to participate in the deliberations began. Senator Kwiatkowski reported that earlier that day he and the fresh members had turned to the demoralized “president” of the illegal and politicized Council, whose activities were undermined by many SN and TEU case-laws, Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woiczka, asking for approval to enter the Council building. However, the demoralized legal ignorant and servant of Ziobra sent them to the neoKRS press spokesman, who unfortunately announced that she would not make a decision on the matter.
– The president did not answer the telephone later," Kwiatkowski informed.
The launch of the Council was planned for 10 hours, but the transmission was delayed. Members who are members of the ‘National Judicial Council’ took the seats of erstwhile members, including Anna Dalkowska, erstwhile Deputy Minister of Justice. Shortly after the start, there was a first method break. During the distant broadcasting of the neo-KRS meeting, although the voice was heard, the president decided to take a break due to problems with the sound in the transmission.
The main subject of the dispute is the cast of 15 seats in the National Judicial Council. Mr Gasiuk-Pihowicz calls for the members present to leave, stressing that only a fewer of them have legal powers. It besides calls for the suspension of work, in peculiar as regards the holding of competitions for vacant judges, to say that this is impossible in the current Council.
New members of the neo-KRS have a plan for this meeting, but for now they do not uncover details. The news shows that 1 of the items on the agenda is to hold a vacancy competition to the ultimate Administrative Court. Although there are respective candidates, it is not certain that the competition will be carried out.
– Everything ahead – said fresh members of the KRS.
Members of the erstwhile opposition, informally linked to the area of justice, argue that it is impossible for recently appointed members of the ‘National Judicial Council’ to start working on standard terms with another members of this illegal and politicised Council who have been illegally appointed by written politicians among the judiciary.
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.
This is from
A dispute under the seat of the illegal neo-KRS. Pawełczyk–Woicka tries to “betone” a criminal and politicized organ:
