On Tuesday, the assembly of judges of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court elected three candidates for president: the current president of the chamber, Joanna Misztal-Konecka, Marcin Łochowski and Marcin Krajewski. The meeting was chaired by judge Krzysztof Wesołowski, despite Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s revocation of the referendum on the decision to appoint him issued by President Andrzej Duda.
From among these three candidates, the president will appoint a new president of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Federal Court for a three-year term. The most likely outcome is the re-election of the current president, Joanna Misztal-Konecka.
The spokesman for the Supreme Court, Aleksander Stępkowski, recalled that during the first meeting of judges of the Civil Chamber, convened on June 7, the attendance of less than 2/3 of the judges was achieved, therefore, during Tuesday’s meeting, the attendance rate was already half of the 30-person panel.
16 judges are more than half of the total number of judges in the Civil Chamber and today, therefore, the deliberations of the assembly of judges may end with the selection of three candidates for the position of president – he said.
The session of the assembly of judges of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court was chaired by Judge Krzysztof Wesołowski. He was appointed to this role by decision of President Andrzej Duda, endorsed by Prime Minister Donald Tusk. However, the head of the Polish government announced this Monday on the X platform that he had based his decision on a complaint by judges of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court. decided to revoke the referendum of the President’s decision concerning Judge Krzysztof Wesołowski.
However, in Tuesday’s position published on the Supreme Court’s website, it was stressed that “the decision together with the President’s signature was submitted to the Supreme Court and published in Monitor Polski and has already produced legal consequences“. “Therefore, statements such as those of the Prime Minister on the X platform (…) suggesting the possibility of withdrawing the legal effects of the decision of the President of the Republic of Poland appointing Supreme Court judge Krzysztof Wesołowski as chairman of the assembly of judges of the Civil Chamber are causing embarrassment,” he added.
The Prime Minister’s decision to refer the case of Judge Krzysztof Wesołowski – appointed to the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court in March 2022 and thus appointed by the National Council of the Judiciary in a procedure changed during the PiS government – was criticized, among others, by some legal circles. In late August, Prime Minister Donald Tusk stated that there had been a mistake in referendum on the President’s resolution, because the person responsible for preparing it for signature he did not see the political nature of the document.
On Sunday, the media reported that two judges of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court – Dariusz Zawistowski and Karol Weitz – appealed to the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw both the Prime Minister’s endorsement and the President’s decision to appoint Judge Krzysztof Wesołowski as chairman of the meeting of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court. At the same time, together with the complaint, a request for suspension of the execution of the contested act was filed.
On Monday afternoon, the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw announced that the complaint against the decision on the appointment of Judge Krzysztof Wesołowski as head of the assembly of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court was delivered to the president. As this court recalled, the complaint to the Provincial Administrative Court is filed through the body whose activity is the subject of the complaint.
Tuesday’s position on the Supreme Court’s website added that “the resolution of the President of the Republic of Poland, and even more so the countersignature of the Prime Minister, are acts of state authorities issued on the basis of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and not as part of administrative proceedings“. “As such, they are not subject to the control of the administrative courts and, for this reason, the provisions regulating proceedings in the administrative courts, including the so-called self-control procedure (…), which – even if it were hypothetically assumed to be admissible – would have to be carried out by the President and not by the Prime Minister”, it was noted.
