Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
Key facts of the case:
The President asked the Supreme Court to opine on whether the law regulating the process by which former state officials, judges and certain civil servants may take up positions in the private sector is compliant with the Constitution, the EU Treaty, the Charter and the principle of separation of powers that emanates from the Constitution. The law in question requires state officials to submit an application to a special committee declaring their intention to take up jobs in the private sector within the first two years from their retirement or the termination of their service. The President argued that the inclusion of judges in the scope of the law infringes article 158.3 of the Constitution which provides that the terms of service of judges, of the Attorney General and of the Deputy Attorney General may not be unfavourably amended after their appointment. Preliminary objections raised about the conflict of interests of judges and of the Attorney General to handle this case were rejected.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The Court considered with the ‘terms of service’ which, according to the Constitution must not be negatively amended, is restricted to the duration of the employment of the persons concerned in the public sector or whether it extends to the post-retirement period.
Outcome of the case:
The Court concluded that the law under question does not change the terms of service of judges nor does it impact the principles on which the exercise of their duties is premised, such as independence and impartiality. On the contrary, the court found, the law creates an additional guarantee towards the safeguarding of judicial integrity and is in line with the judicial etiquette which applies equally to retired judges. The Constitution, the Treaty and the Charter prohibit the disadvantageous amendment of terms of service as a means of safeguarding judicial independence and freedom from interventions either from the legislative or from the executive branch. This applies equally to the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. However the term ‘retirement’ in itself means departure from public service and it is therefore impossible to apply this principle beyond retirement. The court concluded that the law under examination and the restriction it introduces to the activities of retired public officials does not contravene the Constitution, the Treaty or the Charter.
By this Petition, the President of the Republic (the Petitioner) seeks an opinion from the Supreme Court as to whether the Law summarily entitled "the Law on the Control of the Employment in the Private Sector by Former State Officials and Judges and Certain Former Public and Wider Public Sector Employees (Amendment) Law of 2022", (the Petitioned Law) is contrary and inconsistent with Articles 61, 158. 3 and 179 of the Constitution, Article 19, paragraph 1, second subparagraph, of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter) and the principle of the separation of powers, which derives from the Constitution.
…
When Poland attempted to change the retirement age of Supreme Court judges - not only by reducing the time limit, but also by making it a condition that a judge could continue working with the consent of the President of the country - the European Commission asked the CJEU to determine whether there had been a breach of the Treaty and the Charter. It was decided that there had been a breach. This is the decision dated 24.6.2019, European Commission v. Poland, C-619/18.
Precisely, the article in question, together with the other provisions of the Treaty and the Charter, as well as the well-established principle of the separation of powers, establish a prohibition on unfavourable changes to the conditions of service of Judges, after their appointment - such as, by analogy, the 'compensation clause' of the American judicial system - in order to safeguard the independence of Judges from any such interference by either the executive or the legislature.
In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the petitioned law is not contrary to or inconsistent with the aforementioned articles of the Constitution or the Treaty or the Charter or the principle of separation of powers, as set out above. Accordingly, it may be enacted.
Με την παρούσα Αναφορά, ο Πρόεδρος της Δημοκρατίας (Αιτητής) ζητεί γνωμάτευση από το Ανώτατο Δικαστήριο κατά πόσο ο Νόμος με συνοπτικό τίτλο «ο περί Ελέγχου της Ανάληψης Εργασίας στον Ιδιωτικό Τομέα από Πρώην Κρατικούς Αξιωματούχους και Δικαστές και Ορισμένους Πρώην Υπαλλήλους του Δημοσίου και του Ευρύτερου Δημόσιου Τομέα (Τροποποιητικός) Νόμος του 2022», (ο υπό Αναφορά Νόμος) είναι αντίθετος και ασύμφωνος με τα ΄Αρθρα 61, 158.3 και 179 του Συντάγματος, το ΄Αρθρο 19, παράγραφο 1, δεύτερο εδάφιο, της Συνθήκης της Ευρωπαϊκής ΄Ενωσης (ΣΕΕ), του ΄Αρθρου 47 του Χάρτη των Θεμελιωδών Δικαιωμάτων της Ευρωπαϊκής ΄Ενωσης (ο Χάρτης) και με την Αρχή της Διάκρισης των Εξουσιών, η οποία απορρέει από το Σύνταγμα.
Όταν στη Πολωνία επιχειρήθηκε να μεταβληθεί το όριο ηλικίας συνταξιοδοτήσεως των Δικαστών του Ανωτάτου Δικαστηρίου - όχι μόνο με μείωση του χρόνου, αλλά και με το συσχετισμό της δυνατότητας ενός Δικαστή να συνεχίζει την εργασία του με τη συγκατάθεση του Προέδρου της χώρας - η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή ζήτησε από το ΔΕΕ να διαπιστώσει κατά πόσο υπήρξε παραβίαση της Συνθήκης και του Χάρτη. Αποφασίστηκε πως υπήρξε παραβίαση. Πρόκειται για την απόφαση ημερομηνίας 24.6.2019, Ευρωπαϊκή Eπιτροπή ν. Πολωνίας, C-619/18.
Ακριβώς, το επίμαχο ΄Αρθρο, ομού με τα λοιπά εκ της Συνθήκης και του Χάρτη, καθώς και η καλώς εδραιωμένη αρχή της διάκρισης των εξουσιών, καθιερώνουν απαγόρευση δυσμενούς μεταβολής όρων υπηρεσίας Δικαστών, μετά το διορισμό τους - όπως κατ΄αναλογίαν «η ρήτρα απαγόρευσης μείωσης της αντιμισθίας» "compensation clause", του αμερικάνικου δικαστικού συστήματος - ώστε να διασφαλίζουν την ανεξαρτησία των Δικαστών από οποιεσδήποτε παρεμβάσεις τέτοιας μορφής είτε της εκτελεστικής είτε της νομοθετικής εξουσίας.
Ενόψει των προαναφερομένων, γνωματεύουμε ότι ο υπό Αναφορά Νόμος δεν είναι αντίθετος ή ασύμφωνος με τα προαναφερόμενα Άρθρα του Συντάγματος ή της Συνθήκης ή του Χάρτη ή την αρχή της Διάκρισης των Εξουσιών, όπως ετέθη. Συνεπώς, δύναται να εκδοθεί.
