Judiciary of Poland

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The judiciary of Poland (

Polish state on the basis of Chapter 8 of the Constitution of Poland.[a] As in almost all countries of continental Europe, the Polish judiciary operates within the framework of civil law
.

The courts (sądy), designated by the Constitution as those exercising the administration of justice (wymiar sprawiedliwości), are the bodies that review the vast majority of cases, with the exception of those specifically assigned to the two tribunals (trybunały). The courts are formally divided into common courts (sądy powszechne) which are the courts that have jurisdiction covering all matters other than those specifically assigned to other courts (and thus include civil, commercial, labour and social insurance law disputes as well as most criminal cases), administrative courts (sądy administracyjne), which review complaints challenging the legality of administrative proceedings and their outcomes, and the military courts (sądy wojskowe), which serve as criminal courts for the military. The

cassations
to the apex courts are limited by law; therefore, only a fraction of cases may reach them.

There are currently two tribunals established by the Constitution, namely the

The State Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over indictments for crimes committed by the highest state officials, but it convenes very rarely.

Court judges in Poland are appointed by the

probation officers (kurator sądowy) act on the court's behalf to enforce judges' orders. In contrast to the court judges, the ones sitting in tribunals (with the exception of those sitting there ex officio) are elected by the Sejm
with a simple majority of its deputies.

Several issues plague the Polish judiciary. The courts are widely seen to be too slow, and the trust in the court system is low among the general population. Changes to the judiciary carried out from 2015 by the ruling

Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court and to impose a 1-million-per-day fine since Poland did not comply with the order. The Constitutional Tribunal, widely seen as captured by the Law and Justice party, has issued decisions aiming to thwart the application of the unfavourable rulings of the ECJ and the European Court of Human Rights by asserting they were issued outside the courts' competences
and without regard to the Polish Constitution.

Structure

A scheme of judicial process
The scheme summarising the structure and appeal sequences of the Polish judiciary, using names provided by the Ministry of Justice[7]
A map of Polish courts
A map of Polish common courts, with those of the same hue belonging to the same district court, and areas of roughly the same colour belonging under the jurisdiction of an appeal court[c]

This section describes the legal state of the structure of the judiciary as of 15 July 2022.

Common courts

The common courts (Polish: sądy powszechne), according to article 177 of the Constitution, are the courts of general jurisdiction, i.e. they rule on all cases in which the jurisdiction has not been explicitly transferred to other courts. This includes a broad range of cases, including civil, criminal, labour, economic and insurance law.[8] The territorial jurisdiction of these courts and their creation is regulated by the minister of justice.[9]

Poland has a three-tier system of common courts. Most of the cases land in one of 318 regional courts (

cassation or its equivalent (see below) may be lodged in the Supreme Court in cases allowed by law.[16][17]

Apart from their strictly judicial duties, the common courts in Poland maintain several registries. The

Military courts

The

treaties allow them to be tried on Polish soil.[23] There are seven garrison military courts (wojskowy sąd garnizonowy) under the jurisdiction of two district military courts (wojskowy sąd okręgowy),[24] which roughly correspond to the regional and district common courts, respectively. The creation of military courts and their territorial jurisdiction are regulated by the minister of defence,[24] while the minister of justice makes internal regulations for the court.[25]

According to article 653 of KPK, most of the court-martials begin in garrison military courts, whose ruling may be appealed in the district military court. Article 654 of KPK mentions exceptions to these cases, which include any cases that would have been otherwise tried by a sąd okręgowy, or crimes committed by officers of the rank of mayor or higher, or by soldiers of the foreign armed forces.[23] The disciplinary panels affiliated by the district military courts will also hold trials for disciplinary cases against military judges, except for those heard by the Chamber of Professional Responsibility[e] as the original disciplinary jurisdiction.[26]

Photo of a building with columns and trees planted along the wall
View of the façade of the Supreme Court. The building also houses the State Tribunal

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) is the

highest court for verdicts made in common and military courts, but is not considered part of either.[27]

In its main capacity, it serves as a court of cassation reviewing selected verdicts of the courts of second instance, which cannot be appealed further (i.e., district courts or district military courts for cases originating in regional or military garrison courts, respectively; and appeal courts for cases originating in district courts).[28] For some staturorily created regulatory colleges, cassations are also possible against the rulings of their disciplinary organs.[29][30]

If the case originates within a district military court, a disciplinary panel either for common court judges (affiliated with an appeal court), military court judges (affiliated with a district military court), or for public prosecutors (affiliated with the minister of justice), the Supreme Court will process it as a court of second instance because all of these organs are directly below the Supreme Court in the judicial hierarchy. As an exception, any disciplinary cases against its own judges, or the most grave disciplinary cases against public prosecutors as well as against common or military court judges, are tried in the Supreme Court.[15][f]

Cassations and complaints may be filed either by selected public officials (skarga nadzwyczajna, extraordinary complaint [pl]), or via the Public Prosecutor General/Ombudsman or Children Ombudsman [pl] in cases of verdicts concerning children ("extraordinary" cassation), or via cassation on request of the party ("ordinary" cassation), or, in criminal cases, by lodging an complaint on a second instance court verdict [pl].[33] Extraordinary cassations may be entered in virtually any case at any time;[34] other methods of complaint/cassation have limitations, and cases related to some matters may not be subject to cassation at all, when specifically excluded by an act.[35]

Among other duties, the Supreme Court reviews all complaints about referendums and parliamentary, European Parliament and presidential elections and certifies the validity of these.[36] The Court is also able to present its opinion on the draft bills that affect the judicial interpretation of other legislation.[37]

The Supreme Court is led by the First President of the Supreme Court [pl], who is also ex officio the President of the State Tribunal and a member of the National Council of the Judiciary. It is legally divided into five chambers (izby) headed by the Presidents of the Supreme Court. The Civil Chamber reviews civil, economic and family law cases; the Criminal Chamber rules on criminal matters and in all cases related to the military courts. The Labour and Social Insurance chamber issues rulings on labour law in cases not related to the Supreme Court judges themselves, which are reviewed by the Chamber of Professional Responsibility.[e] The latter hears also disciplinary cases of common, military and Supreme Court judges, as well as those of public prosecutors. The Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs makes decisions about countrywide elections, while also ruling on some narrow areas of law (e.g. competition cases) and hearing complaints about technical issues of judgements (e.g. if a party to the case objects to the lack of independence of judges or the speed of processing the case).[38]

The Supreme Court has been embroiled in numerous controversies since the Law and Justice (PiS) party launched an overhaul of the court in 2017, making a failed attempt to force a substantial proportion of its judges into early retirement and substituting them with politically aligned nominees. The legitimacy of the Disciplinary Chamber (fully appointed by a partisan-controlled National Council of the Judiciary) has been in particular widely challenged and the European Court of Justice ordered its suspension.[39] After more than a year of delay, the President has signed into law the bill disbanding the controversial chamber (which was reformed as the Chamber of Professional Responsibility), which will not change its jurisdiction but will abolish the autonomy it had within the Supreme Court, modify the method of appointment, allow the review of decisions made by the Disciplinary Chamber and introduce the possibility to file a procedural complaint about the judge's independence.[14]

Photo of a beige building
This complex houses both the most important administrative court (the Supreme Administrative Court, left) as well as the busiest one (the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw, right)

Administrative courts

Before a party can seek redress in an administrative court, all administrative appeal options (if available) must be exhausted, thus making the challenged decision final.

voivodeship administrative courts (wojewódzki sąd administracyjny, WSA).[42]

The administrative courts in general hear complaints on decisions and administrative rulings of government bodies (article 3 of the Law on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts, or PPSA),[43] though some decisions may be exempted from the administrative courts' jurisdiction by statute.[44] They may not substitute the judgment of administrative organs, but will only control the validity of their decisions in the light of administrative law.[45] The administrative courts notably do not accept witness nor expert testimony other than that obtained during administrative procedure.[46]

A cassation complaint may be brought to the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny, NSA), which is the court of last resort for administrative law matters; despite being called a cassation, it may be lodged against any ruling of the lower court due to the constitutional guarantee of judicial review, there being only two levels of administrative judiciary.[41] It is also the court that resolves jurisdiction disputes between organs of local government, between local government boards of appeal [pl] and between these institutions and those of the central government.[47] The NSA additionally hears disciplinary proceedings against administrative judges, both on trial and on appeal.[47] This court is divided into three chambers: Finance (finansowa), which resolves tax-related issues, Commerce (gospodarcza), which deals with issues related to financial instruments and corporate law, and the General Administration (ogólnoadministracyjna) chamber which deals with issues not covered by the other two chambers.[48]

Constitutional Tribunal

Photo of a two-storey building during winter
Constitutional Tribunal of Poland

The Constitutional Tribunal (Trybunał Konstytucyjny) is the judicial organ competent for constitutional law cases, similar to those existing in many European countries. While it is often called a "top court",[49][50][51] it is technically a tribunal, distinct from the courts. It does not deal with the merits of particular court cases, reviewing instead the constitutionality of laws such as international agreements ratified by Poland, laws enacted by the Parliament, as well as regulations issued by executive organs. Such review may be initiated upon submission by a party mentioned in article 191 of the Constitution.[52] According to article 122(3) and article 133(2), the President, before signing a law or an international treaty, may additionally request the Tribunal to assess their constitutionality. Also, article 79 of the Constitution grants the right to lodge a constitutional complaint challenging the laws applied to the contested decision or verdict, but only after all other legal steps are exhausted.[53] In all of these cases, should the Constitutional Tribunal find the law non-compliant with the Constitution, it has the power to strike it down.[54]

Additional duties of the Tribunal include deciding whether a political party's purpose violates the Constitution, ruling on the jurisdiction disputes of central government organs mentioned in the Constitution, and declaring the President incapable of performing their duties if they were not able to communicate it to the Marshal of the Sejm.[54] According to article 190 of the Constitution, all of the Tribunal's decisions are non-reviewable and binding.[g]

State Tribunal

External links