Commissioner for Human Rights: “Repression” Act strikes at citizens. The Senate should reject it.

Share

Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland

More

It breaches the constitution and violates the basic principles of the Polish legal order. It is in conflict with Poland’s obligations to the European Union, it strikes at the guaranteed protection of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the Senate, Adam Bodnar tore the “Repression” Act that is being forced through by Law and Justice to shreds



The Commissioner for Human Rights’ Office presented an extensive opinion to the Speaker of the Senate on the Act amending the Law on the System of Ordinary Courts, the Act on the Supreme Court and certain other acts of 20 December 2019. The bill is being referred to as the “repression” or “muzzle” act (analysis of the draft version of the law point by point is available here).

 

 

The main conclusions from the Commissioner for Human Rights’ opinion?

  • The Senate should reject the “muzzle” act of 20 December 2019;
  • It breaches the Constitution, is in conflict with Poland’s obligations to the European Union and calls into question the legal dimension of Poland’s participation in the EU and the Council of Europe;
  • This is because it introduces, among other things, unacceptable tools which interfere with judicial independence, as well as freedom of expression and the association of judges;
  • It subjects Polish courts and Polish judges to political control by the legislative and executive authorities and, as a result – drastically reduces the level of judicial protection of individual rights.

 

According to the Commissioner for Human Rights, the actual objective of the bill is “to eliminate ad hoc obstacles that have appeared in the case-law of the Polish and European courts and under the regulations to date, which prevent or obstruct the implementation of political ideas that are in conflict with the Polish Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and European Union Law.”

 

On January, 7th, the Commissioner for Human Rights Adam Bodnar presented his allegations regarding the bill during the session of the Senate’s Committee on Foreign Affairs and the European Union.

 

This bill will be reviewed by the Senate’s Legislative, Human Rights, Rule of Law and Petitions committees on 8 January 2020. The whole of the Senate is to discuss it on 15 January.

 

Commissioner for Human Rights on the defects of the bill

 

According to the Commissioner for Human Rights, the bill breaches the Constitution, is in conflict with Poland’s obligations to the European Union and contests Poland’s participation in legal terms in the EU and the Council of Europe.

 

  • This is because it introduces, among other things, unacceptable tools for interfering in judicial independence, as well as freedom of expression and the association of judges.
  • It also subjects Polish courts and Polish judges to the political control of the legislative and executive authorities and, in effect – drastically reduces the level of judicial protection of individual rights.
  • It also reduces the involvement of judges, the judicial self-government and the court collegial authorities in decision-making on the functioning of the Polish justice administration.
  • It transfers further powers to the presidents of the courts, thereby increasing the influence of the minister of justice on the judiciary.

 

The Act posts a threat to European integration

 

At the session of the Senate committee, Adam Bodnar spoke about the bill in the context of European integration and the observance of civil rights.

 

“It would be a big problem for Poland from the point of view of European integration if the bill were to be enacted in this form. This can affect our functioning within Europe’s legal space, because the basic principle of this is mutual trust and acceptance,” said the Commissioner for Human Rights.

 

He recalled the European Commission’s motion that is waiting to be considered by the Court of Justice of the EU regarding Article 7 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU with regard to disciplinary measures against judges, as well as other ongoing proceedings of the CJEU against Poland and its judgment of 19 November 2019.

 

The problem of independence of the judiciary is related to the principle of the rule of law expressed in Article 2 of the Treaty on EU.

 

“If we accept the argument that we refuse to apply the principles of the rule of law, this is actually equivalent to questioning the country’s involvement in the process of European integration. That is why, in my speech in the Sejm, I used the expression that progressing activities heading in this direction will have the nature of a legal Polexit,” said Adam Bodnar.

 

Meanwhile, the Polish authorities are taking steps to restrict the operation of Polish courts in the European legal space. For example, no steps can be seen to be taken to enforce the judgment of the CJEU of 19 November 2019. However, disciplinary proceedings are being initiated against judges who implement this judgment. Meanwhile, the bill of 20 December even introduces a prohibition to challenge the legitimacy of the courts and tribunals.

 

From the point of view of European law, this Act breaches articles of the Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, but it also introduces restrictions on the use of the principle of primacy of European law and the direct effect. The provisions of the Act stipulating that, in fact, only the Chamber of Extraordinary Control of the Supreme Court can file a motion to determine whether a judge has been appointed should also be considered unlawful. Meanwhile, EU law postulates that every court should have its own autonomy. The NCJ and the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court appear not to have noticed the judgment of 19 December.

 

It arises from the CJEU case-law that the right to an effective remedy should be real and not illusory. Therefore, situations cannot be brought about where judgments of the CJEU and national courts are passed, after which their execution is questioned in a variety of ways.

 

According to the Commissioner for Human Rights, the decision on which steps should be taken and which should not is a kind of double-edged sword. Imagine that a court of some country says that it is not interested in a judgment of the CJEU regarding the Opal gas pipeline.

 

All this leads to such threats as:

  • the possible risk of losing EU funds (which is distant in time);
  • disruption in the normal functioning of individuals and entrepreneurs in a free market in the face of legal chaos;
  • threats to the functioning of the area of freedom, security and justice.

 

The average citizen can have difficulties

 

According to Adam Bodnar, “all the consequences will be of significance to the everyday life of the average citizen and entrepreneur. For instance, even now, the functioning of the European arrest warrant does not look like it should in an EU Member State. Therefore, this bill should not be enacted,” said the Commissioner for Human Rights.

 

The Commissioner for Human Rights also referred to the statement of the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Paweł Jabłoński, during the meeting that no “external factors” should affect this Act.

 

“Since the mandate of the Venice Commission takes into account the possibility of national parliaments, including the Senate, asking it for its opinion, nothing that stands in the way of asking it for such an opinion during the legislative work,” said Adam Bodnar. Meanwhile, the commission is a body of the Council of Europe and was joined by Deputy Minister of Justice, Marcin Warchoł, and Mariusz Muszyński from the Constitutional Tribunal from Poland. Furthermore, ODIHR / OSCE is also to express its opinion on this matter, as requested by the Commissioner for Human Rights.

 

Full text of the opinion (in Polish) 



Author


Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland


More

Published

January 8, 2020

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandrule of lawZbigniew Ziobrojudicial independenceCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean CommissionNational Council of the JudiciaryjudgesEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemEuropean Court of Human RightsCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeMateusz MorawieckiJarosław KaczyńskiWaldemar Żurekmuzzle lawpresidential electionsjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsdemocracyK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020Kamil ZaradkiewiczBeata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme Courtprosecutorsdisciplinary commissionerEuropean Arrest WarrantProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19Maciej NawackiPrzemysław RadzikJulia PrzyłębskaPresidentmedia freedomfreedom of expressionCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynNational Public ProsecutorPiotr Schabcriminal proceedingsPrime Ministerfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetWłodzimierz WróbelCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational Prosecutordisciplinary liability for judgeselectionsWojciech HermelińskiStanisław PiotrowiczAndrzej ZollMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisK 7/21May 10 2020 electionsLex DudaNational Council for JudiciarySejmXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v Polandmedia independenceIustitiaSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczTHEMISEAWmediaimmunityAnna DalkowskaCouncil of Europe2017policeFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaŁukasz PiebiakP 7/20Justice FundPiSC-791/19National Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Piotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaNational Reconstruction PlanJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesReczkowicz and Others v. PolandKrystian MarkiewiczMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczdefamationcourtsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsArticle 6 ECHRUrsula von der LeyenEwa WrzosekEU law primacyTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independencedemocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetoJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJJustice Defence Committee – KOSrecommendationTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiHuman Rights CommissionerMarek MazurkiewiczCCBEAndrzej MączyńskiThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław Rymarpublic opinion pollFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskireportBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersEuropean ParliamentOKO.pressZiobroMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiPiotr GąciarekRegional Court in KrakówPiebiak gatehuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyneo-judgescoronavirusXero Flor v. PolandEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej Rutkiewiczresolution of 23 January 2020Mirosław WróblewskiCivil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaLeon Kieresright to protestSławomir JęksaPKWWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMariusz Kamińskiinfringment actionsurveillanceEU valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauENCJJacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiIsraelŁukasz Radkeforeign agents lawpolexitNational Recovery PlanDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeProfessional Liability ChamberFirst President of the Suprme CourtsuspensionPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościLGBT free zonesAct sanitising the judiciaryequalityMarek AstMaciej FerekChamber of Extraordinary VerificationEdyta Barańskahate crimesCourt of Appeal in Krakówhate speechPutinismcriminal codeKaczyńskiGrzęda v Polandright to fair trialPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasŻurek v PolandMałgorzata Wąsek-WiaderekSobczyńska and Others v Polandct on the Protection of the PopulatioparliamentlegislationRafał Trzaskowskilex WośUkrainemedia lawRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtKonrad WytrykowskiJarosław DudziczPrzemysła RadzikJakub IwaniecAntykastaSenateMarcin WarchołElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsC-487/19Article 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentSimpson judgmentForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited NationsLeszek MazurMaciej Miterapopulisminterim measuresautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingequal treatmentabortionprotestsfundamental rightsthe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońCT PresidentGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justice2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUmedia taxStanisław Zabłockiadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióSLAPPLIBE CommitteeStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationFrans TimmermansGazeta WyborczaUS Department of StatePollitykaBrussels IRome IISwieczkowskiArticle 2Forum shoppingadvocate generalDariusz ZawistowskitransparencyEuropean Economic and Social Committeepress releaseSebastian KaletaRights and Values ProgrammeC-156/21C-157/21C-619/18Marek Piertuszyńskidefamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardNational Prosecutor’s Officeintimidation of dissentersWojciech SadurskiBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberjudgeTribunal of StatetransferPechOlsztyn courtKochenovPrzemysła CzarnekEvgeni TanchevEducation MinisterFreedom in the WorldKrystyna PawłowiczECJIpsosFrackowiakOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeretirement ageMariusz MuszyńskiAmnesty InternationalHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr Bogdanowicztrans-Atlantic valuesPiotr BurasLSOauthoritarian equilibriumlawyersArticle 258Act of 20 December 2019clientelismoligarchic systemRecovery FundEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officerepressive actPolish National FoundationLux VeritatisKoen LenaertsMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykharrassmentMarian BanaśAlina CzubieniakSupreme Audit OfficeTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediapostal voteKrakówRzeszówDagmara Pawełczyk-Woickaborderpostal vote billprimacy