The goal was to present something markedly different. For years, Adam Bodnar challenged the legal practices of disciplinary prosecutors who, during Zbigniew Ziobro’s tenure, actively identified and exposed pathologies within the judicial community. Yet in a short span after a new Minister of Justice took office, the approach shifted to pressuring judges and threatening disciplinary actions over rulings that did not align with the minister’s preferences. The crucial distinction remains: Bodnar advocates for judicial independence and apolitical governance. This stance is clearly reflected in the National Council for the Judiciary, whose frank assessment posed a serious blow to the Attorney General.
READ ALSO: Minister Bodnar: “We are restoring this constitutionality and looking for a legal basis to do so.” A disaster from the start
There is little doubt anymore that Szymon Hołownia’s maneuvering with Judge Piotr Prusinowski, President of the Chamber of Labor and Social Security, aimed at steering the composition of a panel of judges to rule in line with the priorities set by the Labor Council chair. The Sejm’s handling of parliamentarians Wąsik and Kamiński also played a part. Both men implicitly admitted this. The plan collapsed when Hołownia’s move to terminate the mandates of former PiS ministers was overturned by the competent Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs. That setback likely left the Minister of Justice aggrieved, and the atmosphere may have spurred the illegal threats to initiate disciplinary actions that were heard later.
Minister Adam Bodnar has sent a letter to the disciplinary spokesperson of the Supreme Court, Andrzej Tomczyk, asking whether the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs’ action in the MK case (I NSW 1267/23) constitutes a disciplinary violation. The Minister of Justice has thus requested the Commissioner to consider initiating a formal explanation procedure in this matter.
– the Ministry of Justice’s statement notes.
According to Bodnar, it must be determined whether there has been a clear and flagrant breach of the law or an act or omission that could hinder or impair the functioning of the judicial authority. In the minister’s view, courts should rule on the basis of the original case files. The file containing copied documents may be incomplete or inconsistent with the original. Acting in this way, he warned, undermines confidence in the legal system and exposes the parties to the risk of abuse.
– the Ministry of Justice explains.
The ministry adds that on January 5, 2024, the Chamber for Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs considered MK’s appeal against the decision of the President of the Sejm regarding the expiry of the deputy’s mandate.
This occurred despite the fact that the original files — as stated by the President of the Chamber of Labor and Social Security of the Supreme Court — are in the Chamber under his chairmanship. This was also confirmed in an official announcement on the Supreme Court’s website.
– according to the ministry’s report.
Interestingly, Bodnar views nothing improper in the fact that the Sejm’s Speaker pointed to which House should hear the case (in a way that bypassed the administrative journal) and simultaneously handed Sejm documents to the House. Doesn’t this reek of manual judicial control and a direct challenge to judicial independence? Bodnar is not inclined to answer these obvious questions.
Judge Prof. Kamil Zaradkiewicz of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court weighed in on Bodnar’s revelations, offering a legal perspective. His comment underscored caution about how the legal basis is interpreted in relation to disciplinary procedures for adjudication. He noted the importance of reviewing CJEU judgments Bodnar references, particularly those dealing with disciplinary procedures for adjudication, and pointed to Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland on the separation of the judiciary.
– Judge Zaradkiewicz wrote on the X platform.
Crushing opinion from the National Council for the Judiciary
Adam Bodnar’s dilemmas extend beyond isolated disputes. The National Council for the Judiciary issued a scathing assessment of the minister’s draft regulation governing the operation of ordinary courts. Bodnar proposed that judges elected under the new composition of the National Council for the Judiciary not be able to hear exclusion requests. But the council’s critique went further. The new Ministry of Justice sought to have judges prioritize EU law over Polish law, a move seen as a breach of the Constitutional Court’s long-standing jurisprudence.
The current draft is viewed as a direct attempt to undermine the independence of courts and place them under ministerial direction, especially with regard to Article 178(1) of the Constitution, which states that judges are subject only to the Constitution and legal standards in exercising their office.
– the National Council for the Judiciary’s advisory note states.
It raises questions about why the legislative proposal would exclude judges appointed without procedural defects, as confirmed by a Constitutional Court ruling, from considering allegations, and why those appointed after a flawed procedure could not be excluded from such reviews.
– representatives of the National Council for the Judiciary ask. Bodnar is portrayed as someone who believes a swift reform could reshape the Polish judiciary, yet the council’s assessment implies that such attempts overlook fundamental principles of judicial independence and constitutional order.
Ultimately, Bodnar’s approach has sparked a heated public debate about the balance between political oversight and judicial autonomy. The ongoing discussion highlights the delicate ecosystem that governs how courts operate and how they interact with the executive branch.
WB
Source: wPolityce (attribution)