Demoralized by law, Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woicka will be ruled in the Court of Appeals in Warsaw without authority

Demoralized by law, Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woick, the current "president" of the unconstitutional and politicized neo-KRS, whose legality has been undermined by many judgments of the SN and the TEU, began working on the basis of a delegation to the Court of Appeal in Warsaw from 1 November, and the period of her delegation is inactive outstanding.

Pawełczyk-Woicka is simply a neojudge in the Krakow territory Court, where she has served as president since 2018. She was appointed to this position by Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro, who had previously made political changes in the leadership of that court. Pawełczyk-Woicka is simply a long-time friend of Ziebra from school times.

The decision about her delegation to the Court of Appeal in Warsaw was taken after the opposition as a consequence of the fresh elections won most of the seats in the Sejm. This delegation has no fixed deadline, which suggests that it will service as a neojudge in the Court of Appeal in Warsaw for an indefinite period. Unofficial information indicates that its main area of activity will be Division VII dealing with economical affairs and intellectual property.

The "Elector" newspaper, which is not a popular average of the written regime, tried to verify this information, and to confirm Paulczyk-Woick's competence to regulation in specified a department, especially since she had previously dealt with household and civilian matters. The question addressed to the neo-KRS spokeswoman, Ewa Łosińska, was answered: “The president is simply a justice and will regulation in Warsaw due to her duties.”

Unfortunately, at this point we cannot agree with the position of Ewa Łosińska – a spokeswoman of the illegal and immoral neoKRS, in which she claims that Pawełczyk-Woicka is simply a judge. This is contrary to many of the jurisprudences issued by legal SN warehouses and the case law of the TEU.

However, some, specified as the Krakow justice Waldemar Żurek, engaged in the defence of the regulation of law, express surprise that Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woicka was only referred to the appeal court, not to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Żurek adds with irony that “these are not Himalayas that he could not achieve.” However, seriously, it points out that we are observing in Poland a situation where the state does not follow any established rules, which may explain Pawełczyk-Woick's reluctance to return to Krakow, where people remember it for its actions against the regulation of law.

Another judge, Dariusz Mazur, spokesperson and vice-president of the Association of Judges ‘Themis,’ expresses doubts as to the substantive preparation of Pawełczyk-Woicka to regulation on complex issues related to intellectual property.

The past of Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woiczka indicates that she was initially a territory judge, and her efforts to advance to the function of territory court justice were unsuccessful. erstwhile she again applied for promotion, the assessment of her qualifications was entrusted not to the justice from the appeal, which was so far a practice, but to the justice from Wrocław. Finally, in 2020, thanks to the votes of the presidents of the regional courts under her court, she obtained a affirmative opinion that enabled her to legally defective appointment as justice of the territory court. president Andrzej Duda signed the Pawełczyk-Woickian nomination as territory justice in early September 2020. Thus, Pawełczyk-Woicka was powered by a group of beana costumers, who consider themselves judges and under the law they are not and do not have the power to issue case law.

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.

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.

You request legal assistance, compose us or call us right now.

579-636-527

[email protected]