The Supreme Court Act of 2019

The role of the legislator is to ensure compliance with the rules set out in the Constitution and statutes. Therefore, according to the explanation of the authors of the last act regarding the Supreme Court a situation in which one of the judges challenges the status, i.e. the right to rule another judge who has been sworn in by the President of the Republic of Poland, has been determined as a disciplinary tort.

There were situations in Poland in which judges associated with the Iustitia Association began to question the right to adjudicate other judges, in particular those who were sworn in by the current president. The Polish constitution and laws do not provide for such a situation. A single judge may not rule on the compliance of law with the Constitution. This is the exclusive competence of the Constitutional Tribunal, which clearly stated that it is the acceptance of the oath by the President that makes a judge, including a common court or supreme court judge.

After this act, it is not possible to challenge the status of judge. The competence of the president to appoint judges is an important element of the mechanism of balancing and inhibiting judicial power – Decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of October 9, 2012. This competence is imperious and is a manifestation of the interaction of the authorities, and more precisely balancing the powers of the judicial power by the executive authority, to which the President belongs – Commentary on Art. 179 of the Polish Constitution, edited by the judge of the CJEU, M. Safian.

I hereby emphasize, in accordance with Polish law, the Nomination is an independent act of a constitutional and constitutional nature. Allowing judges to undermine each other’s status would be illegal and could lead to paralysis of the judiciary.

This situation leads to anarchization of the legal system, legal uncertainty and decay of the state justice apparatus. For the sake of the interests of the State, there is and will be no consent thereto.

The procedure initiated by the EU for violation of EU law is completely groundless. The position of the EC is also based on the false thesis that the Act of December 20, 2019 limited the right of judges to ask submit preliminary ruling queries in the scope covered by EU law.

In fact, there are no such restrictions whatsoever anywhere in this Act. Solely and exclusively a reference to the above-mentioned regulations regarding disciplinary liability of judges is mentioned therein.