On 13 January 2016, exactly three years ago today, the Commission activated the so-called rule of law framework for the very first time with respect to Poland. As things stand today, Polish authorities’ sustained and systematic attacks on the rule of law now more than ever directly threaten the very functioning of the EU legal order.
Continue Reading →The forced retirement of Polish Supreme Court judges has been reversed by the Polish legislator. Should the EU Commission and the Court of Justice now end their infringement procedure against Poland, too? There are several reasons why they should not.
Continue Reading →The cause for concern is not that violators of the rule of law are strategic political actors or that they are disingenuous. Rather, the real problem is the unspoken premise on the basis of which defenders of the rule of law are more and more inclined to accept these developments as the very features of the EU’s rule of law safeguards. This acceptance is based on the flawed premise that so long as a procedure is in place one cannot really do more to defend the rule of law.
Continue Reading →On August 2nd 2018, the Polish Supreme Court has referred questions to the European Court of Justice about whether or not the forced retirement of most of its senior judges and other infringements of judicial independence are compatible with EU law. That decision is a landmark step in the serious constitutional crisis in Poland that has been going on for several years. One issue is of fundamental importance: Is the SC’s preliminary reference to the CJEU admissible?
Continue Reading →The current controversies on the Polish Supreme Court resemble the conflict over the Constitutional Tribunal in 2015-216 to some extent. However, the Supreme Court took new steps on August 2, when it referred five questions to the Court of Justice of the EU and requested a preliminary ruling. All five questions relate (more or less directly) to the principles of (1) independence of the courts and (2) the judicial independence under the circumstances of the rule of law crisis in Poland and thus have a potential of becoming a key aspect in the Polish rule of law crisis.
Continue Reading →These days mark the capture of the second-last central institution not yet fully under the control of the Polish Law and Justice party, namely, the Supreme Court (the last remaining one being the Ombudsman office). Having captured the Constitutional Tribunal, the National Council of Judiciary, electoral commissions, media regulation boards, prosecutorial offices and presidents of all local, regional and appellate courts, the illiberal revolution is eager to devour the highest court of the land.
Continue Reading →If the law on the Polish Supreme Court enters into force in the beginning of July, as is currently planned, a large number of sitting judges of that Court will see their tenure unconstitutionally extinguished. In combination with an increase in the number of seats on the Supreme Court, this means that the newly politicized National Council of the Judiciary, elected by the governing party, will be in a position to appoint a majority of the judges on the Supreme Court. 23 legal and constitutional scholars have signed an open letter to urge the Vice President of the EU Commission to initiate an infringement procedure against Poland.
Continue Reading →In the Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses judgment the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) deemed that on the basis of Article 19(1) TEU it is competent to evaluate the guarantee of independence of judges if only they sit in a national court that may apply and interpret EU law. In light of this ruling, the European Commission in the infringement proceedings against Poland does not have to restrict itself to the slightly modified “Hungarian scenario” (hitherto preferred by it). It may instead once again analyse the scope of charges with regard to the Common Courts System Act (the CCS Act), and may even lodge a new complaint concerning i.a. the Act on the Supreme Court.
Continue Reading →The story of Judge Stanisław Zabłocki of the Supreme Court, told by Ombudsman Adam Bodnar – a cenotaph to judicial indepenence in the Republic of Poland.
Continue Reading →Were the president of any country to propose acts of law that remove almost half of the members of its supreme court, interrupt the constitutional term of office of the chairperson of such court, give himself the right to appoint a new chairperson of the court, and finally, interrupt the constitutionally defined term of office of a judicial council responsible for appointing judges, the consequences of such manifestly unconstitutional solutions would be massive public opposition and accusations of a coup d’état. And yet in Poland, where this is exactly what is happening, the President’s proposals are met with understanding. Why? Because they are perceived as better than the even more unconstitutional proposals put forward earlier by the ruling party, Law and Justice.
Continue Reading →