A Polish judge was removed from cases without justification, prompting a legal opinion from a European Court of Justice advocate general citing breaches of EU law.
Judge Removed From Cases, Triggering EU Scrutiny
The opinion from Advocate General Dean Spielmann concerns preliminary questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) by the Warsaw District Court, which sought clarification regarding the transparency and correctness of the Random Case Allocation System (SLPS).
The situation involves a second-instance court receiving two cases randomly assigned to one judge via SLPS in 2024. The judge was subsequently transferred to a different division of the same court, after which the District Court Board dismissed her from handling 100 previously assigned cases, including the two appeals, without providing a rationale. This decision was made at the judge’s request, with her consent.
Opaque Algorithm and Uneven Workload
The cases were returned to the SLPS pool and reallocated to other judges, with the majority – 56 cases – assigned to a single judge. Other judges received few or no cases. The judge appealed the decision, arguing an uneven workload, but her complaint was dismissed.
Concerns Over Independence and Impartiality
The judge questioned whether the court could be considered independent, impartial, and established by law under EU law if a judge assigned to a case was designated by SLPS under questionable circumstances regarding the process’s correctness and transparency. She emphasized the arbitrary removal of the previous judge and the selection of a new judge by a system created by the executive branch (Ministry of Justice).
She noted the SLPS algorithm’s lack of transparency, the potential for unequal workloads, the risk of manipulation and errors in the allocation, and the absence of an effective appeal mechanism to challenge allocation decisions.
Risk of “Unauthorized Interference”
The Advocate General concluded that removing a judge from cases without justification violated EU law. He argued that the lack of criteria and a requirement for justification could create a risk of arbitrariness and unauthorized interference in case allocation. The judge’s consent is irrelevant, as it may have resulted from pressure from superiors, their expectations, or collusion.
SLPS System Assessment
Regarding SLPS, the Advocate General stated that using a random case allocation system is not inherently problematic, provided it is based on transparent, objective, and pre-defined rules. However, the lack of publication of the SLPS source code does not allow a determination of irregularities, as publishing the algorithm and draw reports would provide sufficient guarantees of system transparency.
The involvement of the Minister of Justice in creating the system and defining allocation rules appears to be organizational and does not raise concerns about influencing the allocation process.
Verification of Case Allocation
Finally, the Advocate General stated that EU law does not require the correctness of case allocation to a judge to be necessarily verified at their request. However, such a review should be possible either at the request of a party or, in cases of serious doubt, ex officio.
Advocate General opinions precede CJEU judgments, serving as proposed resolutions. Judges usually uphold the position adopted by the Advocate Generals, but this is not binding.
