The lengthy crisis has stretched over more than five years, and only now has politics visibly intruded into the Supreme Court, turning it into a battleground in a harsh political struggle, according to Małgorzata Manowska, the court’s first president, in an interview with Rzeczpospolita.
The new and old generations of Supreme Court justices operate in separate spheres.
In discussing the matter, Manowska told Rzeczpospolita that since 2018 the so-called neo- and pale judges of the Supreme Court have remained in separate courts and have not ruled together, a division that has persisted for years.
She stressed, however, that not every judge appointed before 2018 has refused to rule.
– she noted.
Currently there are efforts to remove certain judges from hearing cases even though many of them bring stronger judicial experience, handle more cases than senior Supreme Court judges, and were selected through competitive processes in which dozens of candidates competed for a seat. This has created a dynamic where a relatively young, well-trained team of judges is carefully building its presence. The protracted stalemate has endured for more than five years, and politics has only recently become overtly involved in the workings of the Supreme Court, now turning the court into a focal point of political confrontation.
– said Manowska.
The President of the Supreme Court questions the conduct of the President of the Chamber of Labor and Marshal Hołownia.
The first President of the Supreme Court was also asked about the apparent disregard for the Supreme Court’s Extraordinary Control Chamber decisions regarding Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik, a stance seen both inside and outside the court, including by the Speaker of the Sejm, Szymon Hołownia, who is awaiting the Labor Chamber’s ruling in their case.
It should be noted that the marshal could not respond to any appeal from former CBA leaders because he was not the one who filed it. The marshal, in cooperation with the President of the Chamber of Labor, bypassed the standard document distribution procedures at the Supreme Court. Furthermore, they attempted to jointly determine the court’s composition and forcibly remove the IKNiSP judges from ruling. These actions have been described as unprecedented. They are not justified by the contention that they were public. The openness of these actions exposes the extraordinary arrogance of the authorities. The notion of a “judge by telephone” has already existed; with advances in technology, some now speak of a potential “judge by email.” Neither the Speaker of the Sejm, nor the President of the Court, nor any other body or court should have the authority to assess the effectiveness of a judge’s appointment by the President of the Republic.
– she emphasized.
Manowska warned that if the effectiveness of judicial decisions becomes dependent on whether the issuing bank is to one’s liking, it would amount to a total collapse of the legal system from which the country would struggle to recover for a long time. She added that such a discrepancy in judicial services is unlikely even to have existed between judges appointed during the communist era and those appointed with the involvement of the first National Council for the Judiciary. The essential requirement, she noted, is that a judge must first complete a law degree.
READ ALSO: First President of the Hołownia Supreme Court: “Requests to entrust the case to a specific panel constitute an unacceptable attempt to influence the selection of judges” (Source: wPolityce)
READ ALSO: Supreme Court on Hołownia’s decision: “It is unacceptable that the marshal himself decides where the convict’s appeal goes” (Source: wPolityce)
olnk/PAP
Source: wPolityce (citation)