Freedom House “Freedom in the World” 2019 report ranks independence of the judiciary in Poland


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


An annual report by the NGO Freedom House summarizes key developments surrounding the independence of the judiciary in 2018. Poland scored 1 out of 4 on this measure.

The section of the report concerning independence of the judiciary in 2018 reads as follows:


“F1. Is there an independent judiciary? 1 / 4


Since taking power in 2015, the PiS government has moved aggressively to assert control over the judiciary. One of its first steps was to pass legislation designed to curb the powers of the TK, and it subsequently refused to publish TK decisions that it considered invalid. By the end of 2016, after a lengthy dispute over the tribunal’s membership and authority, the TK was dominated by progovernment judges. In 2017, three new judicial reforms were adopted. The first gave the justice minister the power to appoint and dismiss presidents and deputy presidents of courts, a power he subsequently used several times.


The second and third reforms came into force in 2018 undermined the independence of the judiciary even further. Under one new law, parliament now appoints the majority of members to the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS), which is responsible for nominating judges. Previously, judges made most nominations to the body. Of the 15 new members appointed in March, many had links to the ruling party.


In July, a new, lower retirement age for Supreme Court justices came into force, which required 27 out of 73 judges to retire unless they received presidential approval to continue. The head of the Supreme Court, Małgorzata Gersdorf, who was among the judges slated for retirement, refused to step down on the basis that Poland’s constitution guaranteed that her six-year term could not be cut short. In October, the ECJ, following an infringement procedure initiated by the European Commission (EC), ordered Poland to suspend the retirement age mandate. Consequently, the Polish parliament passed legislation reinstating the retired judges, which was signed into law by President Duda in December. However, other troubling aspects of the recent reforms remain in place, including a measure that enlarged the Supreme Court to 120 judges and created two powerful new chambers, which will be filled with judges appointed by the newly politicized KRS and could further entrench PiS’s dominance of the judiciary.


Also retained under recent reforms is a system of “extraordinary appeals” that allows cases up to twenty years old to be reopened, which could allow for retroactive, politically motivated proceedings. During 2018, there were also a number of disciplinary proceedings initiated against judges who questioned the politicization of the justice system.


The judicial reforms have raised concerns among EU member states about the independence of Poland’s judiciary and its adherence to the EU’s values. Article 7 proceedings over the rule of law in Poland, launched by the EU in 2017, received the backing of a large majority in the European Parliament in March 2018.”


Source: Freedom House


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



July 17, 2019


Supreme Courtrule of lawdisciplinary proceedingsjudicial independenceEuropean CommissionDisciplinary ChamberNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of JusticejudgesAndrzej DudaConstitutional TribunalPolandZbigniew Ziobropresidential electionsCourt of Justice of the EUelections 2020European Unionjudiciarypreliminary rulingsdemocracyMinister of JusticeFirst President of the Supreme CourtCJEUJarosław KaczyńskiCommissioner for Human Rightsmuzzle lawIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemCOVID-19PresidentAdam BodnarProsecutor GeneralprosecutorsLaw and Justiceelectionsacting first president of the Supreme CourtMay 10 2020 electionsOSCE2017Freedom HouseExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberVenice CommissionConstitutionNCJcriminal lawNational Electoral CommissionKamil ZaradkiewiczGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesAleksander StepkowskiEuropean Court of Human RightsPresident of PolandMałgorzata ManowskaJarosław GowinSejmWaldemar Żurekdemocratic backslidingdecommunizationMateusz MorawieckiPrime Ministerfreedom of assemblyJulia PrzyłębskaLaw on the NCJrecommendationHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropereportZiobroPM Mateusz Morawieckifreedom of expressionprosecutionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawHungaryNational ProsecutorcoronavirusC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesWojciech Hermelińskiresolution of 23 January 2020Stanisław PiotrowiczPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakLeon KieresAndrzej ZollPKWMarek SafjanMałgorzata Gersdorfinfringment actionEU valuesENCJlex NGOcivil societyRussiaIsraelforeign agents lawOrdo IurisOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtPresident of the Republic of PolandLGBTLGBT free zonesequalityLGBT ideology free zonesChamber 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 independencemedia lawIustitiaKrystian Markiewiczdisciplinary commissionerPrzemysła RadzikMichał LasotaSenateZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramMarcin WarchołElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarnekpopulismequal treatmentfundamental rightspoliceCT PresidentJustice Defence Committee – KOSEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justicepublic opinion pollSupreme Court President2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUStanisław ZabłockiArticle 7European ParliamentLIBE CommitteeFrans TimmermansUS Department of StateSwieczkowskiSupreme Administrative Courtadvocate generalpress releaseRights and Values ProgrammeconditionalityEU budgetC-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 CzubieniakMinistry of JusticeJustice FundGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote billPiS