The president wants changes to the rules of the Supreme Court. Judge Piotr Prusinowski about the meeting of the College and the situation in the Supreme Court

Today, the College of the Supreme Court did not express an opinion on the presidential bill amending the Supreme Court’s regulations. The quorum required to adopt a resolution was not reached at the meeting, eight out of 16 members of the College appeared. Previously absent, in a letter to the first president of the Supreme Court Małgorzata Manowska, announced seven judges, members of the College. Supreme Court spokesman Aleksander Stępkowski confirmed that the matter of their absence from the College would be the subject of “explanatory proceedings.”

READ MORE: The Supreme Court College, which was to deliberate on the changes to the regulations proposed by the president, did not take place

Piotr Prusinowski, president of the Supreme Court in charge of the work of the Chamber of Labor and Social Insurance, one of the judges absent from the Supreme Court College today, talked to Anita Werner about today’s events at the Supreme Court in “Fakty po Faktach” on TVN24.

He explained that the College was not held “because the so-called old judges of the Supreme Court (not elected by the neo-National Council of the Judiciary – ed.) refused to participate in this College.” – This means that there is no quorum, the College did not take place, and now we will observe ways of saving it – he added.

– I just saw a statement by the press spokesman (of the Supreme Court – ed.), who probably intends to apply Article 9c of the Law on the System of Common Courts, which was introduced in 2000 (2020 – ed.) precisely for such needs, i.e. as If we fail to pass something or get an opinion, it is assumed that everyone was in favor and the opinion is positive – he explained.

He predicted that in this case we would be dealing with the application of this provision.

READ ALSO: “Extremely fast mode.” “I assume that the idea is for Prime Minister Morawiecki to sign the countersignature”

When asked further whether judges absent from the College would be subject to explanatory proceedings, the judge replied that “President Manowska is variable when it comes to administering disciplinary proceedings.” – It is difficult for me to answer these questions, but it is possible, it is not ruled out – he said.

During the conversation, Judge Prusinowski emphasized that “there must be very serious changes in the Supreme Court.” – How much greater devastation must occur before we start to change something for the better? – He was asking.

When asked what it was like to work at the Supreme Court, the judge replied: – If I said it was hopeless, I would be bragging a bit.

– I came to this institution when it was an efficient, substantively operating institution at the European level. Today it is an institution that cries to heaven for vengeance, he said.

Prusinowski then illustrated this opinion based on his own experiences. – When I came to the Supreme Court for the first hearing of the case in my Chamber, the Chamber of Labor and Social Insurance, the waiting time for the so-called pre-trial was about six months. Today the wait is 1.5 years. These are the results when dilettantes take up the reform of the judiciary, he commented.

– My Chamber should be staffed by 22 judges. In fact, it has been consistently at about 60 percent occupancy for many many years, fifty, sixty. Therefore, the arrears are increasing – he described.

When asked to explain why this is happening, the judge explained that “for eight years, those who represent something in the legal world and have achievements have not been running for election to the Supreme Court.” – People who usually have no achievements are taking part. Even the current National Council of the Judiciary, the neo-KRS, rejects some candidates who apply, he noted.

– Recently, there was a competition for the Chamber of Labor, where not all positions were filled. It’s kind of a curiosity, where in the middle of Europe, for the Supreme Court, it turns out that in a country of 37 million people there are no candidates who would be suitable to be specialists – he noted.

When asked further whether it is true that he is currently the only president of the Chamber in the Supreme Court who is not a neo-judge, Prusinowski replied that there is also Judge Wiesław Kozielewicz in this group, although – as he added – the judge presides over the Chamber of Professional Responsibility, “which is contested “.

– When it comes to the substantive chambers, i.e. the Civil, Criminal and Labor Chambers, yes, I am the last president of the Supreme Court, who is the so-called old president. Nobody in Europe has any doubts about whether he is a judge at all, he said.

Later in the conversation, the judge drew attention to the fact that “the situation in which the majority of the Supreme Court cannot issue a judgment because these judgments are invalid, i.e. they are in fact ineffective, requires change.”

– Judges, but also lawyers, will not change this. Politicians must change this. Politicians messed it up, politicians need to fix it. It can be fixed. This is a question about will, determination, and the wisdom that will accompany those who will rule, he claimed.

So where to start with repairs? – The key is the National Council of the Judiciary – replied the judge. – This is the central point, the rest are consequences of the National Council of the Judiciary – he added. – A body must be selected that will efficiently fill judicial positions, not according to “its own” or “not its own”, but according to the substantive key – he proposed.

– I believe that every neo-judge should participate in the competitions again, because many people in Poland did not take part in the competitions because they upheld the constitution and did not want to participate in something illegal – he said.

Werner also asked the judge about the impact of the chaos in the Polish judiciary on ordinary citizens. – It has such an impact that it is not just an abstract concept, but concerns specific human issues – he replied.

– For example, I will say that the Law and Justice reforms in public administration have made hundreds of thousands of people unemployed, about 200,000 people. New conditions were offered to some of them, and some who may not have liked them were not offered, he said.

He explained that “if there were no courts that would examine the constitutionality of, for example, such solutions with common sense, these people would be deprived of legal protection.” – So they appealed to the courts and most of these people won their cases. Although the act itself did not give them the opportunity to appeal to the court at all, he recalled.

– That’s what the courts are for. Where the executive and legislative authorities try to influence citizens’ rights in some way, the court balances these attempts. And that’s what free, independent courts are for – concluded the judge.