Supreme Administrative Court: Retaliation against Polish and International Law - Complaint filed by the CHR, among others. Supreme Administrative Court confirms CHR's legitimacy
Date:
The Public Prosecutor's Office has questioned the right of the Commissioner for Human Rights (CHR) to file a complaint with the Administrative Court in a case where the Court had previously dismissed a complaint filed by another party in which the CHR had intervened. The Public Prosecutor's Office filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court against the judgments of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Białystok of 15 September 2022 concerning pushbacks (the practice of turning away foreigners at the border), requesting the dismissal of the CHR complaints on which these judgments were based. At the time, the Voivodeship Administrative Court fully supported the CHR's allegations and ruled that the practice of turning away foreigners at the border was ineffective, recognising that pushbacks are contrary to Polish and international law. The CHR disagrees with the prosecutor's position and requests that its appeals be dismissed.
On 9 January 2024, the Supreme Administrative Court rejected three cassation appeals filed by the Prosecutor's Office (case no. II OSK 2749/22), which questioned the legitimacy of the CHR to file a complaint in the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Administrative Court sided with the CHR and the Voivodeship Administrative Court, stating that the CHR's complaint was admissible. The Supreme Administrative Court has now provided the written reasons for the judgement.
In response to the Prosecutor's appeal in cassation, the Commissioner for Human Rights points out that accepting the interpretation that the CHR - by intervening in a case already pending before the Administrative Court, in which it had been involved - had "consumed" the possibility of filing an independent complaint, would contradict the institutional position of the CHR and deprive it of the ability to exercise its constitutional powers.
Background to the case: This is a case concerning the return of a group of foreigners to the border, in which the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Białystok issued judgments on 15 September 2022, agreeing with the CHR's arguments and ruling that pushbacks are contrary to Polish and international law.
Earlier, in the same case, the foreigners themselves had filed a complaint against the actions of the Commander of the Border Guard Station in Michałowo regarding their return to the state border, and the CHR had intervened in the proceedings. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Białystok dismissed the case on 17 March, stating that the foreigners had effectively withdrawn their power of attorney and the complaint itself.
The CHR therefore filed three independent complaints with the Voivodeship Administrative Court, based on allegations it had previously raised in the case, but which the court did not address because it had dismissed the case. The CHR requested a declaration of the invalidity of the measures relating to the return of foreigners.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Białystok, in its judgments of 15 September 2002, supported the position of the CHR and declared the ineffectiveness of the return of the group of foreigners to the state border. It recognised that the pushbacks carried out by the BG were contrary to Polish and international law.
Prosecutor's appeal in cassation: The Public Prosecutor's Office filed three cassation appeals with the Supreme Administrative Court against these judgments, claiming that the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Białystok "wrongly assumed that the CHR's complaint was legitimate and possible in the circumstances of the case". The Prosecutor's Office argued that the CHR could not file a cassation appeal in a case where the court had previously dismissed another person's complaint in which the CHR had intervened. The Prosecutor's Office also questioned the Voivodeship Administrative Court's argument that EU law could apply to the BG's pushbacks. The Prosecutor's Office requested that the CHR's complaints be dismissed.
In response to the cassation appeals, the CHR points out that to accept the interpretation that the CHR - by intervening in a case already pending before the Administrative Court in which it had participated - had "consumed" the possibility of filing an independent complaint would be contrary to the institutional position of the CHR and would deprive it of the ability to exercise its constitutional powers. The CHR points out that Article 113(2) of the CHR Act does not limit the competence of the CHR to file an independent complaint in such a situation.
