On March 26, the CJEU released a surprising – if not to say disappointing – judgment on the Polish system of disciplinary measures against judges. While the Court confirmed the ample material scope of Article 19(1)(2) TEU, it simultaneously restricted the procedural possibilities to remedy infringements via the preliminary reference procedure.
Continue Reading →On March 11, 2020, Ukraine’s Constitutional Court issued a decision dealing with the judicial reform of President Volodymyr Zelensky. The Court cooled down the reformist zeal of the presidential office by proclaiming major changes to the legislation on the judiciary unconstitutional. The Court’s decision strengthens judicial independence in Ukraine which is tainted with the legacy of politicization of past presidencies.
Continue Reading →In Poland, the Law and Justice (PiS) government has opted not to use its constitutional power to declare a state of emergency due to the COVID-19 spreading. As Wojciech Sadurski explained, its motive is simple: not to postpone the Presidential election in Poland and thus increase the chances of the President-in-Office to win the second term. The question is whether the pandemic may cause invalidity of the election. If the answer is yes, as I suggest, the problem is who should be the judge of it. The chamber of the Polish Supreme Court that is empowered by law to do so does not give an ‘appearance of independence’, following the PiS’s so-called ‘reform’ of the judiciary.
Continue Reading →9 March 2020. It had been marked in many a Polish diary. Would the EU make steps to finally act to stop the backliding? The electronic board in front of the Grande Salle indicates Case C-791/19 R, Commission versus Poland. A report from Luxembourg.
Continue Reading →The current procrastination is akin to dereliction of duty: Waiting to bring infringement actions and to fail to simultaneously seek interim measures when the rule of law in a Member State is so obviously and blatantly deteriorating on an industrial scale only means that the Commission faces a far more serious and intractable problem to deal with later.
Continue Reading →Art 88 a of Poland’s so-called "muzzle law" law prescribes that judges must disclose their membership in associations, their functions performed in non-profit foundations and membership in parties before they became judges. The provision applies to memberships in all kinds of associations, including associations of judges. In this form, the provision violates the European Convention of Human Rights as well as the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Continue Reading →The so-called “muzzle law”, adopted by the Polish parliament on January 23, was the last straw. On Thursday 27 February, the board of the Norwegian Court Administration decided to withdraw from its planned cooperation with Poland under the justice programme of the EEA and Norway Grants, due to concerns over the Polish justice reforms.
Continue Reading →The Polish judiciary is split apart. One part adheres to the ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU of 19th November 2019, another does not. This legal chaos and catastrophe was caused by the recent judicial reforms and it deprives citizens of the most important right – to be certain what their legal situation in court is.
Continue Reading →A few days ago the suggestion was made that a draft law is in the making in the Netherlands to prevent Dutch judges from ruling on politically sensitive issues. Should we worry about this? I think not.
Continue Reading →Prof. Koen Lenaerts, President of the Court of Justice of the European Union, explains why mutual trust and judicial independence are of fundamental importance to the EU Member States.
Continue Reading →