“A significant violation of the legal order”
Stępkowski conveyed a formal opinion during a press briefing, highlighting a dispute over jurisdiction between two chambers of the Supreme Court. The comment referenced a clash between the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs and the Chamber of Labor and Social Security, with the first President of the Supreme Court weighing in on where the appeal filed by MP M. Kamiński should land after the Speaker of the Sejm terminated his parliamentary mandate.
The spokesperson voiced concern about the Chamber of Labor and Social Security’s procedures, stressing that the order issued earlier in the year had clearly delineated the jurisdictional boundaries and that deviation from that ruling could undermine the integrity of the court’s role in a politically charged case.
According to the position read aloud, these actions are described as an encroachment on the Polish legal order and are attributed to the arbitral stance of the President of IPiUS, undertaken in consultation with the Sejm’s Chairman, effectively the legislature’s leadership. The statement noted that this sequence of events raises questions about the impartiality of the Chamber of Labor and Social Security and, by extension, about the apolitical character of the Supreme Court.
Additionally, the spokesperson indicated that the actions in question have no basis in the recent Court of Justice of the European Union judgment delivered in December of the previous year, underscoring concerns about alignment with EU legal standards. The report stressed that the described conduct went beyond the scope of national law and the controlling judicial guidance from the EU decision.
– Stępkowski summarized the developments and their implications for the judiciary’s image and independence. The discussion pointed to potential doubts among citizens regarding the separation of powers within Poland’s constitutional framework.
There was an emphasis on the principle that the political branches should not influence procedural decisions within the judiciary, especially in matters that touch on parliamentary mandates and the termination of deputies’ terms. The Supreme Court was cited as actively examining the legality of the Sejm Speaker’s decision regarding the end of a deputy’s term, with the article noting that directing a file to an alternate chamber would be problematic and inconsistent with established procedure.
The discussion also touched on the perception of neutrality in judicial bodies when political actors express strong opinions or preferences about specific cases. The first president of the Supreme Court was quoted as warning against actions that might compromise judicial autonomy and the perception of impartial adjudication in disputes that intersect with legislative actions.
Further remarks indicated that two appeals concerning the expiry of a Member of Parliament’s mandate were filed through the Supreme Court’s Applications Office for the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs on December 29, 2023, and were recorded under reference numbers I NSW 1267/23 and I NSW 1268/23. The authorities were cited as asserting that filing could be effective even without the Sejm’s chairman’s participation, a position grounded in specific provisions of the Electoral Act. The court noted that the formal filing process did not require the Sejm’s chairman to forward the appeal, clarifying procedural allowances within the existing legal framework.
The Chamber of Extraordinary Scrutiny has previously handled appeals without direct intervention by a competent authority in several notable cases. Examples include petitions challenging National Council of the Judiciary decisions regarding the appointment of Supreme Court judges or the termination of judges under certain circumstances. The court highlighted that such filings had remained valid in past proceedings, illustrating that procedure may operate independently of a single coordinating authority in narrow contexts.
In reviewing the conduct of a particular official, the Supreme Court stated that the actions carried a negative impact on the court’s reputation as an independent body, separate from the legislative and executive branches. The report noted that the marshal of the Sejm, described as a political actor, had expressed views to the Chamber of Labor and Social Security about the case’s jury, and that the President of the Chamber, acting on that input, appointed two of the three judges on a discretionary basis for a specific matter. This situation was described as placing the jury in a difficult position, prompting concerns about its ability to remain neutral and impartial in light of political influence.
The Supreme Court’s statement concluded with a cautionary tone about preserving judicial independence and the appearance of neutrality in sensitive procedural disputes. The addressed remarks reflect ongoing scrutiny of how political signals interact with judicial processes and highlight the care needed to maintain public confidence in the judiciary’s ability to adjudicate without bias. Citations: wPolityce; TVP-info
Source attribution is noted to reflect the underlying media coverage of the event and its legal interpretations in the discourse surrounding Poland’s judiciary and legislative interactions.