The European Court of Human Rights does not have the power to independently create standards regarding the appointment procedure of judges of national courts. This is the position of the National Council for the Judiciary regarding the ECHR ruling on Wałęsa’s complaint. The ECtHR ruled that the method of appointing judges to the Supreme Court in Poland is a systemic problem arising from the way the National Council for the Judiciary was established.
The President of the National Council for the Judiciary, Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woicka, presented the position of the National Council for the Judiciary on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Wałęsa v. Poland.
Wałęsa’s complaint to the European Court of Human Rights concerned a dispute with an associate of the former president: Krzysztof Wyszkowski. In 2005, the historic leader of “Solidarity” filed a lawsuit against him for the protection of personal rights in connection with Wyszkowski’s statements that Wałęsa collaborated with the security service of the communist regime in Poland and was mentioned in the files as “Bolek” .
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, after examining Lech Wałęsa’s complaint, ruled on Thursday that the current method for appointing Supreme Court judges in Poland is a systemic problem arising from the way the National Council for the Judiciary has been established. Poland is obliged to take legislative measures that will allow the restoration of an independent and impartial court established by law
– stated in the ECHR press release.
Commentary from the National Council for the Judiciary
The National Council for the Judiciary has commented on the case. Citing one of the rulings of the Constitutional Court that “the European Court of Human Rights does not have the power to independently create standards regarding the appointment procedure of judges of national courts.” It was pointed out that, in accordance with the Constitution, the decisions of the Constitutional Court are final and have universal binding force.
The judgment in Wałęsa v. Poland raises fundamental doubts, partly due to the inability of the European Court of Human Rights to meet conventional procedural standards. The judge chosen on behalf of the Republic of Poland as the state against which the complaint was filed did not participate in the jury, which violated Art. 26 section 4 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Chamber and the Grand Chamber shall consist ex officio of a judge elected on behalf of the High Contracting Party concerned and, by absence of such judge or If such judge is unable to sit, the judge shall be filled by another person selected by the President of the Tribunal from a list previously submitted by that party.
– reported the National Court Register.
The opinion noted that “judges were omitted from the list submitted by the Republic of Poland in violation of art. 26 section 4 of the Treaty, and instead a judge appointed by Greece was appointed – without any explanation in the justification of the judgment on the reasons for not appointing ad hoc judges from the list submitted by the Republic of Poland.
Cases were cited against Hungary, in which a judge from Switzerland was appointed to the jury instead of a Hungarian judge, but as it was reported, “he was included on the list submitted by Hungary, so the Court respected these cases conventional principle of the participation of a judge in the hearing of the case designated by the state concerned.
This standard was questioned in the case of Wałęsa v. Poland
– rated.
The National Council of the Judiciary declares that all actions of state authorities based on norms considered unconstitutional constitute a violation of Art. 7 of the Constitution
– informed.
Dispute with Wyszkowski
Wałęsa’s complaint to the European Court of Human Rights concerned a dispute with an associate of the former president: Krzysztof Wyszkowski. In 2005, the historic leader of “Solidarity” filed a lawsuit against him for the protection of personal rights in connection with Wyszkowski’s statements that Wałęsa collaborated with the security service of the communist regime in Poland and was mentioned in the files as “Bolek” .
The legal dispute ended in 2011. The Supreme Court subsequently rejected the cassation appeal, and earlier the Court of Appeal accepted Wałęsa’s claim in its entirety and ordered Wyszkowski to apologize.
In 2021, the verdict was annulled by the Supreme Court’s Chamber for Extraordinary Scrutiny and Public Affairs. This was possible thanks to the extraordinary complaint of Attorney General Zbigniew Ziobro, which was introduced as part of the judicial reform in 2017.
In January 2020, Ziobro filed an appeal against the final judgment in the Wałęsa case to “guarantee compliance with the principle of a democratic state governed by the rule of law and justified by the principles of social justice”.
The ECtHR ruled that, as a result of systemic problems surrounding the Supreme Court, there have been violations of the fundamental principles of the rule of law, the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary in Poland.
The ECHR ruled that Zbigniew Ziobro abused the legal process by filing an extraordinary complaint “in order to pursue his own political goals and political retaliation”.
READ MORE: ONLY FROM US. Another brawl and Gasiuk-Pihowicz lost the vote in the National Council of the Judiciary! Her microphone was off. In the background the judgment of the ECtHR in the Wałęsa case
edy/PAP
Source: wPolityce