CJC Database

Member State

Poland

Topic

independence, accountability, impartiality

Sector

Judicial Self-Government (Judicial Council, Court Presidents), Role of national higher courts, Disciplinary proceedings

Deciding Court Original Language

Sąd Najwyższy

Deciding Court English translation

Supreme Court

Registration N

II CSKP 556/22

Date Decision

26.10.2022

ECLI (if available)

N/A

National Follow Up Of (when relevant)

The case discusses and references decisions by the ECtHR as well as the jurisprudence of the CJEU. Specifically, the judgment mentions the ECtHR rulings related to the legitimacy of the judicial appointments in Poland and their impact on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary(e.g. Reczkowicz v. Poland, Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland, Advance Pharma Sp. z o.o. v. Poland). Moreover, it also discusses the CJEU ruling that interprets EU law concerning judicial independence (Case C-487/19). However, while the Polish Supreme Court's decision in this case heavily references and is influenced by these European courts' decisions, it is not a direct follow-up to a specific CJEU or ECtHR decision.

EU legal sources and CJEU jurisprudence

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union:
Article 47

Treaty on European Union (TEU):
Article 2
Article 19

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU):
Article 267

CJEU Judgments:

CJEU Grand Chamber decision in Case C-487/19, referred to in the context of judicial appointments and challenges to the independence of the judiciary.

ECtHR Jurisprudence

European Convention on Human Rights:
Article 6.

The Supreme Court referenced several key ECtHR cases to underline the importance of judicial independence and impartiality in ensuring the right to a fair trial:

Reczkowicz v. Poland (Application No. 43447/19, Judgment of 22 July 2021):
The ECtHR ruled that the composition of Poland's National Council of the Judiciary (KRS), influenced by political powers, compromised judicial independence, violating the applicant's right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland (Applications Nos. 49868/19 and 57511/19, Judgment of 8 November 2021):
The Court found that the judicial appointment process under the restructured KRS did not adhere to the standards of independence and impartiality required by Article 6(1) of the Convention.

Advance Pharma Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (Application No. 1469/20, Judgment of 3 February 2022):
The ECtHR determined that irregularities in the judicial appointment process undermined the applicant’s right to a tribunal established by law, as protected by Article 6(1) of the Convention.

These judgments, as cited by the Supreme Court, highlight the importance of maintaining judicial independence and impartiality to ensure compliance with the right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Subject Matter

On 26 October 2022, the Supreme Court of Poland reviewed a cassation appeal in a case between U.L. and Bank S.A. concerning a payment claim. The appeal stemmed from a decision by the Warsaw Court of Appeal dated 10 July 2019.

A judge assigned to the appeal requested exclusion due to a conflict of interest, as he had a personal loan agreement with the defendant bank. The Supreme Court dismissed this request on 26 April 2022 in a one-person composition.

The Supreme Court examined whether the 26 April 2022 decision, made by a judge appointed under the controversial 2017 amendments to the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS), was valid and whether it affected the court's impartiality and independence. The court found that the judge's appointment was influenced by political powers, compromising judicial independence.

Consequently, the Supreme Court declared the decision of 26 April 2022 null and void, as it was issued by an improperly appointed judge. The case records were forwarded for reassignment to ensure a fair trial.

This ruling emphasizes the importance of judicial independence and impartiality, aligning with both national constitutional provisions and European legal standards, and aims to restore public confidence in the judicial process.

Legal issue(s)

1. Conflict of Interest and Judicial Impartiality:
   The case examined whether a judge who had a personal loan agreement with the defendant bank and was involved in settlement negotiations could remain impartial and independent while adjudicating the bank's case.

2. Validity of Judicial Appointment:
   The court scrutinized the validity of the 26 April 2022 decision made by a judge appointed under the restructured National Council of the Judiciary (KRS) following the 2017 legislative amendments. The key issue was whether this appointment compromised the judge's impartiality and the court's independence.

3. Compliance with Constitutional and European Standards:
   The case involved assessing whether the appointment process and subsequent judicial decisions adhered to Article 45(1) of the Polish Constitution, Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which collectively guarantee the right to a fair trial by an impartial and independent court.

Request for expedited/PPU procedures

N/A

Interim Relief

N/A

National Law Sources

Constitution of the Republic of Poland:
Article 45 (guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court).
Article 8 (direct applicability of the Constitution unless stated otherwise).
Article 187 (regarding the composition and powers of the National Council of the Judiciary).
Article 186 (assigns the National Council of the Judiciary the task of safeguarding the independence of courts and judges).
Article 173, Article 178, and Article 10 (related to judicial independence and the separation and balance of powers).

Law on the National Council of the Judiciary:
Amendments from December 8, 2017, which restructured the Council, affecting its composition and independence.

Code of Civil Procedure:
Article 379 (concerning grounds for challenging a court's composition).
Article 87, Article 39813, and Article 378 (relate to procedural norms and appeals in civil cases).
Article 531 (excludes the possibility of effectively challenging the impartiality or independence of a judge based on the same circumstances already evaluated).

Facts of the case

In this legal case, the Supreme Court of Poland declared non-existent the decision made on April 26, 2022, by the Supreme Court. This decision, issued unilaterally by a judge appointed under the newly reformed National Council of the Judiciary (KRS), denied the recusal of a judge involved in adjudicating a cassation complaint. This judge had disclosed personal financial dealings and ongoing negotiations with a bank involved in the case, which he believed could compromise his impartiality in the proceedings. The Supreme Court's decision to invalidate the previous ruling was based on significant concerns regarding the legitimacy of the appointing process overseen by the reformed KRS. This raised serious questions about the fairness and impartiality of the judicial process, given the potential conflicts of interest presented by the judge's personal connections to a party in the dispute.

Reasoning (role of the Charter or other EU, ECHR related legal basis)

The Supreme Court of Poland's decision to invalidate the previous ruling, which had denied a judge's recusal request, is rooted in a legal reasoning that considers both national and European legal frameworks.

Legal Framework and Reasoning:
The court's reasoning emphasized the critical importance of judicial independence and impartiality as guaranteed under the Polish Constitution and European legal standards. The decision highlighted specific concerns about the legitimacy of judicial appointments made under the judicial reforms implemented by the legislation enacted on December 8, 2017. These reforms significantly altered the composition and powers of the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS), which led to widespread criticism and scrutiny from various European legal bodies.

The decision specifically referenced the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), notably Article 6, which mandates the right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The court also engaged with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, particularly Article 47, which underscores the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, aligning its discourse with the standards set forth in EU law regarding judicial independence.

Analysis of EU and Council of Europe Sources:
The Supreme Court scrutinized decisions and opinions from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This included consideration of how these courts have interpreted similar issues concerning judicial appointments, the independence of the judiciary, and the implications of national judicial reforms on member states' obligations under European law. The CJEU’s jurisprudence, especially cases related to Article 19 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) concerning effective legal protection, was instrumental in shaping the court’s reasoning.

The court also examined the implications of the judicial reforms on the standards set by the Council of Europe, particularly those related to the independence of judicial bodies and the separation of powers, which are essential principles in both the ECHR and the Charter.

Conclusion and Implications:
By declaring the April 26, 2022, decision non-existent, the Polish Supreme Court effectively underscored the unacceptable nature of judicial appointments perceived as compromised due to the politically influenced restructuring of the KRS. This decision sends a strong message about the necessity of adhering to European standards of judicial independence and impartiality. The court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the need to align with European legal norms to ensure that the judiciary remains a guardian of the rule of law, free from undue political influence and capable of upholding individual rights as enshrined in both national and European legal frameworks.

The court’s thorough engagement with both the ECHR and EU legal sources demonstrates an alignment with European legal standards, emphasizing the overarching requirement that judicial panels be constituted in a manner that guarantees their independence and impartiality, as recognized by European law.

Relation of the case to the EU Charter

In the Supreme Court of Poland's decision, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union was invoked to emphasize the fundamental principles regarding the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial, as outlined in Article 47 of the Charter. This invocation served as a legally binding parameter in assessing the adequacy of judicial proceedings and the independence and impartiality of the judiciary under EU law. The national judges explicitly referred to the Charter to underline the importance of these rights within the context of the EU legal framework, ensuring that national judicial practices comply with European standards.

Usage of the EU Charter as a Legally Binding Parameter:
The Supreme Court of Poland utilized the EU Charter as more than just a tool for supporting its reasoning. It served as a crucial legal parameter to determine whether the composition of the judicial panel, as influenced by the reformed National Council of the Judiciary (KRS), adhered to the standards required for judicial independence as stipulated by European Union law. This approach aligns with the direct applicability of the Charter to Member States when implementing EU law, as per Article 51 of the Charter, which mandates that Member States must respect the rights and observe the principles proclaimed in the Charter when they are applying EU law.

Relation between the EU Charter and ECHR

In the decision by the Supreme Court of Poland, citing the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) played a significant role alongside references to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The ECHR was invoked primarily to emphasize the broader European standards regarding the right to a fair trial and the independence and impartiality of judges as stipulated in Article 6 of the ECHR.

Reasons Behind Citing the ECHR:
The invocation of the ECHR served as more than just an ornamental reference. It was a critical legal instrument used to frame the judicial standards that Poland is obligated to uphold as a member of the Council of Europe. By referencing the ECHR, the court sought to ensure that its reasoning and decisions align with established European norms on judicial independence and the right to a fair trial, reinforcing the legal arguments made in the context of EU law.

Use of Judicial Interaction technique(s)

the judicial interaction techniques used are primarily consistent interpretation and comparative reasoning with foreign case law.

Horizontal Judicial Interaction patterns (Internal – with other national courts, and external – with foreign courts)

The court does engage in an assessment of other national judgments as well as references to European legal precedents. Here’s a detailed explanation of these interactions and the role of constitutional review in the judgment:

Assessment of Other National Judgments:
The decision reflects engagement with previous national judgments. The Supreme Court refers to its previous judgment issued in the one-judged panel and the Court reviews its legality in the context of KRS reforms. This method reinforces the consistency of the judicial approach within the Polish legal system and provides a legal basis for the decision by situating it within the broader context of Polish jurisprudence.

Constitutionality Review:
The decision involved a constitutionality review, which is evident from the analysis of the legal reforms affecting the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS) and their compliance with the Polish Constitution. The court examined whether the legislative changes and the resulting appointment processes adhered to the constitutional requirements for judicial independence and impartiality. This review is critical as it directly addresses the foundational legal standards that underpin the legitimacy of judicial appointments and, by extension, the entire judicial decision-making process in Poland.

Engagement with Foreign Constitutional Jurisprudence:
While the decision primarily focused on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) jurisprudence, there was no explicit mention of engagement with the jurisprudence of foreign constitutional courts in the context of horizontal judicial interaction. The references were primarily to supranational courts rather than to courts of individual foreign states. This approach aligns with the need to adhere to European legal standards while addressing issues that have significant implications for Poland's compliance with EU law and its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Vertical Judicial Interaction patterns (Internal – with other superior national courts, and external – with European supranational courts)

The judgment exemplifies vertical judicial interaction both internally with other national courts and externally with European supranational courts.

Internal Vertical Judicial Interaction:
The Supreme Court's decision interacts with rulings from lower appellate courts. It examines and ultimately overturns the decisions made by these courts, particularly concerning the judicial panel's composition influenced by the contested judicial reforms. This interaction underscores the Supreme Court's role in supervising and correcting lower court rulings to ensure consistency with national legal standards.
The Supreme Court assesses other national judgments to ensure coherence in the judicial interpretation and application of law across different tiers of the judiciary. This includes evaluating how lower courts have interpreted the laws concerning judicial independence and the legitimacy of appointments under the reformed judicial system.

External Vertical Judicial Interaction:
Interaction with European Supranational Courts:
The decision cites and engages extensively with jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Rather than making simple citations, the Supreme Court assesses the relevance and implications of these courts' decisions on Polish judicial practices, particularly those related to judicial appointments and independence.
This engagement is not merely ornamental but serves as a important part of the legal reasoning in the case, helping to align Polish judicial practices with established European standards and ensure compliance with obligations under European law.

Interaction between Ordinary and Appellate/Supreme Court:
The case illustrates the hierarchical judicial relationship where the Supreme Court acts as the final reviewer of lower court decisions. In this scenario, the Supreme Court revises the appellate court's rulings concerning the procedural and substantive aspects of the case. This review process ensures that the ultimate judgment reflects a comprehensive consideration of both national and European legal standards, correcting any misinterpretations or misapplications of law at lower levels.

Strategic use of judicial interaction technique (purpose aimed by the national court)

1. Solving Conflicts of Norms:
The Supreme Court's decision tackled the conflict of norms between national legislation (concerning the judicial reforms and the structure of the National Council of the Judiciary) and established European legal standards, particularly those enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The court needed to ensure that Polish judicial reforms did not contravene the principles of judicial independence and impartiality as required by both national constitutional guarantees and European law.

2. Conflicts of Judicial Interpretation Involving Fundamental Rights:
By engaging with the EU Charter and the ECHR, the court addressed conflicts in judicial interpretation, especially those involving fundamental rights such as the right to a fair trial and the right to an effective remedy. The court sought to harmonize Polish judicial practices with European interpretations of these rights, ensuring that Polish law is interpreted in a manner that upholds these fundamental rights to the fullest extent.

3. Upholding Judicial Integrity and Public Confidence:
Another critical scope pursued through judicial interaction was to uphold the integrity of the judiciary and restore or reinforce public confidence in the judicial system. By ensuring that judicial practices and appointments are consistent with European standards of independence and impartiality, the Supreme Court aimed to enhance the credibility and legitimacy of the judiciary amidst ongoing controversies surrounding judicial reforms.

Impact on Legislation / Policy

The decision directly challenges the legitimacy of the judicial reforms enacted under the 2017 legislation that restructured the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS). By highlighting the issues these reforms pose to judicial independence—a core component protected under both Polish constitutional law and European legal standards—the ruling could prompt a legislative reevaluation or reform. Legislators may need to consider amendments or repeals to ensure that the composition and powers of the KRS align with European standards of judicial independence and impartiality.
The ruling underscores the need for transparency and adherence to rigorous standards in the judicial appointment process. It questions the legitimacy of appointments made under the influence of a politically restructured KRS, suggesting that future appointments must avoid any perception of political bias to restore confidence in the judiciary. This could lead to legislative changes aimed at enhancing the objectivity and fairness of the judicial nomination and appointment processes.
The decision, by referencing EU and Council of Europe standards, highlights the necessity for Polish law to comply with broader European legal norms. This could lead to policy adjustments or new legislation aimed at better aligning Polish judicial law with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, especially concerning the rights to a fair trial and an independent judiciary.

Notes on the national implementation of the preliminary ruling by the referring court