„Position of the National Council of the Judiciary of 19 November 2021 (WP.710.3-6.2021)
Pursuant to Article 3, para. 1, item 3 of the Act on the National Council of the Judiciary of 12 May 2011 (Journal of Laws of 2021, item 269), National Council of the Judiciary declares that
• the refusal of a judge to participate in the examination of cases assigned to him,
• the refusal to adjudicate because of the presence of a judge in the bench who the refusing judge believes should not adjudicate,
• cancelling hearing dates, which have been set, without any legal or factual basis,
• making declarations of withdrawal from adjudication and refusal to adjudicate as a form of ‘protest’,
is in conflict with the judicial oath taken before the President of the Republic of Poland and constitutes a breach of § 4 and § 8 of the Set of Principles of Professional Ethics of Judges and Court Assessors constituting an annex to Resolution No. 25/2017 of the National Council of the Judiciary of 13 January 2017, stating that a judge should care for the authority of his office, for the good of the court in which he works, as well as for the good of the justice administration and the constitutional position of the judiciary and he is obliged to act without delay in all cases assigned to him.
The National Council of the Judiciary recalls that the public expects the proper performance of judicial duties in return for the receipt of a high salary and benefiting from other privileges of the office of a judge.
The National Council of the Judiciary calls upon the judges who refuse to perform their duties – regardless of the motives and reasons for such behaviour – to immediately stop such practices or to resign from their office.
In respect for the overriding interest, which is the personal right to have a case heard by a court without undue delay, as guaranteed by Article 45, para. 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, the National Council of the Judiciary declares that a judge’s unauthorised refusal to adjudicate constitutes grounds for immediately changing the membership of the bench so as to enable the case to be examined without delay. This principle refers, in particular, to the application of preventive measures in criminal proceedings, interim measures in disciplinary proceedings and the examination of other cases in which the appearance of a delay not only breaches the right to a trial in court but also undermines public safety and the dignity of the court.”