Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
Key facts of the case:
B.M. was charged with having deceitfully led K.J. into sexual intercourse by putting her in a state of defencelessness and using violence against her, i.e. an offence under Article 197(1) of the Penal Code (rape). On 12 October 2020, the court of the first instance found the defendant guilty of the above criminal offence and imposed on him a sentence of 2 years and 11 months' imprisonment. The defendant appealed. On 27 May 2022, the second instance court acquitted the defendant of the charge. The public prosecutor and the victim filed an appeal in cassation before the Supreme Court.
The victim alleged a violation of Article 439(1)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure complaining about the composition of the second-instance court, as it included a judge delegated from the (lower) district court to the (higher) regional court. Article 439(1)(2) provides for one of the so-called absolute grounds of appeal, which are the most serious violations of the rules of criminal procedure and, as a rule, result in the judgment being annulled. The applicant requested that the contested judgment be set aside in its entirety and that the case be referred back to the court of second instance for re-examination.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The Supreme Court had to assess whether the applicant’s complaint that the composition of the second-instance court included a judge delegated to a higher court could constitute an unduly composition of that court and thus a violation of a party's right to an independent and impartial court, guaranteed inter alia by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Outcome of the case:
The Supreme Court noted that under the CJEU judgment of 16 November 2021 it had beenobliged to examine the independence and impartiality of the judges delegated by the decision of the Minister of Justice to the higher courts, considering Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The applicant's allegation was therefore, in principle, relevant from the point of view of the systemic problem of the independence and impartiality of judges appointed in Poland in recent years, as indicated by numerous decisions of the European courts. However, the Supreme Court pointed out that the assessment had to always be based on circumstances which, in conjunction with the fact of such delegation, call into question the independence and impartiality of the judge.
As the appeal in cassation did not contain any specific allegations indicating a breach of independence, or impartiality, on the part of this judge and related to the fact that he was delegated to adjudicate in a higher court, the plea concerning Article 47 of the Charter had not been upheld.
However, the Supreme Court upheld other pleas raised by the applicant and set aside the contested judgment of the second-instance court and referred the case back to it for reconsideration.
On the other hand, the third plea from the appeal in cassation of the subsidiary prosecutor related to the adjudication of the delegated judge in the composition of the Court of Appeal is unfounded. It unquestionably points to an issue affected by a systemic problem in our country - in the light of European jurisprudence. However, it cannot be assumed in advance that every composition of the court in which a delegated judge sits is unduly staffed within the meaning of Article 439(1)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Referring to the content of the judgment of the CJEU of 16 November 2021 in relation to judgments that are final after that date, it should be stated that the Supreme Court is clearly bound by that judgment and is thus obliged to examine the implementation of the right to an impartial and independent court taking into account the position contained in the above-mentioned judgment of the CJEU. Consequently, by virtue of this judgment, the Supreme Court is entitled, for the purpose of proper implementation of the parties' guarantee to an impartial and independent court within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to examine and determine, at the request of a party to the proceedings, the existence or lack of impartiality and independence of a judge adjudicating in a higher court on the basis of a delegation issued by the Minister of Justice. In particular, the assessment is subject to the circumstance - the existence or absence of guarantees of independence and impartiality of adjudication in the case. However, there must be circumstances which, in conjunction with the fact of such a delegation, undermine the judge's independence and impartiality. Indeed, the stability of judgments and the need to respect them are also values of particular force, serving the administration of justice itself and the society for which they exist, protected by national law and the law of the European Union (see, inter alia, the decision of the Supreme Court of 23 June 2022 in case IV KK 164/22). In the meantime, the cassation does not contain any specific allegations indicating a breach of independence, or impartiality, on the part of this judge and related to the fact of his delegation to adjudicate in a higher court.
Niezasadny natomiast jest zarzut 3 z kasacji oskarżycielki posiłkowej związany z orzekaniem w składzie Sądu Odwoławczego sędziego delegowanego. Bezsprzecznie wskazuje on na kwestię dotkniętą w naszym kraju problemem systemowym - w świetle orzecznictwa europejskiego. Jednak nie można przyjmować a priori, że każdy skład sądu, w którym zasiada sędzia delegowany, jest nienależycie obsadzony w rozumieniu art. 439 § 1 pkt 2 k.p.k. Odnosząc się do treści wyroku Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej z dnia 16 listopada 2021 r. w relacji do orzeczeń prawomocnych po tej dacie, stwierdzić należy, że Sąd Najwyższy jest w sposób oczywisty związany tym orzeczeniem i ma tym samym obowiązek badać realizację prawa do bezstronnego i niezawisłego sądu z uwzględnieniem stanowiska zawartego w ww. wyroku TSUE. W konsekwencji mocą tego wyroku Sąd Najwyższy uprawniony jest w celu prawidłowej realizacji gwarancji stron do bezstronnego i niezawisłego sądu w rozumieniu art. 47 Karty Praw Podstawowych dokonać na żądanie strony postępowania badania i stwierdzenia istnienia albo braku bezstronności i niezawisłości sędziego orzekającego w sądzie wyższej instancji na podstawie delegacji wydanej przez Ministra Sprawiedliwości. Ocenie podlega zwłaszcza okoliczność - istnienia albo braku gwarancji niezawisłości i bezstronności orzekania w tej sprawie. Istnieć muszą jednak okoliczności, które w powiązaniu z faktem takiej delegacji podważają niezawisłość i bezstronność sędziego. Stabilność orzeczeń i potrzeba ich poszanowania są bowiem również wartościami o szczególnej mocy, służącymi samemu wymiarowi sprawiedliwości i społeczeństwu dla którego istnieją, chronionymi prawem krajowym oraz prawem Unii Europejskiej (vide m.in. postanowienie Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 23 czerwca 2022 r. w sprawie IV KK 164/22). Kasacja nie zawiera tymczasem jakichkolwiek konkretnych zarzutów wskazujących na naruszenie niezawisłości, czy bezstronności, ze strony tego sędziego, a związanych z faktem jego delegowania do orzekania w sądzie wyższej instancji