The National Council for the Judiciary decided on Thursday to appeal to the Constitutional Court against the provision concerning the appointment by the first president of the Supreme Court of judges of this court to administer justice in other chambers, the National Council’s press team reported. for the Judiciary.
If it is necessary to transfer a judge to another chamber, this should be done transparently and with the consent of the judge himself. In this way, its authority and independence are preserved and confidence in the state and its institutions is strengthened
– emphasized in the communiqué following the meeting of the National Judicial Council, justifying the request to the Constitutional Court.
Article 35 paragraph. 3 of the Supreme Court Act
The Council’s proposal concerns doubts about the constitutionality of Art. 35 pair 3 of the Supreme Court Act. This provision provides that “a judge may be appointed by the First President of the Supreme Court to participate in the examination of a specific case in another chamber and, with the consent of the judge, to preside in another chamber for a specified period of time to speak”.
At the same time, however, this regulation added that “a judge may be appointed to judge in another chamber without his consent for a period not exceeding six months in any one year”.
After the term for appointing a judge to rule in another chamber has expired, the judge proceeds with the cases assigned to him in that chamber until they are completed
– is provided for by law.
As stated in the KRS communiqué informing about the application to the Constitutional Tribunal, “this provision does not provide criteria for the selection of a judge or limit the number of cases assigned to a judge”.
In addition, it does not prevent a judge from being appointed each year to judge in another chamber of the Supreme Court for six months without that judge’s consent.
– added.
In order for the Supreme Court to effectively fulfill its duties of overseeing the jurisprudence of ordinary and military courts, judges must have high legal specialization and maintain it at an appropriate level
– emphasized. Therefore – as indicated – “this requires the maintenance of the principle of stabilization of the judicial office, so that none of the Supreme Court judges are appointed to perform duties in a chamber other than those specified in the recruitment notice for a specific room.” judicial position”.
Admittedly, the Council conceded that “the principle of non-transferability of a judge is not absolute and can be limited – but only in a strictly defined way”. “These limits are set in the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. Two types of transfer of a judge are mentioned: transfer against the will of the judge in the cases provided for by law and transfer resulting from the reorganization of the judiciary.
Questions to the Court of Justice of the EU
At the end of March this year, it was reported that the President of the National Court Register had appointed a team to prepare a draft of such a request to the Constitutional Tribunal.
On the other hand, in early April In two cases heard in the civil chamber of the Supreme Court – as reported in the media – one of the chambers of the Supreme Court, consisting of both a judge of the civil chamber and judges of the Chamber of Labor and Social Security, appointed for cases in the Civil Chamber, has submitted questions to the Court of Justice of the EU. These questions concern, for example, whether such an order to sit in another chamber could be contrary to the principles of the independence and irremovability of judges.
olk/PAP
Source: wPolityce