Poland’s National Council of the Judiciary has filed a constitutional court challenge against provisions allowing the Sejm Marshal to block judge candidates.
KRS Challenges Regulations
The National Council of the Judiciary (KRS) has submitted a request to the Constitutional Court challenging certain provisions of the KRS Act. The regulations concern when the Sejm Marshal may reject a candidate’s application for membership in the council. This can occur when the minister of justice does not confirm that a candidate holds the status of a judge. The council fears this could lead to the exclusion of judges appointed after 2018 from the elections.
KRS Seeks Ban for Sejm
Along with its request to have the challenged provisions declared unconstitutional, the KRS has also asked the Constitutional Court to issue an injunction prohibiting the Sejm and its bodies from making any “factual or legal acts related to the election of judges to the National Council of the Judiciary” after the Sejm Marshal rejects any candidate’s application. This ban would remain in effect until the Constitutional Court evaluates the challenged provisions. The KRS stated in its communication that the request for injunction only concerns specific provisions of the KRS Act and does not halt the entire election procedure.
Separation of Powers Violation
In its submission, the KRS argues that the challenged regulations violate, among other things, the principle of separation of powers. Specifically, it points to provisions regarding the role of the minister of justice in the election process of judges to the council. According to the KRS, this role is excessive. The minister, who belongs to the executive branch, can halt the electoral process and eliminate certain candidates. The KRS describes this as “excessive interference into the core competency of the legislative power.”
Arbitrary Decision of Minister of Justice
Furthermore, the council believes that requiring candidates to be dependent on the arbitrary decision of the minister of justice to confirm the status of both candidate judges and supporting judges is inconsistent with the principle of equal access to public service. As noted in the Constitutional Court submission, “principles of access to public service must be objective, to enable various candidates to apply for or be admitted to this service according to the principles of equal opportunity, without any discrimination or unjustified restrictions.” The KRS argues that the challenged provisions do not meet these requirements.