TEU took a look at the ultimate Court. Possible irregularities in the appointment of judges

The case is inactive pending.

On Monday, the TEU in Luxembourg dealt with the consequences of possible irregularities in the appointment of a number of ultimate Court judges, including the engagement of alleged neo-Judges in the ruling and management of the ultimate Court. The case, initiated in 2018 by Waldemar Żurek, despite the 2021 judgment, was inactive not settled in practice. The Opinion of the Advocate General preceding the judgement is essential, although not binding.

The case relates to the consequences of possible irregularities in the appointment of any ultimate Court judges, resulting, inter alia, from the participation of the politicised KRS and the fact that any of its applications were subsequently repealed by the NSA after the presidential nominations.

The ultimate Court is to measure whether a judgement given with the participation of a justice appointed in specified circumstances has legal force. He so raised questions to the TEU about the standard of independence, impartiality and the appropriate establishment of a court under EU law. He wants to determine, among others, whether the alleged neo-judges can regulation in the SN in matters concerning the consequences of these irregularities.

Doubts besides concern whether persons appointed in specified a way can carry out organisational tasks, specified as the appointment of compositions or hearings, and execute managerial functions in the SN. In addition, the NS considers whether a justice appointed without responsibility has the right or the work to refuse ruling in a composition where the majority is made up of neojudges.

Opinion only in July

The proceeding before the TEU began at 2:30 p.m. and ended before 5:00 p.m. It was attended by representatives of Waldemar Żurek, Sylwia Gregorczyk-Abram and Michał Wawrykiewicz, as well as representatives of the National Prosecutor's Office, the European Commission and the Ombudsman. After its completion, it was pointed out that there were many questions.

As PAP explains Sylvia Gregorczyk-Abram:

This is truly about citizens, whether they will be guaranteed fundamental rights and freedoms. Whether the people who direct the most crucial court in the country, the court which is the court of last instance and who settles the most crucial matters and gives direction to the another courts, is the management of persons who we have no uncertainty about as to their objectivity and impartiality. By people who, in all situation, stand on the side of the citizen.

Mr Wawrykiewicz said that on 16 July, the Advocate General of the Court of Justice would present an opinion on the case after which the judgement would be given. These opinions constitute a preliminary proposal for a ruling and, although frequently taken into account by judges, are not binding.