Judges for Judges and Professor Laurent Pech have submitted a joint third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Judge Jan Grzęda.
The case of Grzęda v Poland concerns legislative changes as a result of which the office of a Supreme Administrative Court judge elected to the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ) in Poland was prematurely terminated before the end of his constitutionally guaranteed four-year term.
Three main submissions are made:
- The existence of systemic and generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law, including the unlawful nature of the multiple legislative changes made by Polish authorities, has been repeatedly and firmly established by both the European Commission and the European Parliament but also by the European Court Of Justice (ECJ) and national courts.
- This has revealed a now well-established pattern whereby Polish authorities and the courts they have captured or the new bodies they have created are actively colluding with the view of deliberately and systematically organising the violation of national but also ECJ rulings they do not approve of.
- Due to systemic and generalised deficiencies regarding the independence of the Polish judiciary and the pattern of sustained, deliberate and flagrantly unlawful targeting of independent judges, it is submitted that the right of access to an independent tribunal and the right to an effective remedy must be considered as being no longer guaranteed for any of the judges, prosecutors or lawyers who are or have been targeted by national authorities or the bodies they have unlawfully established (e.g. the “Disciplinary Chamber”) or re-established (e.g. the neo-NCJ), due to multiple legislative changes which have enabled the executive to “interfere throughout the entire structure and output of the justice system” while, simultaneously, national remedies ensuring effective legal protection have been removed or weakened across the board.
Photo: Adrian Grycuk