Judges Kasicki and Brazewicz will handle the disciplinary cases assigned to them by the Minister of Justice. Similarly, in accordance with Article 112b § 1 of the Act on the Structure of the Ordinary Courts, the commissioners handling these cases to date lose the right to take any action in these cases at the time the decision regarding the appointment of the Disciplinary Commissioner of the Minister of Justice is served.

As arises from a number of studies, as well as judgments of the CJEU (of 15 July 2021, case ref. C-791/19 and of 5 June 2023, case ref. C-204/21) and the ECtHR (judgment in Juszczyszyn v. Poland of 6 October 2022, application no. 35599/20) the new system of disciplinary proceedings against judges introduced over the last few years does not satisfy international standards and could be used to influence judgments, as well as to create a chilling effect in order to prevent judges from implementing EU and international law.

Disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against numerous judges for questioning the legal status of judges appointed with the involvement of the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ), which was incorrectly established by the Act of 8 December 2017, including five, who were groundlessly suspended from their duties by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court (Judges Paweł Juszczyszyn, Maciej Ferek, Piotr Gąciarek, Maciej Rutkiewicz and Krzysztof Chmielewski), while disciplinary proceedings were initiated against two judges for filing requests with the CJEU for preliminary rulings (Judge Anna Bator-Ciesielska and Judge Agnieszka Niklas-Bibik). These proceedings constituted a breach of Poland’s treaty obligations.

In the light of the case law of the international tribunals, the validity and compliance of a number of pending disciplinary proceedings with European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) give rise to serious doubts, which especially applies to those proceedings in which the basis for the disciplinary charges was the content of procedural decisions made by the judges or their questioning of the status of judges appointed with the participation of the incorrectly established NCJ. In the latter case, the grounds for pressing disciplinary charges were often disciplinary offences provided for in the so-called the Muzzle Act, which the CJEU found to be in conflict with EU law (judgment in case C-204/21).

Furthermore, some of these disciplinary proceedings lasted a long time, keeping the judges to which they applied in a state of uncertainty, which in itself undermined their sense of independence.

It should also be pointed out that the attitude of the disciplinary commissioners appointed by the previous Minister of Justice gave rise to doubts as to the level of their independence and impartiality. Disciplinary Commissioner for the Judges of the Ordinary Courts Piotr Schab and his deputies, Przemysław W. Radzik and Michał Lasota, as well as Jakub Iwaniec, the acting deputy disciplinary commissioner at the Regional Court in Warsaw, signed the so-called ‘lists of support’ of candidates to the incorrectly established NCJ, thereby showing support for the idea of politicizing the procedure for appointing judges, as well as significantly contributing to the dismantling of the current constitutional order and undermining the basic guarantees of the independence of the judiciary. Furthermore, Judges Piotr Schab and Przemysław Radzik repeatedly failed independence tests conducted by the Supreme Court. In turn, according to media reports, Judge Jakub Iwaniec allegedly played an active role in the so-called ‘Kasta hate group’. Although the existence of this group has not yet been confirmed in court, Judge Jakub Iwaniec is one of two people who were returned from their delegations to the Ministry of Justice immediately after this scandal broke out.

Therefore, the Minister of Justice decided to take advantage of the institution of commissioners of the Minister of Justice (so-called ‘ad hoc commissioners’), which was introduced in Article 112 b of the Act on the Structure of the Ordinary Courts, and appointed people who have high professional and ethical standards, whereby:

- they are criminal law judges with over 20 years of experience;
- they were appointed to their positions without the involvement of an incorrectly established NCJ;
- they have been specializing in disciplinary matters for many years.

Additionally, in order to ensure their impartiality from the point of view of an outside observer, the disciplinary commissioners of the Minister of Justice were appointed from among people who were not members of associations of judges. The following were appointed disciplinary commissioners of the Minister of Justice in this manner:

1) Grzegorz Kasicki, judge of the Regional Court in Szczecin, for handling cases of:
- possible disciplinary offences with signs of crimes that are subject to public prosecution, involving activities of judges or assistant judges of the District Court for Warszawa-Śródmieście in Warsaw, who initiated and conducted enforcement proceedings in case II K 784/10, i.e. in the case of the disciplinary offences referred to in Article 107 § 1, items 1, 3 and 5 of the Act on the Structure of the Ordinary Courts of 27 July 2001, in which the deputy disciplinary commissioner at the Regional Court in Warsaw, Jakub Iwaniec, initiated explanatory activities;
- the disciplinary offence referred to in Article 107 § 1, items 3 and 5 of the Act on the Structure of the Ordinary Courts, in which Disciplinary Commissioner for the Judges of the Ordinary Courts Piotr Schab charged Edyta Barańska, a judge of the Regional Court in Kraków, on 14 April 2023, which is currently being examined by the Professional Liability Chamber of the Supreme Court (PLC SC) under case ref. I ZSK 17/23;
- the disciplinary offence referred to in Article 107 § 1, items 3 and 5 of the Act on the Structure of the Ordinary Courts, in which Deputy Disciplinary Commissioner for the Judges of the Ordinary Courts Przemysław W. Radzik charged Edyta Barańska, a judge of the Regional Court in Kraków, on 7 February 2022, which is currently being examined by the PLC SC under case ref. I ZSK 23/23;

2) Włodzimierz Brazewicz, judge of the Court of Appeal in Gdańsk, for handling cases of:
- the disciplinary offence referred to in Article 107 § 1 of the Act on the Structure of the Ordinary Courts, in which Disciplinary Commissioner for the Judges of the Ordinary
Courts Piotr Schab charged Wojciech Maczuga, a judge of the Regional Court in Kraków, which is currently being examined by the PLC SC under case ref. I ZSK 37/22;
- the disciplinary offence referred to in Article 107 § 1 of the Act on the Structure of the Ordinary Courts, in which Disciplinary Commissioner for the Judges of the Ordinary Courts Piotr Schab charged Rafał Lisak, a judge of the Regional Court in Kraków, which is currently being examined by the PLC SC under case ref. I ZSK 36/22;
- three disciplinary offences referred to in Article 107 § 1, items 3 and 5 and a disciplinary offence referred to in Article 107 § 1, item 5 of the Act on the Structure of the Ordinary Courts, in which Deputy Disciplinary Commissioner for the Judges of the Ordinary Courts Przemysław W. Radzik charged Wojciech Maczuga, a judge of the Regional Court in Kraków, which is currently being examined by the PLC SC under case ref. I ZSK 26/23;

Judge Grzegorz Kasicki is a judge with almost thirty years of judicial experience, specializing in criminal cases, having adjudicated in the Regional Court in Szczecin since 2004. He is not a member of an association of judges. He has been appearing before disciplinary courts as a defence attorney for many years and has published articles in the press on disciplinary proceedings.

Judge Włodzimierz Brazewicz is a judge with almost thirty-five years of judicial experience, specializing in criminal cases, having adjudicated in the Court of Appeal in Gdańsk since 2007. He is the author of a speech delivered to the Constitutional Tribunal about the compliance of the European arrest warrant with the Constitution, which brought about changes in the Constitution and the Criminal Procedures Code. He is not a member of an association of judges. In the past, he was a disciplinary court judge and has been appearing before disciplinary courts as a defence attorney for many years.

The judges appointed by the Minister as ad hoc commissioners guarantee that their cases will be handled impartially, independently and professionally, taking into account the standards arising from the judgments of the international tribunals and Polish courts, including the judgments of the CJEU of 15 July 2021, case ref. C-791/19 and of 5 June 2023, case ref. C-204/21, regarding the assessment of the disciplinary procedures introduced in recent years by the amendments to the Act on the Structure of the Ordinary Courts, including by the Act amending the Act on the Structure of the Ordinary Courts, the Act on the Supreme Court and certain other Acts of 20 December 2019 (Journal of Laws of 2020, item 190), i.e. the so-called ‘Muzzle Act’, in the light of EU standards.

According to Article 112b § 1 of the Act on the Structure of the Ordinary Courts, the commissioners who have been handling the cases to date lose the right to take any action in the above cases at the time of service of the decision on the appointment of the Disciplinary Commissioner of the Minister of Justice, while further action will be taken by the commissioners appointed by the Minister of Justice.

The Ministry of Justice is planning to continue to review pending disciplinary cases, through the institution of ad hoc commissioners, in order to check the validity of the charges they have raised, especially from the point of view of international standards.

Communication and Promotions Office
Ministry of Justice