Marcin Bogdan: Blind Fate

Bread and Games (Latz. Mr et circumenses), this celebrated saying of the Roman poet Juwenalis has many supporters to this day. The best games are games that anyone can participate in. The form of specified open-access games is various types of numerical games, where cognition or physical strength is not determined, but blind fate. A blind fate, or independent from someone's will and effort, blind, or unpredictable. Therefore, the rulers offered the public a game called the Gossip.

The rules are simple to win in the Gossip box you should guess at least 3 numbers out of the 5 selected from a circumstantial range. However, the Rules of Procedure of the Lottery states that only 2 of these 5 numbers will be drawn and the another 3 will be indicated by the receiving committee from the players filled in the tickets. Would 1 of the readers decide to play this game? It was, of course, just a gag invented for this column. But even if it wasn't a joke, it's a number game that depends on our choice. If the rules of the game are unfair, unfair, we don't gotta participate. But whether we stand trial, whether as accused or victimized, may depend on the interplay of life circumstances. Would any of the readers want the jury to consider his case to be completed according to rules akin to the game of gossip? And that's precisely what Minister Żurek wants to introduce.

Judges should be innocent. Invisible means independent, and hence impartial. The key issue ensuring the independency of judges is the elimination of any form of hand-allocation. In Poland, this task is fulfilled by the Act on the strategy of Random Assignment of Cases (SLPS) passed in 2018, during the regulation of the United Pawica. Although this strategy fulfills its task, cases are automatically distributed according to the algorithm, which allows you to avoid allegations of manual control, however, part of Themida, this supporting regulation of Tusk, the SLPS strategy calls the scornfully Ziobrolot. Minister Żurek from contempt went on to act and announced that the strategy of random allocation of judges would, and, of course, inactive be in force, but will concern only 1 associate of the three-man ruling, the referee. The another 2 members of the squad will indicate/delegate/resigne the president of the court department who is himself appointed by the president of that court. For the sake of clarity, it should be added that unanimity is not required until the judgement is delivered, the judgments shall be delivered by a simple majority, or 2:1. It is adequate that 2 appointed judges will be in agreement and after the case. I'm sorry, I just wanted to write, and we have a conviction. It's like a win-win in the gossip.

Żurek's actions are no longer bending or circumventing the law. This is simply a violation of the law, a public violation of the "lawful justice" principle, which means that "any citizen has the right to have his case examined by a justice or court designated in accordance with law – that is, according to pre-established, nonsubjective rules, not ‘ad hoc’ or ‘manually’ by anyoneIt’s okay. ” The “lawful justice” rule follows straight from the European Convention on Human Rights, which states in Article 6(1): “Everyone has the right to a fair and public review... by an independent and impartial court established by the lawIt’s okay. ” The Lawful Justice rule applies in most civilized European countries. This rule does not mean that the allocation strategy must be full random. It is adequate that it is quasi-random, meaning that cases are allocated according to pre-established nonsubjective criteria (e.g. rotation, algorithm, order of impact, alphabetical order). But under no circumstances can there be a “hand” assignment of judges to a given case by superiors!

• Germany: Each court must have the alleged Geschäftsverteilungsplan, i.e. the yearly allocation plan. Cases must be allocated according to pre-established nonsubjective criteria, specified as rotation, order of impact. Manual case allocation violates the law and lead to the annulment of the judgment.
• Italy: the work to delegate cases in advance. An automatic case allocation strategy is in place.
• Spain: Cases are assigned according to the yearly work plans of the courts. Judges may not be assigned "manually" to circumstantial cases. In civilian courts there is an IT strategy for managing welds.
• Slovenia: Cases are allocated according to order and so according to the date of impact of the case. The alphabetical order of the initials of the names of the judges is then taken into account. There are additional rules for erstwhile a fewer cases come up on the same day erstwhile the justice is absent, erstwhile the burden of cases is uneven, etc.The strategy is designed so that no 1 can manipulate the assignment of cases.

Note: In 2024 the European Court of Human Rights found an infringement by

Slovenia rules ‘lawful judge’, since in one the case, one The justice has been assigned

to this substance ‘manually’, contrary to the rules described.

And in Poland? In Poland it is time to give Mr. Żurek a black drink. And preferably the full government.

Mr Bogdan