- Year of publication: 2020
- Source: Show
- Pages: 5-12
- DOI Address: -
The Faces and Paradoxes of Judicial Accountability
The article regards the problem how to separate judicial accountability from the other forms odf judges liability. It presents a proposal of judicial accountability concept in legal science, the basic assumptions for the settlement of judicial power towards forms of responsibility, proposing the separation of these categories. and the subject and object scope of judicial accountability. The result of the analysis are conclusions on the forms of accountability within judicial power, especially judges’ decisions - and outlining some threats that apply to them.
Responsibility of the Judicial Power and Disciplinary Responsibility of Judges
Two circumstances: ineffective legal protection system and controversial cases of abandonment of enforcement of judges’ disciplinary liability have become a basis for justifying amendments to regulations on judges’ disciplinary liability. New solutions are characterised by, among other features, the limiting of the independence of the judiciary and subjecting it to increased control exercised by the legislature and the executive. The rationale behind these changes is to be sought for in a claim that courts of law are not a representative of the people which can be considered qual to the other authorities and that, therefore, having been abused by judges, the rights they have enjoyed hitherto (other than the administration of justice) should be constrained. Some judges and representatives of the jurisprudence reject this argumentation pointing out that rather than being conducive to the declared goals of improving the functioning of courts and of judges’ observance of law, the amendments result in the limiting of the citizen’s right to an independent tribunal. In these circumstances, a dispute has arisen over how a judge should act if the law on disciplinary liability prohibits their right to criticise or legally verify regulations depriving them of the guarantee of independence and impartiality. Do the statutable principles of disciplinary liability also determine all the principles of the judiciary liability? What if there is a difference of opinions between the representatives of the legislature and the executive versus those of the judiciary concerning an interpretation of the citizen’s right to a tribunal and of the notion of “independence of a tribunal”? Analysing the legal and doctrinal argumentation offered by both parties may facilitate answering these questions. This approach may also prove useful in determining whether enforcing the new principles of disciplinary liability will resolve the current crisis in the relationship between courts and the other authorities or, on the contrary, initiate its further stage.
Civil Liability of a Disciplinary Spokesman for Breach of Judicial Independence
The article comprises an analysis of the civil law liability of a disciplinary spokesman for breach of judicial independence. The starting point of the analysis is general possibility of imposing civil liability on the judicial disciplinary spokesman, and that judges’ immunity protects from criminal offences only. The civil liability of the disciplinary spokesman is grounded on the requirement of due performance of the disciplinary spokesman’s function. The boarders between the power of the disciplinary spokesman and the civil liability must be assessed in light of the limbs of a disciplinary offense, which limit the disciplinary spokesman’s right to intervene in certain cases. The civil liability of the disciplinary spokesman is possible not only on the grounds of art. 23 and 24 of the Polish Civil Code, but also on the basis of tortious liability. The availability of these legal mechanisms is directly related to the nature of the disciplinary spokesman’s act, and boils down to the question whether the disciplinary spokesman is justified in a given instance to initiate disciplinary proceedings, i.e. whether the limbs of a disciplinary offence as required by art. 107 § 1 u.s.p. are present. The article discusses two crucial elements of the civil law liability of the disciplinary spokesman: unlawfulness and negligence. Further elements of the liability: loss and causation do not differ from the civil law standards. Therefore, in this respect, the article refers to the general rules.
loss rzecznik dyscyplinarny niezawisłość odpowiedzialność cywilna znamiona przewinienia dyscyplinarnego należyta staranność bezprawność niedbalstwo odpowiedzialność deliktowa naruszenie dobra osobistego szkoda disciplinary spokesman independence civil liability limbs of a disciplinary offense due diligence unlawfulness negligence tort liability infringement of personal rights
Disciplinary Responsibility of a Disciplinary Spokesman for Breach of Judicial Independence
The following article comprises an analysis of the basis and scope of disciplinary liability of a disciplinary spokesman for breach of judicial independence. It indicates the inherent interdependence between judicial disciplinary liability and the constitutionally protected principle of independence. The author believes that a separate judicial disciplinary liability constitutes one of the guarantees of independence. The protection of independence is further enhanced by the autonomy of the disciplinary proceedings and the means of determining the basis for such liability, the limits of which are delineated by independence. Nevertheless, it serves to outline the spokesman’s competences and thus the scope of legal acts. Abuse of the aforementioned competences in this regard is equal to an abuse of independence. What is more, the commentary sets out to introduce a two-tier understanding of the notion of abuse of independence, that is internal and external breaches. Under the current law, it is impossible for a spokesman to be in breach of independence, for he does not boast one. However, a spokesman can undertake to externally abuse another party’s - i.a. a judge’s - independence. Such abuse can be caused by non-adherence to the established limits of judicial disciplinary liability. Under such circumstances, a spokesman is in breach of his competences, which is subsequently reflected in a material violation of judicial independence. The bases of disciplinary liability of a disciplinary spokesman are set forth in the provisions pertaining to the disciplinary liability of the judiciary and the prosecution. Hence, a disciplinary spokesman’s liability is a sub-type of the general disciplinary liability of the judge (or prosecutor) who serves as a spokesman.
karalność stopień bezprawia division of power illegality punishability elements of a disciplinary offense degree of illegality unlawfulness disciplinary spokesman bezprawność znamiona przewinienia dyscyplinarnego niezawisłość rzecznik dyscyplinarny podział władzy niezależność independence
Disciplinary Justice in the Context of Constitutional Restrictions
The purpose of this article is to analise the present formula of disciplinary responsibility of the judges in a context of the constitutional rules: independent of judges, independent of courts and right to a fair trial. The Author analises present legal status, as well practice and legal propositions of changes. By the way, he notices a dengerous tenden cy towards transgressing constitutional limits and infringement these regulations with the European Union’s law.
Disciplinary Liability of a Judge of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal
The essence of the article is to present the concept, function and principles of disciplinary liability and the mode of disciplinary proceedings against judges of the Constitutional Tribunal in the context of the ongoing dispute over the independence of each of these constitutional state organs. Disciplinary liability arose from sources of repressive liability and is a special type of criminal liability due to the functions it performs, but also a high degree of ailment. The author argues that despite numerous legal provisions, the model of conduct has not changed, as well as are based on misunderstood axiology, bypassing the principle of nemo iudex in causa sua. I propose, in accordance with the principle of objectivity (impartiality), to submit only disciplinary judges of the Constitutional Tribunal to the Supreme Court for consideration with the simultaneous adoption of an identical mutual principle with respect to judges of the Supreme Court.
Trybunał Konstytucyjny odpowiedzialność dyscyplinarna zasada niezawisłości sędziów i niezależności sądów the Constitutional Tribunal Disciplinary liability the principles of independence of the courts and judges
Immunity of a Judge in Criminal Matters in the Context of the Process of the Delegitimization of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court
The subject of the article is to show the issues related to the institution of judicial immunity and its importance in bringing judges to criminal liability on the basis of current constitutional and procedural provisions. The author made these considerations a starting point for an in-depth analysis of the issue of delegitimization of the judiciary on the basis of recent processes in Poland concerning the National Council of the Judiciary and the newly established Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court. The whole is issue situated on the level of EU law, national regulations and rich jurisprudence of the judicial authorities.
delegitimization National Council of the Judiciary Disciplinary Chamber Supreme Court immunity of a judge delegitymizacja Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa Izba Dyscyplinarna Sąd Najwyższy immunitet sędziowski
Boundaries of a Judge’s Disciplinary Tort
The subject of the article is to show the key issues related to the disciplinary liability of judges, among which the author analyses the notion of disciplinary tort and the substantive criminal law institutions relating to it, including culpability, the degree of social harmfulness, and the stadial and phenomenal forms. The study attempts to answer the question about the legitimacy of separating the notion of corporate harmfulness in relation to the rules of functioning of the professional environment of judges. The article also contains considerations concerning the prerequisites of disciplinary liability of judges, taking into account the specificities provided by the legislator for each category of courts, as well as the directions of interpretation of the prerequisite of obvious and gross violation of the law and the prerequisite of a breach of dignity of the office in relation to the scope of the concept of judicial independence.
niezawisłość sędziowska independence of the judge dignity of the office obvious and gross violation of legal provisions disciplinary tort disciplinary liability of the judge godność urzędu oczywiste i rażące naruszenie przepisów prawa delikt dyscyplinarny odpowiedzialność dyscyplinarna sędziego
Polish System of Disciplinary Liability of Judges in the Light of Standards European Union Law
The study presents current issues of the disciplinary liability of judges, starting with an indication of historical attempts to introduce new, unified regulations intended to cover most of the legal professions, up to the enactment of the statutes of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court and the so-called Disciplinary Law for judges. The author conducts an in-depth analysis of the disciplinary regulations in terms of testing compliance with EU law standards and the need to ensure the effectiveness of EU legal solutions.
niezawisłość sędziowska odpowiedzialność dyscyplinarna gwarancje niezależności sąd pytanie prejudycjalne Disciplinary liability independence of the judge guarantees of independence court preliminary question
© 2017 Adam Marszałek Publishing House. All rights reserved.
Projekt i wykonanie Pollyart