"Haniebne są oskarżenia sędzi Donnelly przez przedstawicieli rządu RP" - pisze irlandzki adwokat

“I welcome this detailed judgement from Ms Justice Donnelly which for me epitomises the importance of judicial independence. My client is very relieved that the Irish Courts have ruled in his favour. This is an unprecedented European extradition case arising from the erosion of the Rule of Law in Poland with far reaching implications. The recent legislative changes and further proposed changes in Poland are a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice. I believe that these judicial reforms, are an attack on the Judicial independence of Poland. The Separation of Powers is a necessity in any Democracy for the promotion of good governance and for the protection of the administration of justice.

These reforms fundamentally undermine the basis of mutual trust and recognition between Poland and the executing Judicial Authority. The operation of the European Arrest Warrant system involving Poland is now seriously jeopardised. This landmark case may ultimately lead to an abrupt termination of the mutual understanding between Poland and other EU Member State in extradition proceedings – those potential ramifications are highly significant.

I hope the anticipated hearing before the European Court of Justice will uphold the rationale of the Irish Courts on this matter, given the public interest which is significant. I am astounded by some of the inappropriate and discriminatory comments circulated in the media from Ministers in Warsaw. The allegations claiming judicial corruption, judicial incompetence and that the sexual orientation of the judge played a role in this unprecedented judgement is illogical and nothing short of disgraceful.

The comments from the Deputy Justice Minister Warchol further supports our submissions that Mr Celmer’s right to a fair trial cannot be guaranteed should he be returned to Poland at a time when the rule of law is clearly eroding to such an extent that it is not reflective of the minimum standards throughout the other EU Member States. Mr Celmer like any other person is entitled to the presumption of innocence and due process. He has not been convicted of the allegations made against him.

My client has resided and worked in Ireland for over ten years and has not been the subject of any adverse attention from An Garda Síochána. This is hardly the behaviour of a ‘dangerous criminal’ as claimed by Deputy Minister Warchol. I must now seek further instructions from my client on these comments from the Polish Government.

It should be noted that the judgement delivered by Ms Justice Donnelly was extremely detailed and thorough. It was based on very reliable and credible evidence which all raised serious concerns with the independence and impartiality of the Judiciary in Poland. I feel, contrary to the claims emanating from the Polish Government, that this ruling was carefully considered by a very experienced and highly respected Judge having been presented with all the facts. I would think that it would be more appropriate for the Polish Authorities to express their disagreement of this ruling via the proper setting, that now being an anticipated hearing in the near future before the European Court of Justice at Luxembourg.

There will be no further comments made on this matter.

"The Association of Judges of Ireland wishes to deprecate in the strongest terms the personalised attacks and invective directed at our member, Ms Justice Aileen Donnelly reportedly emanating from some sections of the Polish media. Any interested person or party is entitled to criticise a judgment or ruling of a court, and even to do so in robust terms. However, a judge is a public office holder, and if a party wishes to criticise her for the manner in which she has performed her public duty, the criticism should be confined to that and directed at the court's decision and not at the judge personally. The irrelevant references to Ms Justice Donnelly's personal and private life are utterly unacceptable and we condemn them unreservedly.

In doing so we are not to be taken as commenting in any way, or as expressing any views whatsoever, concerning the case at issue (which is ongoing) or the ruling in controversy, as it would be wholly inappropriate for us to do so."