“The claim that there is a group of judges who are not authorized to adjudicate is an element of political warfare. There are no improperly appointed judges after 2017. It was a huge fraud from the very beginning” – Judge Maria Szczepaniec tells Niezalezna.pl in her first interview after being appointed President of the Professional Liability Chamber of the Supreme Court. She also explained the background of her famous exchange with Justice Minister Adam Bodnar and the reasons why she ordered a prosecutor to move to the public seating area. She also answered whether judges should undergo periodic psychological examinations. “I am definitely in favor of conducting such examinations,” Judge Szczepaniec admitted.
Judge, should we congratulate you on your presidential appointment? Because the coming months will certainly not be calm for you.
Of course. Being appointed by the President to the position of President of the Supreme Court is a great honor for me. I received many congratulations in which people emphasized that entrusting me with such an important position was an expression of recognition for my professional achievements and competence. At the same time, I am aware that this will not be an easy period and that many difficult decisions await me.
You have been President of the Professional Liability Chamber (IOZ) for a week, but you have been adjudicating in the Chamber for years and know its specifics. What needs to be changed or repaired as a priority?
The first urgent decisions are already behind me. I plan to introduce the ongoing assignment of incoming cases. Until now, cases were assigned to judges once a month or even less frequently. I see no reason why incoming cases should wait so long for the drawing of a reporting judge.
However, the key change that had been expected for months concerned the reorganization of assistants’ work. The previous model of cooperation between assistants and judges generated numerous conflicts and a sense of unfairness among assistants, which of course affected their work.
These are the two most urgent issues.
After Judge Wiesław Kozielewicz retired, the Professional Liability Chamber remained without a president for more than half a year. Did this affect its functioning?
Unfortunately, yes. The efficient functioning of the Chamber is not possible when the position of president remains vacant.
You had barely started your duties as President of the Chamber when criticism and attacks began, including from politicians. This probably will not change…
I have not noticed any large-scale attacks, rather only individual comments showing a lack of arguments against my appointment as President of the Supreme Court.
However, it is difficult to ignore comments such as the statement by Deputy Justice Minister Dariusz Mazur: “Ms Szczepaniec has never been a judge before.”
I think he did not think this statement through. Especially including the fact that I had not previously been a judge among the list of alleged problems. I would like to remind everyone that under the Polish legal system there is no requirement for a Supreme Court judge to have previous adjudicating experience in ordinary courts.
There were many Supreme Court judges who had never previously been judges in ordinary courts, including Małgorzata Gersdorf, Dawid Miąsik, Paweł Grzegorczyk, Roman Trzaskowski, Włodzimierz Wróbel and Karol Weitz.
It is impossible not to mention the situation from a year ago, when you asked then Justice Minister Adam Bodnar whether he felt like a “neo-senator”. The recording of that moment remains an internet sensation to this day. This is probably also why you are being attacked.
Perhaps. Nevertheless, asking that question was extremely important because it exposed the enormous hypocrisy of some lawyers and politicians, while also ridiculing the “neo-terminology” and the potential consequences of using it.
I emphasize once again: there are no improperly appointed judges after 2017. The alleged defectiveness of judges was based on a false assumption that members of the two previous terms of the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS) had been elected in violation of the Constitution.
However, the Constitution does not contain any provision specifying how judges should be elected to the National Council of the Judiciary. This is regulated by statute. This year, we witnessed the collapse of the myth about an allegedly defective procedure for electing judges to the KRS, because judges of the current term were elected under the same regulations that had been applied previously.
It was a huge fraud from the very beginning. Some people are still trying to deny reality, but will rational-thinking citizens still believe it? I doubt it.
People are not interested in when someone became a judge. Citizens expect fair judgments and an efficiently functioning justice system.
Current Justice Minister and former judge Waldemar Żurek – dissatisfied with a ruling – reported to the prosecutor’s office that you were not a judge. After a several-hour interrogation – in an interview with Niezalezna.pl – you used a very strong comparison: “I know what Barbara Skrzypek might have felt.”
According to then-judge Waldemar Żurek, I unlawfully assumed the position of a judge for only one day in June, when I adjudicated in his case. In other words, according to his reasoning, on all other days I could be a judge, issue rulings and decisions, but on that particular day I supposedly was not a judge. That is Mr. Żurek’s logic.
The summons for questioning was, coincidentally, sent on the very same day when I dared to ask Minister Bodnar an uncomfortable question during a live broadcast session.
That interrogation was a nightmare. A complete lack of professionalism combined with violations of procedural and tactical rules of questioning. A disgraceful violation of the dignity of a witness.
And indeed, immediately after leaving the prosecutor’s office building, I thought about the late Barbara Skrzypek and how she must have felt after her interrogation, because I felt terrible myself.
During one of the hearings, you also decided to send a prosecutor back to the public seating area. This attracted wide attention, not only among legal professionals.
The prosecutor was not properly authorized to represent the prosecution in that case, therefore the consequence had to be sending him back to the public seating area.
It is not the case that, by referring to the principle of unity of the prosecutor’s office, every prosecutor may appear in any case without proper authorization.
If such an argument were accepted, one of several prosecutors present in the courtroom at that time could withdraw a motion to lift immunity. I would then have to accept such a motion.
Moreover, every request to lift immunity could be treated this way – one prosecutor submits a motion, and another, any prosecutor, withdraws it. In such a situation, no one would ever be able to have their immunity lifted.
A few months ago, Minister Żurek appointed a special team of prosecutors whose role is effectively to challenge the mandates of Supreme Court judges. What does this show?
It is difficult to comment on such decisions. What surprises me the most is that there were prosecutors willing to participate in this unlawfulness.
Instead of dealing with crime prosecution, they carry out political instructions. This is definitely not a normal situation.
Well, history will judge.
The status of the Professional Liability Chamber is questioned by politicians currently in power depending on the content of its rulings. If a ruling is favorable – the court and judges are acceptable. If it is not – then terms such as “neo-judge” or “non-court” appear.
This is another manifestation of a defect invented for the needs of the moment. There is a complete lack of logic in these actions.
The same people write about a ruling issued by the Professional Liability Chamber, but when the ruling does not suit them, they immediately claim that the Chamber is not a court and that the judges adjudicating there are not judges.
Or take the example of a prosecutor who first submits a motion to our Chamber to lift immunity, and then comes to the courtroom and claims that this Chamber is not a court.
One cannot help but ask: why did he submit the motion in the first place if he believes that the Professional Liability Chamber is not a court?
I consistently repeat that the alleged defectiveness of judges, as well as the Professional Liability Chamber itself, was created artificially.
The claim that there is a group of judges who are not authorized to adjudicate is an element of political warfare.
There are many opinions that disciplinary justice has been paralyzed. Currently, even in fairly obvious cases, rulings can take months or even years. What is your assessment?
Unfortunately, I have to agree with this. However, in most cases this paralysis results from the fact that parties submit motions to exclude judges and requests to examine a judge’s impartiality, the so-called tests, which effectively block adjudication.
First, the parties must be informed about the panel selected to hear the case. Then it is necessary to wait and see whether the parties submit a request for an impartiality test within the required deadline.
The parties must also be notified sufficiently in advance about the date of the hearing or session.
Very often, a request for exclusion is submitted the day before the hearing or even on the day of the hearing. In such a situation, the case must be removed from the schedule and sent for the selection of a judge who will examine such a request.
All of this takes time.
It also happens that the accused person is ill or that a defense lawyer cannot attend the hearing. We must guarantee the right to defense.
That is why months pass.
As President, I intend to ask the judges adjudicating in the Professional Liability Chamber to quickly examine requests for exclusion. However, I cannot force anyone to do so.
Currently, instead of 11 judges, only 7 are adjudicating, because three judges have retired and one has not examined a single case since the beginning.
Why is a judge who has been convicted by a final criminal judgment for an intentional crime not automatically removed from the profession?
According to Article 180 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, judges are irremovable, and removal from office may only take place through a court ruling and only in cases specified by law.
However, this leads to absurd situations, for example when a judge from Wrocław convicted of shoplifting remained suspended from official duties for many years – meaning he did not work while still receiving a salary, including anniversary awards. This is a systemic pathology.
This is an absolutely unacceptable situation.
Unfortunately, current regulations may lead to various types of dysfunctions. The disciplinary proceedings system requires amendments.
The Professional Liability Chamber handles cases involving judges abusing alcohol, using drugs or facing serious personal problems. Yet judges often decide about other people’s lives when issuing rulings. Should judges undergo psychological examinations?
I am definitely in favor of conducting such examinations on a regular basis.