Structure of justice in Poland

Independent judicial authority is one from the foundations of the democratic rule of law. The judicial authority is one of three types of power – alongside the legislative and executive authority – in Montescius's system of three divisions of power[1]. The independence of courts and the independence of judges are based on a whole range of legal guarantees, both in the Polish Constitution 2 , As well as the ordinary laws.

According to the Constitution of the Republic of Poland: ‘The courts and courts are a separate and independent authority from other authorities’ 3 . This recipe is first Article of Chapter VIII of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, entitled ‘Courts and Courts’.

The location of this provision at the beginning of the chapter describing the structure of the judicial authority shows the intention of the constitutional legislature, who wanted to emphasize the importance and fundamental importance of the principle of the independence of courts and the independence of judges. For this reason Article 173 may be regarded as a reference on disputed matters.

The principle of the independence of courts and the independence of judges is explicitly expressed under Article 178 Constitution of the Republic of Poland. Under this provision, ‘Judges in the exercise of their office are independent and subject only to the Constitution and laws’ 4 . The content of this article emphasizes that any emphasis on the judge investigating the case is prohibited.

Furthermore, judges must not be guided by factors such as the opinion of a majority of the public or the views of any political party. They should also be as far away as possible from media communications as they can because they are guided by social emotions (i.e. acting in such a way as to be in line with prevailing social opinions) would be a denial of judicial independence.

Principle expressed under Article 178 The Constitution provides that judges shall make a binding interpretation of the law themselves, without succumbing to any external pressure.

At the same time, it should be pointed out that the principles of the independence of courts and the independence of judges are not identical, but are nevertheless strongly linked.

The independence of judges concerns individual persons who, in ruling, follow their own experience, knowledge and principles of logic without external pressure.

The independence of the courts in turn means the separation of organizational courts from other centres of power, so that courts are independent in reality and not merely theoretically. For this reason, the court cannot be organised, e.g. with the Sejm or the Council of Ministers.

The reference to the principle of the independence of the courts and the independence of the judges was expressed, albeit not explicitly, in the preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, which states: "in the desire to guarantee civil rights forever and to ensure the integrity and efficiency of public institutions (...)" 5 .

The civil rights mentioned in the passage cited above can only be effectively protected in a democratic legal state where courts are independent. The lack of independence of courts and the independence of judges makes the laws of a given country (or the constitution of that country) full of appeals to human rights, which function only on paper and not realistically.

Courts must be able to effectively protect the freedom and dignity of an individual from abuse of power. Such capacity shall not exist where the judicial authority is dependent on the legislative or executive authority. The independence of courts and the independence of judges is a kind of litmus paper that demonstrates the quality of democracy in a given country.

The principle of a democratic rule of law guaranteed in the Constitution of the Republic of Poland means not only the need to organise free elections at certain intervals. For this principle also means certain minimum standards which must be met by the State authorities. one of such standards is the principle of the independence of courts and the independence of judges. In other words, if courts cease to be independent, the democratic state of law ends.

In accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland: “The Supreme Court, universal courts, administrative courts and military courts” 6 . It follows from this that the concept of "the judiciary" does not cover tribunals, i.e. Constitutional Court and Court of State[7]. The Constitutional Court and the Court of State fall within the meaning of the term "judicial authority", but do not fall within the meaning of the term "judgment".

Article 175(1) The Constitution of the Republic of Poland at the same time indicates that the judiciary can be divided into four categories:

• • The Supreme Court,
• • common courts,
• • administrative courts,
• • Military courts.

The last of these categories, i.e. Military courts concern a narrow group of people. Given three other categories (High Court, Universal Courts, Administrative Courts) can be distinguished two Members of the judiciary.

first These are the Provincial Administrative Courts and the Supreme Administrative Court, which form the structure of the administrative judiciary. Administrative courts shall examine certain categories of cases, such as tax cases.

The subject of an appeal before an administrative court may be an act of power directed to the party. An administrative decision is a classic example of a legal act to be brought before an administrative court.

At the same time, it should be noted that the activities of the administrative judiciary are in principle cassatory rather than reformatory. This means that the court repeals the administrative decision (but does not change it from the substantive side) and transmits it for review by the relevant authorities.

The authority which is examining the case is again bound by an interpretation made by the administrative court, i.e. it cannot accept a legal assessment which would be contrary to an interpretation made by the administrative court.

second the seat of the judiciary (aside from administrative courts) are common courts (regional courts, district courts, appeals courts) and the Supreme Court. We're dealing with a four-step hierarchy here. The lowest are the regional courts that recognize most cases as courts first instances. The following are the district courts, which consider remedies against decisions of the district courts. The county courts also act as courts first instances in some cases.

Higher than district courts are in this hierarchy of appeal courts* 8 , which examine remedies against decisions of district courts. On the other hand, at the very top is the Supreme Court, which examines remedies (cancellation) against final decisions of ordinary courts. The Supreme Court may also adopt resolutions clarifying legal doubts. Such resolutions are not a source of law, but have a profound effect on the case law of the courts.

The Role of Precedents

Precedent is a concept which means that a given court is bound by the legal view of another court in another case. Thus understood precedents occur in countries referred to as common law.

In common law countries, e.g. in the US, the court examining the case is formally bound by a higher-level court view expressed when examining another case. This makes it possible to talk about the law-making activities of the courts in these countries, i.e. the legal view of the court may take on the power which is comparable to the law.

In the civil law countries (continental Europe) precedents have no binding force. This means that, for example, the regional court is not bound by the legal view expressed by the composition of the ruling higher court. Lack of formal binding does not mean that decisions of the courts do not affect each other.

In practice, it is difficult to expect that, for example, a district court will take the opposite view of the appeal court in another case. From this point of view, attention should be paid to the particular importance of the Supreme Court resolutions on specific legal issues.

Tax rulings

Tax cases can be dealt with by courts, but the procedure has its specificity and a number of distinctities. Above all, tax matters are dealt with by administrative courts, not by common courts. For this reason, the administrative proceedings in tax cases are two-instant (voivode administrative courts – hereinafter WSA and Supreme Administrative Court – hereinafter NSA).

At the same time, it should be taken into account that an application to an administrative court is only available after the remedies before tax authorities have been exhausted. one the tax case may be considered for four levels – first two instances before tax authorities and then before WSA and NSA.

The specific structure of tax law, namely the interpretations of individual tax laws, also needs to be highlighted. The taxpayer may request an interpretation which is binding only on a specific case described in the request for interpretation. If the taxpayer disagrees with the assessment of the body, he may challenge the interpretation to the administrative court which is competent to revoke it.

A separate issue is the possibility for the Constitutional Court (CC) to issue judgments. An example is the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal on the amount free of income tax[9]. The Ombudsman then challenged a regulation laying down a tax-free amount.

The Constitutional Court ruled that the amount 556 PLN is too low and does not meet the poverty threshold[10]. For this reason, it was considered that the regulation was incompatible with the Constitution of Poland.

Tax rulings belong to both the judiciary and the state authorities outside the structures of the judiciary. This specific structure is determined, among others, by the massity of tax matters in legal trade.

Summary

The independence of courts is guaranteed by a number of constitutional principles. Judges shall be required to rule without following suggestions from politicians or public opinion. The justice system must be organisationally separate from other centres of power. Administrative courts in Poland are a separate unit within the justice system

__________________

1 L. Garlicki, Polish Constitutional Law. Summary of the lecture, Warsaw 2001, p. 351. 2 Constitution of the Republic of Poland from 2 April 1997, Journal of Laws of 1997, item 483. [3] Ibid. Article 173. [4] Ibid. Article 178(1). [5] Ibid. The preamble. [6] Ibid. Article 175. section 1. 7 L. Garlicki, Polish Constitutional Law..., op.

cit., p. 373. [8] Ibid. p. 354. 9 Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 28 October 2015, reference no. K 21/14, https://www.rpo.gov.pl/pl/content/wyroki-trybunalu-konstytucyjnego-ktore-wplynely-na-zycie-obywateli [10] Ibid.