Discrimination against judges, undermining the president’s prerogatives, and an assault on the Constitution – this is how Judge Łukasz Zawadzki from Judges of the Republic of Poland (Sędziowie RP) described the so-called rule-of-law bill presented by Minister of Justice Waldemar Żurek, speaking to the portal Niezalezna.pl. Our interlocutor pointed out numerous inconsistencies in Żurek’s narrative and highlighted the dangers associated with implementing the proposed legislation.
On Thursday, Minister of Justice Waldemar Żurek unveiled the so-called rule-of-law bill. The document, prepared by the Codification Commission, headed by Iustitia leader Krystian Markiewicz, allegedly aims to improve the efficiency of Poland’s judiciary and resolve the “problem” of so-called “neo-judges” not recognized by the current authorities.
“He is either lying or has been misled”
Commenting on the proposal in an interview with Niezalezna.pl, Judge Łukasz Zawadzki from the association Judges of the Republic of Poland (Sędziowie RP) said, “Minister Żurek, when presenting the so-called rule-of-law bill, is either lying or has been misled by the head of the Codification Commission for the Structure of the Courts and the Prosecutor’s Office. The claim that the project complies with the opinion of the Venice Commission from a year ago is, to put it mildly, far from the truth,” he declared.
Zawadzki pointed out that a year ago, the Venice Commission questioned the legal admissibility of demoting or eliminating judges by statute.
“Meanwhile, the presented bill does not differ in the slightest from the assumptions of Minister Adam Bodnar’s proposal, and therefore remains in glaring and obvious conflict with the opinion of the Venice Commission. The Venice Commission allowed for individual, case-by-case verification with an appeal path to the court – something this project completely ignores,” he emphasized.
Discrimination against judges
Our interlocutor noted that “judges have again been divided into three groups: graduates of KSSIP remain in their positions without any consequences; judges promoted after 2018, contrary to the prohibition of forced labor, will be delegated for two years to adjudicate in their previous courts and then removed from office to the position from which they were promoted; and the third group – judges who came from other professions: obligatory elimination from the judiciary and the possibility of becoming a court clerk.”
“The project discriminates against judges based on an arbitrarily chosen date of appointment, and secondly, it explicitly undermines the presidential prerogative; thirdly, it commits an assault on the Constitution, which states that judges are irremovable,” he stressed.
“A matter of loyalty”
Zawadzki also referred to the remarks made by Deputy Minister of Justice Dariusz Mazur. As he stated, the politician “alleged that promotions after 2017 were based on loyalty, but gave no names. Meanwhile, the usurper holding the office of Disciplinary Officer for Common Court Judges, Judge Joanna Raczkowska, won a competition before the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS) in 2015, defeating nearly 100 candidates, despite receiving an unfavorable opinion from the judicial self-government, but having her husband, Judge Piotr Raczkowski (then KRS vice-chair and a member of the Communist Party), sitting on the KRS. What’s more – Judge Waldemar Żurek was also a member of the KRS at the time.”
“Is this the kind of loyalty the minister had in mind?” the judge asked.
Fabrication and danger
Zawadzki also observed that “the leadership of the Ministry of Justice is clearly trying to convince public opinion that judicial appointments made after 2017 have been questioned by European tribunals – this is a fabrication: no European body has invalidated judicial appointments in Poland.”
He continued, “Secondly, Poland has not ceded to the European Union the competence to determine its internal structure – including the judiciary. Any statements by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in this regard are an act of usurpation and have no basis in the Treaty on European Union. The same applies to the European Court of Human Rights, since its rulings in this respect have been, in accordance with the Constitution, rejected by the Constitutional Tribunal during its review of the international agreement (Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) for compatibility with the Constitution.”
The interlocutor of Niezalezna.pl emphasized:
“I want to draw attention to a significant danger: the project provides for repeating all judicial appointment competitions conducted after 2017, as well as allowing judges from the second and third groups to automatically reapply for judicial posts. I am already receiving disturbing reports from across the country about court presidents appointed by the current political leadership, who are offering assistance to such judges in these repeated competitions – assistance that would consist of pressuring other candidates not to run. This would, in an obvious way, tie such a judge in loyalty to the minister’s local political proxy in a given court,” he warned.