Legal status of disciplinary judiciary of judges of common courts in Poland and its evaluation

The disciplinary judiciary of judges of common courts in Poland and disciplinary proceedings are regulated by the Act of July 27, 2001, Law on the Structure of Common Courts. The disciplinary responsibility of judges and judicial assessors is regulated starting from Article 107 of the Act and defines the scope of a judge's responsibility. In areas not regulated by the aforementioned Act, the provisions of the general part of the Act of June 6, 1997, Penal Code and the Act of June 6, 1997, Code of Criminal Procedure apply accordingly. The Disciplinary Spokesperson for Judges of Common Courts and their deputies, except in narrowly regulated cases provided for by the Act, are practically irremovable during their four-year term, which should be viewed positively as it is meant to ensure and guarantee the independence of the spokespersons from the executive branch and protect them from political pressure. It is necessary to advocate for the introduction of regulations that would deprive the Minister of Justice of the authority to appoint an ad hoc commissioner to handle a specific case, as the institution in its current form constitutes an unjustified manifestation of executive interference in the judiciary. The Disciplinary Chamber was dissolved in July 2022 in accordance with the Act of 9 June 2022 amending the Act on the Supreme Court and certain other acts, and in the currently existing Chamber of Professional Responsibility, Supreme Court judges have been appointed for a five-year term to adjudicate in the newly established Chamber. In disciplinary matters at first instance, the Disciplinary Courts at the Appellate Courts adjudicate. The Court of Justice of the European Union has never ruled that the structure of the current Disciplinary Liability Chamber is inconsistent with European Union law. The establishment of the Disciplinary Liability Chamber and the procedure for appointing Supreme Court judges to adjudicate in it was based on a proposal by the First President of the Supreme Court, Małgorzata Gersdorf, which was submitted to the President of the Republic of Poland. Analyzing the case law of the Disciplinary Liability Chamber, it can be observed that all judges who had previously been suspended from duty by the Minister of Justice or court presidents or the Disciplinary Chamber due to rulings they issued, were reinstated to work by decisions of the Disciplinary Liability Chamber. The diagnosis of disciplinary judiciary for judges of common courts is not encouraging, as the provisions themselves, their varying interpretations, and inconsistent application have led to a crisis that requires appropriate action from the legislator. There is a need for calm legislative work aimed at strengthening the autonomy and independence of the disciplinary judiciary from other authorities. There is a need for academic debates open to all who wish to participate. The existence of an academic platform for exchanging different views could serve as a foundation for creating a new Disciplinary Code, which would regulate disciplinary judiciary and proceedings in disciplinary matters concerning not only judges but all legal professions, whose disciplinary cases are ultimately decided by the Supreme Court. The crisis in disciplinary judiciary can be addressed by the active involvement of academic communities in the debate on the shape of future legal solutions, while at the same time calming extreme sentiments within the judicial environment, with all participants in the public debate turning their attention to the constitutional principles of a democratic rule of law and respecting the dignity of every individual.