Batory Foundation report: “Under siege. Why Polish courts matter for Europe and the case for infringement proceedings”

Share


In the report published on 20 March 2019 by the Stefan Batory Foundation in cooperation with the European Stability Initiative, the two organisations discuss the state of rule of law in Poland. The authors argue that the EU should use its most effective tool to defend the rule of law and lodge another complaint to the Court of Justice of the EU



The authors – Piotr Buras, John Dalhuisen, Gerald Knaus and Magdalena Milenkovska – argue that the EU should use its most effective tool to defend the rule of law and lodge another complaint to the Court of Justice of the EU.

 

According to the authors, the new complaint should concern the disciplinary regime used against judges – the suspicious role of the Minister of Justice and the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supereme Court, which was created by the government of Law and Justice (PiS).

 

Read the full report here and the executive summary below.

 

Executive summary

2018 marked a turning point for the rule of law in Europe. In a landmark verdict in February concerning a salary dispute of judges in Portugal the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Luxembourg established a fundamental principle: that, as the ultimate guardian of the rule of law across the EU, it has the obligation to ensure that all citizens of the union enjoy effective judicial protection in their national courts. Its verdict stressed that:

 

“every Member State must ensure that the bodies which, as ‘courts or tribunals’ within the meaning of EU law, come within its judicial system in the fields covered by that law, meet the requirements of effective judicial protection.”

 

For this reason, courts in member states need to be“protected against external interventions or pressure liable to impair the independent judgment of its members and to influence their decisions.”

 

This is no longer guaranteed in Poland today. Polish courts are under siege. A Polish judge given a sensitive case, either a business deal that involves prominent members of the governing party or a criminal case the Minister of Justice (who is also Prosecutor General) has strong views onis not “protected against external interventions or pressure liable to impair her independent judgment.”Polish ministers of justice, in this or any future government, can threaten, pressure and punish her. New disciplinary procedures make it all too easy.

 

In countries respectful of the rule of law the disciplinary system for judges is meant to uphold standards and prevent abuse. It does not do so in Poland. No other European democracy has a system like the Polish one. Nowhere else is there such a concentration of powers in the hands of one man. Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro is able to appoint mostindividualsinvolved in investigating, prosecuting and judging disciplinary charges against ordinary judges and can intervene in every case.

 

Recent years have shown that while many of the tools at the disposal of the European Commission are weakthe European Union is not defenceless when it comes to defending the rule of law. The experience of the European Commission successfully challenging the Polish law on the Supreme Court in 2018 before the Court of Justice of the European Union has shown this.

 

Today the European Commission has to take one more crucial step. It should launch another infringement procedure beforethe Court of Justice, with the aim to restore the independence of courts. These proceedings should focus on the new disciplinary regime for judges.

 

EU member states should voice their support for this overdue step. All political groups that care about the integrity of the rule of law in the European Union should support it. Now that Commission vice president Frans Timmermans has entered the European parliamentary campaign as a leading candidate it is even more important that the battle to defendthe rule of law is strongly backedby Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker. By pushing for another infringement procedure, the outgoing president of the Commission would make clear that this is a matter of European significance. It goes beyond party politics.

 

By successfully bringing the law on the Supreme Court in 2018 to the Court of Justice of the European Union the European Commission showed that the EU is not helpless when its foundations are undermined. It proved that there is a powerful instrument to protect the rule of law. It restored hope to all European citizens who care about the fundamental values the EU rests upon. Let the successful defense of the rule of law be the lasting historic legacy of the Juncker Commission.



Author


Published

March 25, 2019

Tags

Supreme Courtdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawjudicial independenceDisciplinary ChamberPolandEuropean CommissionjudgesZbigniew ZiobroCourt of Justice of the EUNational Council of the JudiciaryConstitutional TribunalEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeAndrzej DudaIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemMinister of Justicepresidential electionsjudiciarypreliminary rulingsdemocracyJarosław Kaczyńskielections 2020Beata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsCJEUmuzzle lawCommissioner for Human RightsMałgorzata ManowskaEuropean Arrest WarrantCOVID-19European Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary commissionerPresidentAdam Bodnarfreedom of expressionHungaryKamil ZaradkiewiczOSCEMateusz MorawieckiProsecutor GeneralLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJNational Prosecutorelectionsacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsWaldemar Żurekmedia independenceAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczEAWmediaAnna DalkowskaCouncil of Europe2017freedom of assemblyJulia PrzyłębskaFreedom HouseExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberVenice CommissionSupreme Administrative CourtEU budgetConstitutioncriminal lawMinistry of JusticeC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionWojciech HermelińskiAndrzej ZollMarek SafjanGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesAleksander StepkowskiPresident of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesSejmMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramdefamationTHEMISMaciej NawackiTVPLex Super OmniaPaweł JuszczyszynBelgiumNetherlandsNational Public ProsecutorPiotr SchabPrzemysław Radzikdemocratic backslidingcriminal proceedingsViktor OrbandecommunizationNext Generation EUPrime MinistervetopoliceJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJLech GarlickirecommendationHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeSupreme Court Presidentreportmedia freedomArticle 7European ParliamentZiobroconditionalityPM Mateusz MorawieckiEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawcoronavirusPiSresolution of 23 January 2020Stanisław PiotrowiczPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakLeon KieresPKWMałgorzata Gersdorfinfringment actionEU valuesENCJlex NGOcivil societyRussiaIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtPresident of the Republic of PolandLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechcriminal codeGrzęda v PolandXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawIustitiaKrystian MarkiewiczPrzemysła RadzikSenateMarcin WarchołElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekcourtsOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsC-487/19Article 6 ECHRArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieUrsula von der LeyenEwa WrzosekAK judgmentSimpson judgmentEU law primacyForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcasterAdam Tomczyńskiimmunitymutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamBogdan Święczkowskithe Regional Court in WarsawUnited Nationsjudcial independenceLeszek MazurMaciej Miterapopulisminterim measuresOLAFautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingequal treatmentabortionprotestsfundamental rightsthe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońCT PresidentGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUJustice Defence Committee – KOSC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeEUStanisław BiernatTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaWhite PaperKazimierz DziałochalustrationMirosław Granattransitional justiceAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiEwa ŁętowskaMarek MazurkiewiczAndrzej MączyńskiJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław Rymarpublic opinion pollFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiJerzy Stępień2018Piotr TulejaNations in TransitSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczCouncil of the EUMirosław WyrzykowskiBohdan ZdziennickiMarek Zubikmedia taxStanisław Zabłockiadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerDidier ReyndersKlubrádióSLAPPLIBE CommitteeStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationFrans TimmermansGazeta WyborczaOKO.pressUS Department of StatePollitykaBrussels IRome IISwieczkowskiArticle 2Forum shoppingadvocate generalDariusz ZawistowskitransparencyEuropean Economic and Social Committeepress releaseSebastian KaletaRights and Values ProgrammeC-619/18defamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardintimidation of dissentersWojciech SadurskijudgetransferPechKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakretirement ageAmnesty InternationalŁukasz PiebiakPiebiak gatehuman rightstrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakJustice FundGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote bill