Members of the National Council for the Judiciary have doubts about the way in which the extremely politicized association of judges ‘Iustitia’ is held accountable. During a stormy meeting, it became known that the Civic Platform judiciary is spending hundreds of thousands of zlotys on activities that have not been adequately investigated. The National Council for the Judiciary also reminds judges of the constitutional principle of apoliticism and wants to question certain rulings.
READ ALSO: An attempt to organize the chaos and a signal for the rebellious ‘caste’. The National Court Register files a major motion with the Constitutional Court on the composition of the Supreme Court
Considering the support for judges suspended on the basis of decisions of disciplinary courts by the Senior Judge’s House Foundation and the Association of Polish Judges “Iustitia” – The National Council for the Judiciary expresses doubts about the compatibility of the activities of these public benefit organizations with the provisions of the Public Benefit Activities and Voluntary Service Act of 24 April 2003.
– we read in the resolution of the National Court Register.
It also draws attention to the insufficiently transparent annual accounts of these organisations
– informs the National Court Register.
Therefore, the National Council for the Judiciary asks the Chairman of the Public Benefit Committee to conduct an ex officio review of the rights, duties and requirements under the law in relation to the Senior Judges’ Home Foundation and the Association of Polish Judges. Iustitia”
– we read in the Council resolution.
Primarily apolitical
The National Council for the Judiciary at the end of August 29 this year. At a two-day extraordinary meeting convened at the request of the Minister of Justice, it also adopted a resolution on the standards of impartiality and independence of judges.
The National Court Register reminds once again that according to Art. 178 seconds 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, a judge may not be a member of a political party or trade union, or engage in public activities that are incompatible with the principles of independence of the courts and judges.
Meanwhile, the constitutional provision is being permanently violated by some active activists of judicial associations. The authorities of these associations, together with other non-judicial associations, such as the Committee for the Defense of Democracy and organizations with a similar profile, participate in meetings that promote certain political and ideological postulates, such as abortion policy, LGBT+ and gender ideology. This activity extends beyond Poland and also takes place in the forum of the European Parliament. Some judges are even proud of their contacts with the European Commission and their participation in initiating sanctions against Poland. These activities are carried out under the slogans of “defending the rule of law” or “independence” from the supposedly persecuted judges
– informs the National Court Register.
Fictitious disciplinary law
The National Council for the Judiciary recalls that the analysis of the jurisprudence of the disciplinary courts shows that since the beginning of 2018, the disciplinary courts have only decided on the penalty associated with the removal of a judge from office in four cases. Three cases involved common crimes committed by judges, and one case involved serious abuse of office.
The National Council for the Judiciary, as a constitutional body of the Republic of Poland, also asks judges to uphold the same standards of the principle of judicial independence as the foundation of a democratic state governed by law, as already defined in the judgment of the Constitutional Council. Tribunal of 24 June 1998.
– informs the National Court Register.
The National Council for the Judiciary also calls on judges to uphold appropriate jurisprudence standards that implement impartiality when issuing rulings. It is mainly about letting go of practices when the judge makes the content of the judgments subordinate to his political or ideological views. Violations of the standards of the independence of the judiciary, in particular the obligation to maintain impartiality, must be met with an adequate response from the disciplinary authorities
emphasizes the Council.
The National Pomology Council also reminds that the work of a judge is of a special nature.
In addition to great discretionary powers, for which internal independence and impartiality are necessary, the judge acts as an arbitrator in social conflicts. This requires trust, which is guaranteed by maintaining these standards. A judge who does not have the mandate of confidence cannot properly resolve conflicts, enforce justice and maintain public peace. The rulings of such a judge will not be accepted by the parties to the conflict, nor by the public
– informs the National Court Register.
Biased judgments undermine confidence in the entire judiciary. Only respecting the same criteria of independence, free from politics or ideology, guarantees equal treatment of citizens before the law. There can be no independence of the judiciary without freeing it from ideological prejudices or political views. There is also no independence for judges if they cannot separate the administration of justice from their political views
– we read in the resolution of the National Court Register.
Any behavior that violates the principle of independence and impartiality must be assessed as a disciplinary measure and as a violation of the dignity of the office of judge. The resolution on the standards of impartiality and independence of judges is not about introducing a ban on public statements by judges. It is an appeal to judges to avoid participating in political agitation contrary to applicable law and not to engage in political undertakings, examples of which were presented at the Council meeting
reminds the council.
The National Court Registry also ordered purges in several courts, covering selected criminal cases in property crimes involving use of force, crimes involving coercion, concluded with a final verdict in the years 2021-2023 in the field of equal rights . treatment of perpetrators and victims.
Britain
Source: wPolityce