Miażdżąca krytyka zmian w sądach w raporcie dla Rady Europy. Tarczyński zgłasza zdanie odrębne

Jak wyjaśnia Ministerstwo Spraw Zagranicznych, Zgromadzenie Parlamentarne Rady Europy to jeden z dwóch głównych (obok Rady Ministrów) organów statutowych Rady Europy. Zasiada w nim 648 przedstawicieli parlamentów krajowych.

Delegaci działają w Zgromadzeniu Parlamentarnym według przynależności partyjnej.

Zgromadzenie Parlamentarne zbiera się cztery razy w roku na tygodniowe sesje plenarne w siedzibie Rady Europy w Strasburgu.

Zgromadzenie Parlamentarne monitoruje stan przestrzegania przez państwa członkowskie ich zobowiązań. Przeprowadza wizyty terenowe służące przygotowaniu raportów. Na zaproszenie państw monitoruje przebieg wyborów.

Do Rady Europy należy 47 państw.

Albania, od 13.07.1995

Andora, od 10.11.1994

Armenia, od 25.01.2001

Austria,od 16.04.1956

Azerbejdżan, od 25.01.2001

Belgia, od 5.05.1949

Bośnia i Hercegowina, od 24.04.2002

Bułgaria, od 7.05.1992

Chorwacja, od 6.11.1996

Cypr, od 24.05.1961

Czarnogóra, od 11.05.2007

Czechy, od 30.06.1993

Dania, od 5.05.1949

Estonia, od 14.05.1993

Finlandia, od 5.05.1989

Francja, od 5.05.1949

Grecja, od 9.08.1949

Gruzja, od 27.04.1999

Hiszpania, od 24.11.1977

Holandia, od 5.05.1949

Irlandia, od 5.05.1949

Islandia, od 7.03.1950

Liechtenstein, od 23.11.1978

Litwa, od 14.05.1993

Luksemburg, od 5.05.1949

Łotwa, od 10.02.1995

Macedonia, od 9.11.1995

Malta, od 29.04.1965

Mołdawia, od 13.07.1995

Monako, od 5.10.2004

Niemcy, od 13.07.1950

Norwegia, od 5.05.1949

Polska, od 26.11.1991

Portugalia, od 22.09.1976

Rosja, od 28.02.1996

Rumunia,od 7.10.1993

San Marino, od 16.11.1988

Serbia, od 3.04.2003

Słowacja, od 30.06.1993

Słowenia, od 14.05.1993

Szwajcaria, od 6.05.1963

Szwecja, od 5.05.1949

Turcja, od 9.08.1949

Ukraina, od 9.11.1995

Węgry, od 6.11.1990

Wielka Brytania, od 5.05.1949

Włochy, od 5.05.1949

ARTYKUŁ 6

1. Każdy ma prawo do sprawiedliwego i publicznego rozpatrzenia jego sprawy w rozsądnym terminie przez niezawisły i bezstronny sąd ustanowiony ustawą przy rozstrzyganiu o jego prawach i obowiązkach o charakterze cywilnym albo o zasadności każdego oskarżenia w wytoczonej przeciwko niemu sprawie karnej. Postępowanie przed sądem jest jawne, jednak prasa i publiczność mogą być wyłączone z całości lub części rozprawy sądowej ze względów obyczajowych, z uwagi na porządek publiczny lub bezpieczeństwo państwowe w społeczeństwie demokratycznym, gdy wymaga tego dobro małoletnich lub gdy służy to ochronie życia prywatnego stron albo też w okolicznościach szczególnych, w granicach uznanych przez sąd za bezwzględnie konieczne, kiedy jawność mogłaby przynieść szkodę interesom wymiaru sprawiedliwości.

2. Każdego oskarżonego o popełnienie czynu zagrożonego karą uważa się za niewinnego do czasu udowodnienia mu winy zgodnie z ustawą.

3. Każdy oskarżony o popełnienie czynu zagrożonego karą ma co najmniej prawo do:

a) niezwłocznego otrzymania szczegółowej informacji w języku dla niego zrozumiałym o istocie i przyczynie skierowanego przeciwko niemu oskarżeniu;

b) posiadania odpowiedniego czasu i możliwości do przygotowania obrony;

c) bronienia się osobiście lub przez ustanowionego przez siebie obrońcę, a jeśli nie ma wystarczających środków na pokrycie kosztów obrony, do bezpłatnego korzystania z pomocy obrońcy wyznaczonego z urzędu, gdy wymaga tego dobro wymiaru sprawiedliwości;

d) przesłuchania lub spowodowania przesłuchania świadków oskarżenia oraz żądania obecności i przesłuchania świadków obrony na takich samych warunkach jak świadków oskarżenia;

e) korzystania z bezpłatnej pomocy tłumacza, jeżeli nie rozumie lub nie mówi językiem używanym w sądzie

Appendix – Dissenting opinion presented by Mr Dominik Tarczyński (Poland, EC/DA) pursuant to Rule 50.4 of the Rules of Procedure

Pursuant to Rule 50.4 of the PACE Rules, I wish to submit a dissenting opinion to the report of the Monitoring Committee entitled “The Functioning of democratic institutions in Poland”.

The Report, as it currently stands, violates the freedom of the state to shape the constitutional system, including the Judicial Council and the prosecution service. Some of the expressions used in the Report unfairly infringe the good reputation of Poland and go far beyond the mandate conferred on the Monitoring Committee. This is all the more prejudicial to Poland as the same has never refused to co-operate with the Committee, has actively participated in its meetings and hosted its representatives.

I would like to stress that the balance of powers between individual authorities is an inherent element of the separation of powers.

It is completely unacceptable not to indicate the source, author and place of publication of so-called “credible reports”. It is also completely unacceptable to base certain arguments of the Report merely on media reports or the authors’ assumptions.

It is highly questionable to accept the statement regarding the existence of “European standards for the formation of a judicial council” as there are no such standards. Nothing in the Report refers to any binding legal source which would suggest the existence of such allegedly uniform European standards. It also ignores the recent CJEU judgment of 19 November 2019 in which the Court, contrary to the Advocate General’s view, found no European standards as regards the appointment of judicial councils. I would also like to bring it to the attention of the Monitoring Committee that the models of shaping judicial councils in European countries significantly differ from one another, starting from their non-existence in the legal systems of some jurisdictions, through shaping them by way of decisions of the executive authority – the Minister of Justice, to their shaping by election by judges. Sadly, for reasons unknown to me, these comments were altogether disregarded by the Monitoring Committee.

The Report disregards the fact that the model of judicial appointments, under which the appointment of judges by the executive is not only acceptable, but is even a standard, prevails in Europe. In some European states, the impact of the executive on the process of appointing judges even takes on a direct form. This has been accepted in the case-law of the ECtHR which emphasises that the Convention does not impose on States a particular constitutional model regulating, in one way or another, the relations and interactions among different state authorities; nor does it require them to follow this or another constitutional model. The ECtHR does not question judicial appointments with the participation of the Judicial Council chaired by the President, nor does it question the procedure for judicial appointments even where the Parliament is involved.

I would like to emphasise that the prosecution service has been and remains a special institution in the system of legal protection authorities, performing tasks related to prosecution of offences and protection of the rule of law. The major principle of the prosecution service is the independence of the public prosecutor in the course of the proceedings. Both in the past and at present, the hierarchical subordination, which is the essence of the functioning of the prosecution service, does not run counter to the independence of the public prosecutor.

The functioning of democratic institutions in Poland

Report

Co-rapporteurs: Ms Azadeh Rojhan GUSTAFSSON, Sweden, Socialist Group and Mr Pieter Omtzigt, Netherlands, Group of the European People’s Party

Summary

The Monitoring Committee recognises the challenges faced by the Polish justice system and judiciary, especially with regard to the efficiency of the administration of justice. It therefore welcomes the stated priority given by the Polish authorities to addressing shortcomings in the Polish Justice system. At the same time, it emphasises that it is essential that the reforms implemented are fully in line with European norms and standards and effectively strengthen judicial independence and the rule of law. In addition, it welcomes any reform of the judicial self-governance structures that aim to increase their transparency and accountability, while preserving their independence and autonomy. However, it considers it unacceptable if such reforms would amount to bringing the judiciary under the control of the executive or legislature, or even worse, political control of the ruling majority.

The Committee deeply regrets that the reforms of the judiciary and justice system in Poland in numerous aspects run counter to European norms and standards. They cumulatively undermine and severely damage the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law in Poland. Moreover, the reforms have made the judicial system vulnerable to political interference and attempts to bring it under political control of the executive, which challenges the very principles of a democratic state governed by the rule of law. The Committee therefore calls upon the authorities to revisit the total reform package for the judiciary and amend the relevant legislation and practices in line with Council of Europe recommendations.

The committee remains concerned about the unresolved constitutional crisis over the composition of the Constitutional Court. The restoration of the legality of the composition of the Court in line with European standards is essential and should be a priority. The full and unconditional implementation of all Constitutional Court decisions, including with regard to the composition of the Constitutional Court itself, should be a cornerstone of the resolution to the crisis.

The Committee deplores the abuse of disciplinary proceedings against judges and prosecutors in Poland, which has a chilling effect on the judiciary and undermines its independence. In this context, the Committee calls for an independent public inquiry into the reported politically motivated smear campaign organised against members of the judiciary by, and with the involvement of, high ranking officials in the Ministry of Justice and National Council of the Judiciary.

The Committee stresses that its concerns about Poland’s adherence to the rule of law, directly affect Europe as a whole and cannot be considered as an internal issue for Poland. The Committee therefore recommends all Council of Europe member states to ensure that the Courts under their jurisdiction ascertain in all relevant criminal and civil cases whether fair legal proceedings in Poland, as meant by article 6 of the European Convention for Human Rights, can be guaranteed for the defendants.