{"id":339843,"date":"2020-06-25T12:43:35","date_gmt":"2020-06-25T10:43:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courtwatch.pl\/?page_id=339671"},"modified":"2020-06-25T12:43:35","modified_gmt":"2020-06-25T10:43:35","slug":"results-monitoring-compliance-rules-transparency-in-orchards","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/courtwatch.pl\/en\/engage-sie\/sign-list-open\/results-monitoring-compliance-rules-transparency-in-orchards\/","title":{"rendered":"Results of monitoring compliance with the principle of publicity in the courts"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed-youtube aligncenter wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Prezentacja wynik\u00f3w monitoringu przestrzegania zasady jawno\u015bci w s\u0105dach (czerwiec 2020)\" width=\"500\" height=\"281\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/cgWSXsLhR4c?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe>\n<\/div><figcaption>Watch a presentation of the monitoring results with a discussion<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>In the first half of June, a team of researchers and volunteers of the Court Watch Poland Foundation examined the executive orders of 370 courts containing guidelines for the organization of the court&#39;s work and information on the websites of the courts intended for the interests of the public. The practice of exercising the right to a public trial has also been tested in selected 30 courts through the visit of an observer of the Foundation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3>Key findings<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The vast majority of court presidents (94% or 370 out of 392) issued orders amending the rules on access to court buildings. If we take into account only the courts in which these orders were issued, more than 93% of them (345 out of 370) have introduced rules that make it difficult or impossible to participate in the hearing as an audience. Almost 56% (206) contain records limiting the public&#39;s access to the courtroom (e.g. by introducing the need for an entrance card or the consent of the President of the Court), and nearly 38% (139) were completely prohibited from attending the hearing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n[fcwp-map type=&#8221;courts-opennes&#8221;]\n\n\n\n<p>The results of visits to 30 courts have shown that, in practice, access to the public may also be impossible in courts where it is provided for or orders are silent on restrictions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote\"><p><em>Although the obstacles to public access do not affect all courts, due to the prevalence of this phenomenon and support from the Ministry of Justice, we can now talk not only about the threat, but about the syst<strong>emic violation of the right to a public trial <\/strong>in Poland. <\/em><\/p><cite>Bartosz Pilitowski &#8211; President of the Court Watch Poland Foundation, co-author of the report<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<h3>Consequences of non-disclosure<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>From a legal point of view, the examination of cases in which the court has not excluded publicity, behind closed doors and the absence of a public publication of a judgment, are incompatible with the standards of the right to a court and a fair trial under not only Article 104 TFEU. Article 45 of the Polish Constitution, but also article 45 of the Polish Constitution, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 104 of the Treaty establishing the European Community 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Failure to publicly publish a judgment may also result in it being declared <strong>non-existence<\/strong>d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Last but not least<\/em> from the point of view of citizens&#39; interests restricting public and media access to the courts prevents the exercise of social control of public authority in the area of justice. It may also adversely affect the level of confidence of the parties and the public in the impartiality and fairness of decisions given by the courts in the context of a breach of one of the fundamental principles of judicial proceedings, i.e. the principle of judicial proceedings. principle of publicity. Furthermore, the continued disregard of the principle of the public process may affect the social assessment of the attachment of the judiciary to citizens&#39; rights and thus undermine the generalised trust in it in society. This is therefore a negative situation from many points of view and must be counteracted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3>Courts where restrictions have been introduced<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-text-align-left\">Hover over the chart bar to see a list of courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n[fcwp-map type=&#8221;courts-opennes-apps&#8221;]\n\n\n\n<h3>Selected case-law on the disclosure of the trial and the public publication of the judgment<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote\"><p>It is the duty of the State that the hearing be public regardless of whether the parties so wish. Both national legislation and judicial practice must provide for the possibility of the participation of members of the public as long as they so wish.<\/p><cite>Human Rights Committee, opinion on van Meurs vs. Netherlands CCPR\/C\/39\/D\/215\/1986<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote\"><p>If there has been no &#39;public reading&#39;, it can be assumed that the judgment was not delivered or at least that the announcement was made incorrectly, which was flawed. The judgment becomes binding not when it is drawn up in writing or even signed by the panel, but when it is announced (it binds as it was announced). Failure to publish a judgment or an equivalent declaration incorrectly constitute the most serious infringements of the law.<\/p><cite>Court of Appeal, Gdansk, order of 9 June 1999. in Case II AKo 113\/99 <\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote\"><p>A judgment to be announced and not announced is a judgment which does not exist in the legal sense.  [&#8230;]The purpose of the judgment is to inform the parties, the other parties to the proceedings and all interested parties to the outcome of the judgment. Failure to declare not only means that this objective has not been fulfilled, but also constitutes a breach of the principle of openness of the proceedings, which requires that, even when the sitting has been held closed, a decision terminating the case is made public (Article 13(1)). 9 and 154 \u00a7 2 k.p.c.). <\/p><cite> Supreme Court, order of 17 November 2005 in Case I CK 298\/05<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<h3>Download the full report:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large no-color\"><a href=\"https:\/\/courtwatch.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/FCWP-Monitoring-jawno%C5%9Bci-2020-06-25.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><img loading=\"lazy\" width=\"589\" height=\"833\" src=\"https:\/\/courtwatch.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/Ok\u0142adka_raport_monitoring_jawno\u015bci.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-339675\" srcset=\"https:\/\/courtwatch.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/Ok\u0142adka_raport_monitoring_jawno\u015bci.png 589w, https:\/\/courtwatch.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/Ok\u0142adka_raport_monitoring_jawno\u015bci-212x300.png 212w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 589px) 100vw, 589px\" \/><\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Direct link to report: http<a href=\"https:\/\/courtwatch.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/FCWP-Monitoring-jawno%C5%9Bci-2020-06-25.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"https:\/\/courtwatch.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/FCWP-Monitoring-jawno%C5%9Bci-2020-06-25.pdf (otwiera si\u0119 na nowej zak\u0142adce)\">s:\/\/courtwatch.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/FCWP-Monitoring-jawno%C5%9Bci-2020-06-25.Pdf<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In the first half of June, a team of researchers and volunteers of the Court Watch Poland Foundation examined the executive orders of 370 courts containing guidelines for the organization of the court&#39;s work and information on the websites of the courts intended for the interests of the public. The practice of exercising the right [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"parent":339842,"menu_order":43,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/courtwatch.pl\/api\/wp\/v2\/pages\/339843"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/courtwatch.pl\/api\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/courtwatch.pl\/api\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courtwatch.pl\/api\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courtwatch.pl\/api\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=339843"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/courtwatch.pl\/api\/wp\/v2\/pages\/339843\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courtwatch.pl\/api\/wp\/v2\/pages\/339842"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/courtwatch.pl\/api\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=339843"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}