The National Council for the Judiciary has issued a resolution asserting that the initiation of an explanatory procedure by the disciplinary spokesperson of the Supreme Court, following the Chamber of Extraordinary Scrutiny’s revocation of the President of the Sejm’s decision on the expiry of Mariusz Kamiński’s mandate, amounted to a clear violation of the law. The council frame the issue as a procedural misstep that touched on both the initiation of the procedure and the sequence of events that led to it.
The council stressed that the adopted resolution concerns not only the start of the explanatory proceeding but also the formal process governing how such a proceeding should unfold. The document emphasizes that the matter originated from a request by Attorney General Adam Bodnar and concerns judge Aleksander Stępkowski, who chaired the panel and acted as rapporteur in Kamiński’s appeal against the court’s ruling. The Sejm Speaker had earlier acted to end the mandate of a deputy under investigation in the Extraordinary Control Chamber of the Supreme Court.
Bodnar’s conclusion
The National Council for the Judiciary recalled that Bodnar’s request targeted the disciplinary proceedings and highlighted that the focus was on whether any disciplinary act was lawfully committed in connection with the January 5 decision. The council notes that the disciplinary spokesperson’s January 10 resolution proceeded without obtaining the mandatory explanations that should accompany such steps, raising concerns about due process.
The explanatory procedure, according to the council, was prompted by information in the public domain about resolutions issued by judges in the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs on January 5 of the current year. The council points out that these actions were undertaken without attaching the relevant files, relying only on copies of material in the case records, which undermines a full, transparent review. This point is underscored in the council’s resolution signed by the President Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woicka.
The National Council for the Judiciary also noted that the law governing the Supreme Court requires the disciplinary spokesperson to conduct explanatory activities only after a preliminary explanation of the circumstances necessary to determine if elements of a criminal offense exist. It stresses that after a judge provides an explanation, which is a mandatory part before initiating an explanatory procedure, only then should such proceedings proceed. This sequence is presented as a guardrail for fairness and accountability in the judiciary.
The council’s assessment adds that the political context surrounding the use of the disciplinary procedure, the haste observed, and the limited opportunity for judges to offer mandatory explanations create the impression that the executive branch is pressuring independent judges. That is seen as a chilling effect that undermines democratic constitutional rule. The council also remarked that the situation casts doubt on the impartiality of the Supreme Court’s disciplinary spokesperson.
The issue of expiry of mandates
The Marshal of the Sejm has addressed appeals from Maciej Wąsik and Mariusz Kamiński regarding the decision to terminate their mandates to the Chamber of Labor and Social Security of the Supreme Court. Appeals and hearings were scheduled for January 10 in both cases, with panels composed of judges who had served at the Supreme Court at different periods. In Wąsik’s case, the panel comprised judges who served after 2018, while in Kamiński’s case it consisted of judges who had served before 2018.
In the Wąsik case, the judge appointed to hear the matter decided to transfer it to the Chamber of Extraordinary Control of the Supreme Court. On January 4, this chamber revoked the Sejm President’s decision to end Wąsik’s mandate. A day later, the Chamber of Extraordinary Control annulled the Sejm Speaker’s decision on the expiry of Kamiński’s parliamentary mandate. Although the Chair of the Sejm had forwarded both appeals to the Chamber of Labor, on December 29, 2023, Kamiński and Wąsik filed direct appeals to the Chamber for Extraordinary Scrutiny and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court without the Sejm Chair’s intervention.
The Chamber of Extraordinary Scrutiny ruled on Kamiński’s expiry based on material gathered since December 29, 2023. The panel asserted that all necessary files were available for a decision, pointing to a comprehensive evidentiary basis. This was confirmed by Judge Stępkowski, who noted the completeness of the case materials in that moment.
Regarding Kamiński’s case, the Chair of the Chamber of Labor, Piotr Prusinowski, stated there was no information enabling a resolution about Kamiński’s appeal while the matter remained with the Chamber of Labor in that configuration. On January 10, Kamiński’s appeal against the Sejm President’s decision was not admitted. The same day, the Labor Chamber ruled that the prior decision in the same matter by the Extraordinary Scrutiny Chamber, which had revoked the Sejm President’s expiry decision, did not constitute a ruling by the Supreme Court Council.
Readers are reminded of related commentary and developments as reported by Polish outlets, which continue to discuss how these procedural moves intersect with the broader political and constitutional framework. The discussion includes concerns about the accountability of the judiciary and the practical implications for the functioning of the Sejm and the Supreme Court. The situation remains a focal point for debates about the balance between political oversight and judicial independence. (Source: wPolityce)