The lack of the possibility of appealing against a court’s decision which deprives an injured person of his/her status as a litigant SK 5/16
On 3 October 2018 at 9.30 a.m., the Constitutional Tribunal publicly delivered its judgment concerning a constitutional complaint filed with regard to the deprivation of an injured person of his/her right to appeal against a court’s decision which takes away the injured person’s status as a subsidiary prosecutor acting beside a public prosecutor in a criminal trial.
The Constitutional Tribunal adjudicated that Article 56(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code of 6 June 1997 – in the version that was binding until 30 June 2015, i.e. until the day preceding the entry into force of Article 1(13) of the Act of 27 September 2013 amending the Criminal Procedure Code and certain other acts, insofar as it rules out the admissibility of appealing against a decision issued on the basis of Article 56(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code with regard to a subsidiary prosecutor acting beside a public prosecutor – is inconsistent with Article 78 in conjunction with Article 31(3) of the Constitution.
As to the remainder, the Tribunal discontinued the proceedings.
The ruling was unanimous.
The judgment in the present case is the second ruling issued by the Constitutional Tribunal with regard to the constitutionality of Article 56(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In its judgment of 16 May 2018, ref. no. K 12/15 (OTK ZU A/2018, item 29), the Tribunal held that: “Article 56(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code of 6 June 1997 (Journal of Laws – Dz. U. of 2017, item 1904, as amended) – insofar as it rules out the admissibility of appealing against a decision issued on the basis of Article 56(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code with regard to a subsidiary prosecutor – is inconsistent with Article 78 in conjunction with Article 31(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland”. As it follows from the judgment’s operative part and its statement of reasons, the subject of adjudication was Article 56(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code in the version that was binding from 1 July 2015.
The Tribunal’s judgment ref. no. K 12/15 questioned the constitutionality of the legal norm which bars an interested person from recourse to an appeal against a judicial decision on that person’s status as a subsidiary prosecutor in criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, the said ruling concerns the wording of Article 56(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code that is currently in force. For that reason, in the present case, the adjudicating bench deemed that it was appropriate to issue a ruling with reference to Article 56(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code in the version that was binding until 30 June 2015.
Maintaining the stance adopted in the statement of reasons for the judgment ref. no. K 12/15, the Tribunal stated that, although the ruling out of appeals against decisions issued on the basis of Article 56(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code might be regarded as useful for the sake of effectiveness, efficiency and expedition of criminal proceedings, i.e. for the sake of values that constitute components of the public order referred to in Article 31(3) of the Constitution, it does not meet the requirement of necessity (indispensability). A criminal court’s interference with the right of a subsidiary prosecutor, acting beside a public prosecutor, to participate in court proceedings – carried out on the basis of Article 56(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and unappealable pursuant to Article 56(3) of the said Code – is thorough and definitive in character. As a result of a competent court’s decision, a subsidiary prosecutor may not participate in criminal proceedings before a court, loses his/her status as a subsidiary prosecutor acting beside a public prosecutor and all the rights related to that status. The risk that a subsidiary prosecutor, acting beside a public prosecutor, will be deprived of the possibility of participating in criminal proceedings is aggravated by the lack of recourse to an appeal against a decision on that matter, without being balanced out by any other mechanism. An injured person’s attainment and maintenance of the status of a party to a criminal trial are of fundamental significance, in view of the rights related to the said status. Thus, a situation where the injured person is deprived of his/her right to appeal against a court’s decision which takes away his/her status as a subsidiary prosecutor acting beside a public prosecutor (as well as his/her status as an injured party, which automatically leads to the loss of the status of a subsidiary prosecutor acting beside a public prosecutor) substantially restricts the protection of the said person’s rights and interests in a criminal trial.
The Presiding Judge of the adjudicating bench was Judge Piotr Pszczółkowski, and the Judge Rapporteur was Judge Andrzej Zielonacki.