Termination of the membership in the National Council  of the Judiciary of the person appointed by the President and the termination of the President’s Office (Remarks on the judgment of the Supreme Court of 15 March 2011, III KRS 1/11)

The article discusses the issue of termination of office of a person appointed to the National Council of the Judiciary by the President of the Republic of Poland. The conclusions state that the term of office of this person is directly dependent on the President’s term of office. It expires not later than three months after the end of the President’s term of office, regardless of the reasons for the President’s termination of his office.

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.

On the Need to Amend the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of April 2, 1997 with Regard to the Term and Functions of the Sejm and the Senate – Some Remarks on the Background of the Constitution of Czechia and Slovakia

The scope of this article is to show the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 1997 with regard to the term and functions of the Sejm and the Senate in Poland. The analysis shows that the provisions of the constitutions of Czechia and Slovakia are more precise, among other things, they more clearly define the parliament’s creative function in relation to the organs of the judicial power. Moreover, the Czech regulation concerning the Senate allows it to strengthen its political significance and position in relation to the first chamber of parliament, i.a. because of its greater role in the legislative procedure. In turn, the provisions contained in the Slovak Constitution protect the parliament against omissions of the head of state. These regulations should serve as a model for amending the Polish basic law.

Judgement of ECHR of 8 November 2021 in the case of Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland is undoubtedly one of the most important judgements issued by the Strasbourg Court in recent times. At the same time, it constitutes a continuation of the existing case-law of the ECHR in similar cases against Poland, in particular the reasoning expressed in the judgement of 22 July 2021 in the case of Reczkowicz v. Poland (Application no. 43447/19). In the judgement, the ECHR held that Poland’s action resulted in a violation of Art. 6 (1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950, which establishes a set of due process guarantees.

Amendment of June 9, 2022 to the Act of the Supreme Court – real or illusory change?

This paper is devoted to the Act of June 9, 2022 amending the Act on the Supreme Court and certain other acts. Despite the liquidation of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, the analysis of this act leads to the conclusion that the Polish legislator petrifies the unconstitutional judicial appointments. Judges appointed to the Supreme Court with the participation of the National Council of the Judiciary, formed according to unconstitutional rules, will be able to continue to exercise judicial functions in that court. In addition, the unconstitutional procedure for the appointment of judges remains unchanged.

Gloss to the Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 6 May 2021, file ref. no. II GOK 3/18

The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 6 May 2021, the subject of which was the assessment of the legality of the resolution of the National Council of the Judiciary on the submission (failure to present) of applications for appointment to the position of a Supreme Court judge in the Civil Chamber, created the possibility of challenging the composition of the adjudicating panels with the participation of judges selected in this procedure. However, the administrative court did not assess the validity of the appointments of judges, finding that the effects of the ruling issued in this case do not relate to the systemic validity and effectiveness of presidential appointments to the office of judge. Therefore, the judgment does not resolve the key issue determining the effectiveness of the appointment of the judiciary

The Permissibility of Ex Lege Termination of the Term of Office of the Judicial Members of the National Council of the Judiciary in its Composition Resulting from the Act of 8 December 2017, in the Light of the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights

The article analyzes the permissibility of terminating the terms of office of current members of the National Judiciary Council without providing them with access to court from the perspective of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The starting point is the judgment of the ECtHR in the case of Grzęda v. Poland, in which it was found that the ex lege termination of the terms of office of the NCJ members in 2018 violated Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the interpretation of the ECHR cannot disregard the specific context related to the lack of independence of the current NCJ and its negative impact on the integrity of the judicial appointment process. These circumstances justify the conclusion that Art. 6 ECHR would not protect the current members of the NCJ from the termination of their terms of office.