The Polish "muzzle" law, violation of EU primacy, independence, impartiality and private life of judges (original) (raw)
Related papers
Judiciary Saga in Poland: An Affair Torn between European Standards and ECtHR Criteria
9 Polish Rev. Int'l & Eur. L. 39 (2020) , 2020
Judicial independence is a cornerstone of contemporary constitutional systems within European legal orders that Poland, among many other European States, codified the principle at a constitutional level through Article 173 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. Nonetheless, the concrete implementation of the theoretical framework remains a bone of contention between the national States and the main international actors. The latter faction, based on the acknowledgement that no single political model could ideally comply with the principle of the separation of powers and secure complete independence of the judiciary, has developed an impressive number of legal tools that are part of a more diffuse European trend of interpretation, which should be labelled as European standard or European corpus aiming at preserving the judiciary order from outward interferences by the legislative and executive powers. In Poland, after the extensive victory earned by the Law and Justice (PIS) party in the Parliamentary election of 2015, the executive branch propelled a series of interlock reforms with the aim of reshuffling the whole judicial asset of the country. In the first place, the way forward was marked by a compound diatribe concerning the Constitutional Tribunal, and the essence of the dispute concerned the mandate’s legitimacy of three sitting judges after the Court’s reinterpretation of the K 34/15 ruling that ended up on 2.12.2015 with the election of five new judges appointed ex novo by the ruling party. Afterwards, the attention shifted towards the rethinking of the National Council of Judiciary (KRS), a mixed judicial body guardian of the independence of the judiciary, asserting, firstly, the unconstitutionality of its statute and, subsequently, planning a new method of appointment for the judicial members previously elected by the judiciary itself. Ultimately, as a closing step, the spotlight turned in the direction of the Supreme Courts judges, where the most spectacular sweep was the provision aimed at lowering the retirement age for the sitting judges on a scheme similar to the proposal made by the Hungarian government in 2011, where voices were raised, respectively, by the Hungarian Constitutional Court, the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, and where, regretfully, the judicial independence standard played a minor role in the Courts’ reasoning. This concluding phase convinced the Commission to launch an expedited procedure against Poland before the Court of Justice, thus forcing the Polish government to retracts previous law through the adoption of a repealing law on 17.12.2018; in any event, as predicted earlier by the Opinion delivered by the AG Tanchev in Case C-619/18, the ECJ epilogue released on 24.6.2019, dissimilar to the one reached in the Hungarian case, was the heaviest ‘contrariness to EU law’.
A revised version of this paper has been accepted by the Common Market Law review.
The ruling of the Court of Justice in the case Miasto Łowicz is one of the latest additions to a growing body of case-law of the Court regarding the protection of the independence of national courts and, more broadly, of the rule of law in Member States, in particular in Poland, one of the Member States of the European Union subject to what has been described as a “rule of law backsliding.” However, it is clearly not the most spectacular addition. In this case, the Court was called upon (one could even say “called for help”) by two Polish judges who feared that the recent developments in the Polish legislation regarding the disciplinary regime of judges constituted a threat to their independence. Faced with an issue of such constitutional importance for the integrated legal area that is the European Union, the Court replied somewhat underwhelmingly by finding the requests to be inadmissible. However, it is apparent in the ruling that, despite its finding of inadmissibility, the Court was aware of the importance of the question. Not only did the Court affirm its own jurisdiction on the matter, despite the inadmissibility of the request, but it also insisted, in a rather long obiter dictum, on the necessary independence that national courts must have when referring a matter to the Court for a preliminary ruling. In so doing, the Court issued a firm warning to Polish authorities regarding the disciplinary regime of judges in Poland, which also happens to be the object of a pending infringement procedure. When comparing the present ruling with previous preliminary rulings on the rule of law in Poland, a pattern seems to emerge, whereby the Court acknowledges, if only implicitly, the systemic deficiencies of the Polish system regarding the rule of law but finds itself unable (or unwilling) to make a clear determination. This may suggest that the Court’s preferred remedy for rule-of-law-related cases is the infringement procedure. This would, in turn, mean that national judges cannot call on the Court of Justice for help all by themselves.
The article deals with two main problems. The first concerns the interpretation of the concept of "court" within the meaning of the provisions of Art. 47 CFR and Art. 267 TFEU. The second part is devoted to the analysis of judgements of the Court of Justice regarding the reform of the Polish judicial system. It enables one to draw several conclusions. Firstly, the Court of Justice found that Poland had violated its Treaty obligations by introducing the provisions that determine the retirement age of judges and establish the procedure enabling the extension of active service by virtue of the discretion of the President of the Republic of Poland. Secondly, the Court of Justice analysed the concept of "court" from the perspective of Art. 19, para. 1, subpara. 2 TEU. It emphasised that these provisions obligate the Member States to establish a system of legal remedies and procedures ensuring effective judicial protection in areas covered by EU law. It also stressed that this concerns a body that can only potentially settle cases with an EU element. Thirdly, the Court of Justice clarified the concept of judicial independence in the context of irremovability of judges and judicial impartiality. It formulated a certain test of judicial independence that should be conducted by the referring court.
Hague Journal on the Rule of Law
The current crisis in the relationship between the Polish Constitutional Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) is of crucial significance for the process of regional integration based on the values of liberal democracy taking place in the EU. The constitutional crisis in Poland that began in the end of 2015 has challenged the systemic position of the Polish Constitutional Court. It resulted in a new model of constitutional adjudication, and in this new model the Constitutional Court, stripped of its counter-majoritarian power, cannot be perceived as the guardian of liberal democracy. This article postulates that the assessment of the present case law of the Polish Constitutional Court in European matters is made through the prism of the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence pre-2016 (i.e. before the constitutional crisis). Based on that assumption, the current reversal in the case law of the Polish Constitutional Court concerning the ECJ is analysed and assessed....
The position of the judge in Poland within the judicial system
2020
The purpose of the article is to present the fundamental rules and regulations constituting the position of the judge in Poland, which finds its basis first of all in the regulations of the basic law interpreted over the years by the Constitutional Court, but now – in the norms of international law. Moreover, the author included his thoughts on the issues of the legitimization of judicial power and its relationship with the legislative and the executive. He also referred to the ongoing discussions on the status of the National Council of the Judiciary as a constitutionally-established body, whose task is to guarantee the independence of courts and the independence of judges in Poland. Furthermore, the article discusses the procedure and criteria of appointing a candidate to the position of a judge to different levels of the judiciary. It also deals with the basic elements guaranteeing the effectiveness of the principles of the independence of the judiciary such as neutrality, irremo...
The “International” Rule of Law in the Polish Administrative Court’s Jurisprudence
Central European journal of comparative law, 2023
This study analyses the jurisprudence of Polish administrative courts, referring to the concept of the "international" rule of law, and thus, to the concept interpreted by the courts based on sources of law binding on Poland adopted at the supranational level (international agreements and law created by the European Union). The following jurisprudence issues emerge: 1) international and EU legal bases for the protection of the rule of law and the resulting meaning of this concept; 2) international versus national approach to the rule of law; 3) the rule of law-principle or value; 4) normative sources (national and supranational) of the general obligation of administrative courts to implement the international rule of law; 5) the order to implement it as an element determining the jurisdiction of administrative courts and the pattern of control exercised by these courts. In this context, it was stated, inter alia, that according to the jurisprudence of administrative courts, the 'international' rule of law primarily implies effective judicial protection of individual rights, guaranteed by independent courts, impartial and irremovable judges who have been duly appointed.
Challenges to the Rule of Law in the European Union: the distressing case of Poland
Revista do Instituto Brasileiro de Direitos Humanos, 2018
The article analyzes the developments of the rule of law in Poland over last three years and discusses the current and possible future reaction of the European Union to a worrisome situation in one of its member states. It focuses on several questions. What are the reforms in Poland? Can the legal system defend itself against changes which are inconsistent with the Constitution? If not, why it retreated and ceased to be self-sufficient in this regard? What mechanisms of securing EU principles can be activated? How are they interrelated? To what extent have they already been used? Are they sufficient? These and other questions are raised in the light of the current situation in Poland. In its major part, the paper characterizes the action taken, and especially the legislative measures adopted by the ruling parliamentary majority. These measures lead to the de facto change of the system, incompatible with the current Constitution and the principle of the rule of law. The second part analyzes the instruments available within EU law in the context of Poland's membership in this supranational organization. (The paper is an advanced copy of an article published in No. 17/18 (2017/2018) of the Revista do Instituto Brasileiro de Direitos Humanos / Journal of the Brazilian Institute of Human Rights)