Statement

Position
with reference to the statement of 78 judges of the Supreme Court of 21 January 2021 questioning the admissibility of the operation of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court

With reference to the statement of 78 Supreme Court judges, including retired Supreme Court judges, of January 21, 2021, stressing the lack of any grounds for the functioning of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, it is necessarily to emphasize that in the course of the proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-791/19 European Commission v. The Republic of Poland, by the decision of April 8, 2020, the Republic of Poland was obliged, immediately and until the final judgment in the case, to suspend the application of the provisions constituting the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, both in the first and in the second instance, in disciplinary cases of judges. The Republic of Poland was also obliged to refrain from referring cases pending before the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court to be examined by a panel that does not meet the independence requirements indicated in particular in the judgment of November 19 da 2019, A.K. and others (Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court) (C 585/18, C 624/18 and C 625/18, EU: C: 2019: 982).

The result of the above provision is not the suspension of the entire judicial competence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, because its substantive jurisdiction does not include only disciplinary cases of judges. Adoption of the position presented in the above-mentioned statement, i.e. the recognition that the entire jurisprudence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court has been suspended, would deprive any legal significance of that part of the ruling of the Court of Justice which requires refraining from referring cases pending before the Chamber to be examined by a panel that does not meets the independence requirements indicated in particular in the judgment of AK et al. A similar position was expressed by the European Commission, since it had not decided to apply for the imposition of a periodic penalty payment due to the continued activity of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court.
Therefore, there are no legal grounds for questioning the admissibility of waiving by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court the immunity of a judge of Judge Beata Morawiec, against whom proceedings are pending in connection with the possible acceptance of a financial advantage. There are also no such grounds with regard to the revocation of the immunity of Judge Igor Tuleya, against whom proceedings are pending for breach of official duties and abuse of powers.