The National Council for the Judiciary has decided to appeal a provision about appointing judges of the Supreme Court to work in other chambers, directing this step to the Constitutional Court. The decision was communicated by the National Council’s press team for the Judiciary.
When a judge transfer to another chamber is necessary, it should occur transparently and with the judge’s consent. This approach protects the authority and independence of the judiciary and reinforces public confidence in state institutions.
This stance was outlined in the communiqué issued after the council’s meeting, which explained the request to the Constitutional Court.
Article 35, paragraph 3 of the Supreme Court Act
The council’s proposal raises questions about the constitutionality of Article 35, paragraph 3, of the Supreme Court Act. The provision states that a judge may be appointed by the First President of the Supreme Court to participate in examining a specific case in another chamber and, with the judge’s consent, to preside in another chamber for a defined period, so the judge can speak on the matter.
Additionally, the regulation allows for a judge to be appointed to preside in another chamber without consent for a period not exceeding six months in any single year.
After the term for appointing a judge to preside in another chamber ends, the judge continues handling cases assigned to him in that chamber until those cases are completed.
According to the KRS communiqué about the Constitutional Tribunal filing, this provision does not specify criteria for selecting a judge nor does it limit the number of cases assigned to a judge.
It also does not prevent the reappointment of a judge each year to serve in another chamber for six months without the judge’s consent.
The Council emphasized that for the Supreme Court to effectively oversee jurisprudence across ordinary and military courts, judges must maintain high legal specialization and keep it at an appropriate level.
Consequently, the principle of stabilizing the judicial office must be maintained, ensuring that no Supreme Court judge is assigned to duties in a chamber other than those listed in the recruitment notice for a specific chamber position.
It was admitted that the principle of non-transferability is not absolute and can be limited, but only in strictly defined ways. The Constitution of the Republic of Poland outlines two transfer scenarios: transfers against a judge’s will in legally provided cases and transfers resulting from judiciary reorganization.
Questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union
By the end of March this year it was reported that the President of the National Court Register had formed a team to draft a request to the Constitutional Tribunal.
Meanwhile, in early April two civil chamber cases in the Supreme Court involved a panel consisting of a civil chamber judge and judges from the Labour and Social Security Chamber. That panel was asked to consider questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, including whether an order to sit in a different chamber could contradict the principles of judge independence and irremovability.
The discussions reflect ongoing concerns about ensuring judicial independence and the proper distribution of duties across Supreme Court chambers.
olk/PAP