Konsekwencje powołania do pełnienia urzędu sędziego w procedurze, która mogła być dotknięta wadą prawną. Glosa do Wyroku Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego z dnia 4 listopada 2021 r., sygn. akt III FSK 3626/21

Abstract

The commented judgement concerns the consequences of an appointment to the office of a judge in a procedure that may have been affected by a legal defect. In the judgement in question the Supreme Administrative Court held that a judge or an assistant judge of an administrative court appointed by the President of the Republic of Poland is a(n) (assistant) judge in the Republic of Poland and a European judge within the meaning of the EU Treaties and Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms even if the procedure preceding the appointment may have been defective (a potentially legally defective procedure). Agreeing with the aforementioned view, the author notes that, firstly, the definitive nature of judicial appointments made by the President of the Republic of Poland does not, according to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and of the Court of Justice of the European Union, provide an answer to the question whether each judge provides sufficient guarantees of independence and impartiality due to the procedure pursuant to which she or he was appointed. Secondly, the in abstracto test taken into account in some judgements of both Courts (examining the law as regards the legality of the appointments of judges) assessing the independence and impartiality of judges and whether a court is established by law, as opposed to the in concreto test applied in some other judgments of both Courts (concerning the conduct of a given judge in a given case, precluding the questioning of judgements solely on the ground that they were issued by persons appointed at the request of the current National Council of the Judiciary), infringes the principle of legal certainty, which constitutes an element of the rule of law. Thirdly, such dualism in European jurisprudence consequently leads to a destabilisation of the judicial system, which is opposed by the judgement under comment.