– I, Małgorzata Manowska, a “neossier” with a 30-year stint, after passing through all possible instances of the universal judiciary, declare that I will not quit any verification," said I president of the ultimate Court in an interview with “Virtual Poland”.
This is simply a reaction to Patrick Nightingale's questions from “WP” regarding the concept of neo-judges from the ultimate Court. Demoralized by law, Małgorzata Manowska was appointed by president Andrzej Duda in 2018 as a ultimate Court justice in accordance with the advice of the fresh politicized National Judicial Council (for a six-year word of First president of the ultimate Court was appointed in May 2020). Many opposition lawyers and politicians believe that judges elected through the neo-KRS do not have the legality of their office. After a possible triumph of the opposition in the parliamentary elections, these judges should return to earlier positions or undergo verification to prove whether they are able to warrant appropriate and independent ruling in the ultimate Court, free of political influence.
“I, a neojudge with a 30-year stint”
On the question of the ND writer to submit to specified verification And SN president said,
– Let me make a message through our conversation: I, Margaret Manowska, a "neossier" with a 30-year stint, after passing through all possible instances of universal justice, declare that I will not quit any verification. And I will defend all judges appointed in fresh years to service at any level of the judiciary before specified verification, unless they want to submit to it," Manowska assured. – It cannot be that a justice can be constantly beaten, insulted, and this one, in fear of consequences and ostracism, will sit quietly, subjected to various verifications, tests. The announcement of the verification is in my opinion an effort to force the judges.
Demoralized by law Manowska in her rude statement, she would have agreed to a verification on 1 condition – if “the verification had begun since the time of Piast Kołodziej.”
"It pains me that we, called in fresh years to the positions of judges in the courts in question, individual wants to verify and not verify the communist judges who sentenced oppositionists in years of actual murder, in the state of war; the judges who were on the belt of then rulers who reported on colleagues," she explained.
Ziobra's denomination, who with the justice strategy now due to belonging to a "elite" group of criminals operating under the neoKRS coat has nothing to do with it, stressed that if, after refusing to submit to her verification, anyone considers that she is not a judge, she will fight to show that she is "in all possible, of course lawful, manner."
Manowska stated that she would not object to returning to work in the Court of Appeal in Warsaw, in which she ruled before receiving a legally defective nomination for SN. However, in this case, due to participation in an organized criminal group and advanced legal demoralisation in the event of the overthrow of the regulation of law in Poland, people like Manowska should be prosecuted and expelled from the profession. But will this happen? We don't know that at the moment.
– I spent beautiful years in it, I loved this job," she said. However, she pointed out that she would surely not leave the ultimate Court and go to appeal due to the fact that individual wanted to.
– If, on the another hand, a bill was reprocessed that I would return to my erstwhile position, and specified a bill would be signed by the president and then published in the diary of Laws – I would consider it – she explained.
Emergency amendment of SN Rules
Demoralized by law, Manowska, who was the main executive in the effort to change the rules of the SN, proposed by the "legal" Duda was besides asked to propose amendments to the rules of the ultimate Court, which, according to the opposition and the alleged old SN judges, aims to "perpetuate" the alleged neo-judges in the structure of the SN. According to the presidential draft, it would be adequate to issue key rulings in the SN to a 1/2 of the jury's composition, while this now requires the presence of 2/3 judges. The task critics argue that specified a change would let for the annulment of the resolution of the 3 chambers of the SN of 2020, in which the powers of the alleged neojudges to regulation in the SN were questioned.
We wrote more about this in the article: "Betoning" of neojudges of SN and neoKRS blocked. Manowska and Duda lost to legal judges. Will Duda stop?
According to Manowska, the alleged conspiracy involving president Duda aimed at attacking the regulation of law and “perpetration” of the SN is absurd. Unfortunately, its claim does not coincide with the fact that it was due to the content of the absurd Rules of Procedure prepared by the “law” of Duda, who participates in criminal proceedings, making continuous nominations of disguises in toga for the "judge".
– To those who say that whoever wants to “betone” the ultimate Court, I urge first to scope for the acacia. The alleged fresh judges do not have a majority in prison chambers, as well as work and social security. It is so not possible to deal with the 2020 resolution, apart from the fact that the Constitutional Tribunal has already eliminated it from the legal system. So all theories presented lose to mathematics – says I president of SN.
In her opinion, the absurd amendment to the SN's Rules of Procedure, which aimed to "legalise" the work of criminals, was intended to aid citizens who "wait for judges to judge, alternatively than bridle in the media."
– For respective years, the ultimate Court has not been able to adopt the alleged Franc Resolution, on which people are losing, and the justice strategy paralysed by the flood of franc matters. And only due to the fact that any of the judges have a problem with common judgment. Moreover, lowering the quorum does not deprive anyone of the right to participate in the meeting, even to study a separate sentence,' explained Prof. Manowska.
When asked if the amendment of the Rules of Procedure would not let neojudges to sanction the presence of neojudges in the ultimate Court, Prof. Manowska replied that there is nothing to legalize.
I'm in the ultimate Court, just like any another judge, full legal. The president called me," she said. Unfortunately, the demoralized by law Manowska forgot to add that the legality of her and another neojudges was undermined by the SN in the resolution of the 3 chambers of the SN in terms of the deficiency of authority to justice by the neojudges which was not waived by the TK, as well as in the many case law of the TSUE, which they do not accept as the resolutions of the NS neoKRS offender.
Manowska besides expressed the view that "no 1 in the ultimate Court has the right to regulation on the position of justice of the ultimate Court". In fact, her message full confirms that now the justice strategy of her institution politicized and controlled by the state and the alleged independency and independency of the judge, which follows from Articles 173 and 178(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, no longer exists.
What is neo-KRS and neo-Judge
The National Judicial Council was elected in a manner incompatible with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, which makes it impossible for the Court of Justice to recognise it in the light of the adopted line of the jurisprudence of the ultimate Court and the TEU as a body acting as acting and having the power to appoint judges. Any justice appointed by that unconstitutional authority and appointed by the president to execute is besides served by a noe-judge who has no legal capacity to issue judgment,
At this point it will be justified to rise that the problem of vocations of "judges" after the formation of the "National Judicial Council" as a consequence of changes in 2017 has respective aspects. The first is related to the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, which impose on public authorities, including the legislator, the work of specified appointment of judges to judicial duties, which guarantees the essential minimum independency and independency of the bodies active in the nomination process. This body is the National Judicial Board. engagement in constitutional standards for shaping the judicial composition of this body, creating an chance for politicians to form the Council, i.e. the election of members of the judges of the Council in their entirety by parliament (excluding the 1st president of the SN and the president of the NSA), has caused this body to neglect to meet constitutional requirements. This makes in any event the appointment of a justice question arise, which accompanies any man who puts his case under the judgement of the court, whether this court is simply a constitutional court.
In addition, this is the second aspect – in the doctrine to which I have given my hand, and in the case-law, there has been a method of verifying the correctness of the appointment of judges based on tools that have been in the strategy since forever, but mostly not utilized to measure the fulfilment of minimum conditions of impartiality and independence. It is the institutions (in the case of preventive control) – iudex sspectus and iudex inhabilis, and in the case of follow-up control – the absolute appeal condition, which is the incorrect cast of the court. On this thought the position of the resolution of the 3 Joint Chambers of the ultimate Court of January 2020 was placed. The resolution contained not precisely the right differentiation: indicating that, in the case of an SN, due to the nature of that authority, judges appointed after a advice of the KRS formed after 2017, do not supply guarantees of independent and impartial ruling. For this reason, it was considered that only this organization flaw justifies the claim that specified judges are deprived of material votum. The resolution did not competition that these persons had obtained the position of SN judges, but it was found that they had no power to issue judgments.
The judgments of specified ‘judges’ so far have been affected by the defect, given the inadequate cast of the court, which should be regarded as a failure to fulfil the constitutional request of the competent court referred to in Article 45(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. Failed judges should not rule. From the date of the resolution, these judges shall be incapable to rule. They do not have a material votum, although they have the position of judges. In the light of the above, it should be considered that, pursuant to Article 91(2) and (3) of the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and of the ECHR, the rule of precedence of the application of the law
This is justified in the judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 October 2021 in Case C-487/19, as well as in the erstwhile judgement of the European Court of Human Rights of 7 May 2021, action No 4907/18. I remind the hooded court that, in accordance with Article 9 of the Constitution, the Republic of Poland is obliged to respect its binding global law. In accordance with Article 91(2) of the Constitution, an global agreement ratified with the prior consent expressed in the Act shall take precedence over the law if that law cannot be reconciled with the agreement. The position of judges and the guarantees of the independency of courts, which constitute the essence of the right to a fair trial, are enshrined in the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and are further confirmed in Article 6(3) of the Treaty on EU. In the present case, the judgement given on 7 October 2021 by the Constitutional Court in the present – defective – composition of the case in Case No. K 13/21, which reconciles the interests of citizens.
Our position on the neo-CRS and neo-Judges appointed by this unconstitutional body confirms the position of the European Commission, which decided on 15 February 2023 to mention Poland to the Court of Justice of the European Union in connection with the controversial ruling of the Polish Constitutional Court. The Commission opened infringement proceedings against Poland on 22 December 2021. – The reason was the judgments of the Polish Constitutional Court of 14 July 2021 and 7 October 2021, in which it declared the provisions of the EU treaties to be incompatible with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, explicitly questioning the rule of primacy of EU law. Without doubt, in light of the content of the judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber) of 19 November 2019 (Nos C 585/18, C-624/18, C 625/18) and the resolution of the full composition of the ultimate Court of 23 January 2020 (BSA I-4110-1/20), there is simply a basis for concluding that the institution designated to guarantee the regulation of law is breaking the law and commits the crime.
We remind you that the case law issued by the neo-judges is repealed by law. In the case of civilian proceedings pursuant to Article 379(4) in fine k.p.c. and criminal proceedings pursuant to Article 439(1)(6) in fine k.p.k.
You request legal assistance, compose us or call us right now.
579-636-527
Here’s Last minute, Unilaterality, Legis artis, Legiatris, Manowska, Neo-krs, Neo-Judge, Independence, sn, Justice-related post from
Manowska is afraid to verify her legality, impartiality and independence:
