Supreme Court revokes ruling made by judge designated by justice minister

TVN24 reporter Michał Tracz found out about the sentence, which was later confirmed by the head of the Supreme Court Criminal Chamber judge Michał Laskowski. "The Supreme Court has found that the secondment of a judge at an appeals court had been faulty, and as a result the panel was incorrectly staffed" - Laskowski said.

The Supreme Court Criminal Chamber on Tuesday revoked a ruling passed by the Rzeszów Court of Appeals, however, the decision was not justified by wrongful examination of the case itself. A judge who sat in the panel was the problem.

The judge in question is Rafał Puchalski, whose career under the PiS government has sharply advanced. Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro promoted Puchalski from a Regional Court in Jarosław to the president of the District Court in Rzeszów, designated to secondment at Rzeszów Court of Appeals. The judge is also a member of the new National Council of the Judiciary, appointed by politicians.

Judge Puchalski's secondment to the Court of Appeals in Rzeszów was authorised by the then Deputy Justice Minister Łukasz Piebiak. He was designated on February 1, 2018 for the duration of his term as District Court president. According to the law on common courts, judges can be sent on secondment to other courts only for an indefinite period, or a defined period no longer than 2 years. "The judge could not have been sent on secondment under such terms" - judge Laskowski explained.

The verdict in this case was made by three Supreme Court judges: Rafał Malarski, Waldemar Płuciennik and Jerzy Grubba. The substantiation has not yet been issued. "Secondment of a regional court judge, who at the same time serves as president of a district court, to adjudicate in appeals court, especially for the duration of his presidency, is against the law" - Michał Laskowski said.

Verdicts revoked due to incorrect panel had happened before, but they are not commonplace. "The court has a duty to check if the previous panel was rightly composed. In this instance, the case hasn't even been substantially examined. That happens, but I've never come across a secondment formulated this way" - judge Laskowski stressed.

"This has only confirmed that people sent on such secondments by the justice minister should not issue rulings, as verdicts passed by them carry a legal defect. We can already see that it will put the parties at risk of repeated trial" - a judge from Iustitia association Bartłomiej Starosta told TVN24.

The CJEU Advocate General said last week that the Polish law that allows the justice minister to move judges to higher courts and end that secondment at any time was incompatible with EU treaties.

The opinion of the advocate general was yet another blow to the eurosceptic ruling coalition in Poland which has been at odds with the European Union over changes it has made to the judiciary since it took power in 2015.

Advocate general Michal Bobek concluded that the minimum guarantees necessary to ensure the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary were no longer present.

"The national rules at issue do not offer safeguards sufficient to inspire in the individuals, especially those subject to criminal proceedings, reasonable confidence that the judges sitting on the panel are not subject to external pressure and political influence, and have no vested interest in the outcome of the case," he said.

Poland's government says issues related to the judiciary are not within EU competences and it has asked the country's own top court to rule on the primacy of the Polish constitution over other legislation, including EU laws.

The EU's top court in most cases follows the opinion of the advocate general in its rulings.

The CJEU is expected to issue its verdict soon.