Is there another conflict in the ultimate Court?
It's hard to say, we're inactive in our position. fresh judges are judges. This has late been confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights in its decision of early April, indicating that the President's decision to appoint us as a justice is effective and irrefutable. The dreams of any violating the constitution and removing us from the SN are unacceptable to us.
A fewer days ago, justice David Miąsik, the elder head of the department, lost his position as head of the Labour and Social Insurance Board, and in his place you appointed a justice who has been in this chamber for respective days. Why?
I did this due to the fact that the Prime Minister has consistently failed to give a countersignature to the President's decision appointing a judge, who will guide the home and lead to the election of candidates for President, and individual must manage this House. justice Meaty went on vacation. Under the SN Act, I'm the only 1 who can appoint a replacement. As a result, I decided that at least by the end of August the Chamber would be headed by justice Agnieszka Góra-Błaszczykowska. It has all competence.
Didn't justice Meat work out?
I don't think so, and that's not the point. I spoke to justice Miąsik and thanked him for directing the home and his attitude during the hot electoral period, due to the fact that I know that any of the electoral protests in the Labour Chamber have been attempted illegally. He was very professional then.
Isn't this just about bringing together the assembly of the home to elect a fresh president?
No, justice Gora-Błaszczykowska does not have specified powers and will not call specified a convention. I besides know the opinion of the lawyers that I could call specified a gathering on the election of the president of the Chamber of Labour. But I don't intend to.
So what happens to the president of the Labour Chamber?
I don't know. We will wait for the Prime Minister to begin his constitutional duties. I would add that the President's decision is about a justice appointed as a ultimate Court justice before 2018.
You said late in the Sejm that you wanted to settle a dispute between the judges. Do you not think that specified actions as in the case of the Labour Chamber are inactive fueling this conflict?
I am the I president of SN and I have the right to make individual decisions. If the erstwhile president of the Labour Chamber Piotr Prusinowski and the Prime Minister had fulfilled their duties, the election of the president of this home would have been made long ago.
You've late informed me that you have solutions that can end the conflict between judges. What are they?
I assure you that asking us to sit down and consider the different options, besides proposed by me, is not an expression of any fear or fear. We, “neonki”, will stay in our position. However, I believe that there is always a request to talk and effort to solve problems.
You say you will fight and stay in your position. Is this expected to bring an end to the conflict between the judges?
What do you want us to do? Apologize and step down from our offices to which we were appointed by the president under the Constitution? We will proceed our ministry to which we are called.
I'm trying to figure out what your thought of curing the judiciary is. I ask on behalf of readers, citizens who deserve to know that.
I didn't uncover it on the committee of parliament, and I'm not doing it now. However, I can say that my concept is wider and does not end just with the ultimate Court and the conclusion of the judicial disputes. 1 of its fundamental elements is to flatten the structure of the judiciary, which no government wanted to implement. Take an example from the French system, where the justice does not gotta compete for a vacancy to advance. It must not be dependent on the president or the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice.
What, too flattening the court structure, is in the package you prepared?
This is above all a substance of regulating the situation of embarrassing neo- and paleosia division. Finally, we must halt pointing out who and erstwhile received the nomination, whether for Zbigniew Ziobra or for communes. This may aid to flatten the structure of the courts. I would besides like to propose the creation of judicial teams. The point is that the justice should manage his team, which would let the judiciary to be relieved by e.g. the elimination of department chair positions. They would start ruling on a full-time basis. In addition, there is simply a request for greater computerisation of courts and even the usage of artificial intelligence.
I think even artificial intelligence may not be able to address the alleged fresh National Judicial Council.
I share the view that KRS members should be elected by judges in the general election. This was the first proposal of 2017, only being protested by the association of Judges Themis. In the end, Parliament could choose the judicial part of the Council, but among the candidates selected in the general election by the judges.
You besides announced your intention to discuss these solutions with the Prime Minister, the Speakers of the Sejm and the Senate. Is there a date for this meeting?
Immediately after 6 August, I will send open letters to the President, to the Speakers of the Sejm and the legislature and to the Prime Minister asking for a gathering and serious discussion about the destiny of the justice strategy in Poland. The point is that we should be certain that the Polish justice is independent and ruling in an independent court. To solve this problem, you gotta meet and figure out which way we're going. And no 1 in the country has listened to us.
Do you think you will now be heard and your demands will be met?
I hope so. past will settle us all, and I want to be certain that I've done everything I can to end this destructive conflict. I'd like this gathering to take place as shortly as possible. I would point out that the solutions I'm talking about are not my work, but a elder judge. I won't uncover my name.
Aren't you afraid you'll be expelled from the judge's state without a state of rest?
I accept life as it is. And life gives you the chance to do many jobs. Therefore, I am not afraid that I will be expelled from court in violation of the Constitution. However, if individual tries to do so, I will usage all the legal means available to fight for respect for the rule of irreparability of judges.
President Andrzej Duda in his last interview stated that if part of the judge's community fails to execute a self-reset, then all these people will should be expelled from the judge's state without a state of rest. What do you think?
I think it was besides emotional. I don't know the full context, but I know the president respects the judges and what he said must have been the consequence of strong emotions. I don't think it's a real thought or a proposal. I'm more afraid about the cold projects of Minister Adam Bodnar than the president's emotional statement.
In the same interview, the president besides said that there is fact in the claim that there is so much betrayal and impudent warchdom in Poland, due to the fact that no 1 has been hanged for treason for a long time. Do you agree with that?
I am opposed to the death punishment and if it were present in Polish law, I would not be a judge. I think it was a brief thought of the president, spoken in an emotional conversation. But there's something in the message that if you don't get the consequences of violations of standards, then there's a disregard for them, and that could be dangerous to the stableness of the legal order. Of course, I'm absolutely not talking about hanging or punishing death.
Is it appropriate for an educated lawyer to say specified words about hanging for treason?
To treat the President's words literally, of course it's not fitting. Politicians frequently usage drastic wording and the president is not the first or last.
Controversial statements were besides made in fresh days from the lips of the Euro MP Grzegorz Braun. He publically questioned the fact of genocide in gas chambers in Auschwitz, claiming on Radio Wnet that it was a Facebook. What do you think of that statement?
Perhaps Mr. Braun's case will go to the ultimate Court 1 day, so I will not comment on it. All I'm saying is that I'm very delicate about war crimes, and I'm very hurt by all the statements that question whether it's the fact that they're committed, whether it's bleaching the perpetrators.
Soon before the Court of State, to which you preside, the head of KRRiT Maciej Świrski may be hit. Will you call an earlier sitting of the full Court, which has been requested by any of its members for over a year?
Until these judges make their request legally, I will not call specified a meeting. The authors of the proposal want changes to the rules of procedure, so I asked them to prepare a suitable task with a justification. The answer was silence. The second proposal concerns a gathering in ‘the Court of State cases’. I asked what things were going on. Silence again.
The judges of the Court of State are calling for, among another things, the introduction of a draw of rulings and the transparency of meetings. Don't you think these are good ideas?
Of course it is, and the depots are presently drawn on the basis of my order. I am besides in favour of the openness of the meetings, although not all, due to the fact that the criminal procedure does not let it.
Have you spoken to president Elect Karol Nawrocki yet?
There's never been a gathering like this before. Although I admit I would love to talk to him about the problems of justice.
A resolution of the SN on the validity of the presidential elections was late published in the authoritative diary of the Law, with an endorsement stating that the judgments of the European Courts do not let the ruling to be regarded as a ‘court established by the Act’. Aren't you afraid that this might be the basis for questioning the president's decision in the future?
I'm not afraid of that. However, as I president of the SN, I sent a announcement to the D.A. of the anticipation of committing a crime in this case. Nothing can be added to the ultimate Court resolution. The provisions supply for the work to print a resolution – there is no mention of any additions.
An interview with president Margaret Manowska was conducted on Tuesday 15 July.
