Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro on the CJEU ruling: it is unacceptable to us

Share

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

More

Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro declared that he does not recognise the justification of the CJEU ordering the “disregard of the order of national law”. The Court of Justice of the European Union today assessed Andrzej Duda’s disregard of the measure issued by the Supreme Administrative Court in the autumn of 2018, which prohibited the appointment of new Supreme Court judges.



 The text was originally published in Polish on the Polish Presss Agency (PAP) website on 2nd March 2021 and adapted by Onet.pl. We publish the translation.

 

  • The [Justice Minister’s] quote was about the procedure of appointing judges, which did not provide for their ability to appeal against the NCJ’s decision to accept or reject their candidacy
  • The Supreme Administrative Court then issued a measure, namely a decision that theoretically completely blocked the possibility of appointing new Supreme Court judges until the case was settled by the Supreme Administrative Court. But President Duda ignored this decision
  • The Supreme Administrative Court referred the question to the CJEU as to whether the procedure in which applicants in the recruitment are denied the right to appeal against a decision of the NCJ is a lawful procedure at all
  • Other than the Minister of Justice, the CJEU’s ruling has been criticised by the deputy head of the Ministry of Justice. According to Sebstian Kaleta, Tuesday’s judgment ‘undoubtedly interferes with Poland’s sovereignty’.

 

In response to the questions from the Supreme Administrative Court, the CJEU ruled on Tuesday that ‘successive amendments to the Act on the NCJ, which led to the abolition of effective judicial control of the Council’s decisions to present proposals for the appointment of candidates for Supreme Court judges to the president, may be in breach of EU law.” According to the CJEU, if a national court acknowledges that these amendments breach EU law, it is obliged to withdraw from applying these provisions.

 

This is about successive amendments to the Act on the NCJ, which modify, among others, the ability to appeal against resolutions of the NCJ on the appointment of Supreme Court judges.

 

CJEU’s ruling. Ziobro comments: unacceptable

 

Minister Ziobro referred to this ruling during a press conference. The politician reiterated that the constitution is the highest law in Poland. ‘In the light of the judgment that was passed today, it should be acknowledged that this article is no longer valid. Similarly, the Polish constitution is no longer in force. And the constitution is no longer the supreme act of law and the law of the Republic of Poland, but an inferior law, and it can be said that it was repealed by European regulations to the extent to which the court in Luxembourg deems it appropriate,’ said Ziobro.

 

He added that no Polish politician can agree with such a position.

 

As we mentioned, Ziobro believes that Tuesday’s CJEU ruling ‘is unacceptable to us’. ‘If you ask me whether I recognise this ruling in this sense, referring to the justification, which orders us to ignore the legal order of the state and the constitutional law, then of course I will never recognise such a ruling or a decision of such a body, which functions around the EU,’ said Ziobro.

 

Kaleta: The CJEU is trying to usurp competences that no government has delegated to it

 

As we mentioned above, according to Kaleta, Tuesday’s ruling by the CJEU ‘undoubtedly interferes with Poland’s sovereignty’. ‘By placing EU law above the Polish constitution (…), the CJEU, with the support of the opposition politicians and part of the judiciary, which is singing from the same hymn sheet as the Polish opposition, is aiming to exacerbate the anarchy in the judiciary,’ the deputy minister said at the press conference.

 

He argued that the CJEU is trying to ‘usurp competences that no government of an EU member state has delegated to it’. The deputy minister cited the achievements of the Polish and German Constitutional Tribunals in this context. He cited, among others, a 2005 ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal regarding the Treaty of Accession. According to that ruling, ‘because of its special power, the Constitution remains the supreme law of the Republic of Poland with respect to all international agreements that are binding on the Republic of Poland’. Kaleta emphasised that judges Ewa Łętowska and Marek Safjan were members of the bench at that time.

 

As he pointed out, the Tribunal presented a similar position five years later, in 2010, ruling on the Lisbon Treaty. ‘The Tribunal stated once again: the highest act in Poland is the constitution, while the Constitutional Tribunal as the body which has the competence to adjudicate on disputes of a constitutional nature is the court of the last word,’ he said.

 

The deputy minister also reiterated that the German Federal Constitutional Tribunal ruled in May 2020 that the CJEU had overstepped its competences in one of its rulings on the activities of the European Central Bank. ‘The German Constitutional Tribunal ruled that this ruling was not binding on Germany,’ said Kaleta.

 

He added that, in Tuesday’s ruling, the CJEU ‘does not discuss the theses of the German Tribunal’s ruling,’ but instead ‘directly, without any reliable legal arguments … indicates that, in Poland’s case, EU law takes precedence over the Polish constitution.’ In his opinion, this is evidence of double standards and that the CJEU is overstepping its competences.



Author


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


More

Published

March 3, 2021

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandZbigniew Ziobrorule of lawEuropean CommissionjudgesCourt of Justice of the EUNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaIgor TuleyaEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary systemMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiWaldemar Żurekdemocracymuzzle lawpresidential electionsPiotr SchabjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020Kamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerBeata MorawiecPrzemysław RadzikFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsMichał LasotaEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiPrime MinisterJulia Przyłębskamedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19electionsNational Recovery PlanNational Council for JudiciaryPresidentSupreme Administrative Courtfreedom of expressionŁukasz PiebiakCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawDagmara Pawełczyk-Woickadisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanMałgorzata GersdorfAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynAnna DalkowskaNational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamberconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetWłodzimierz WróbelCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorStanisław PiotrowiczJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisK 7/21May 10 2020 electionsLex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandSejmXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v Polandmedia independenceIustitiaJarosław DudziczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczArticle 6 ECHRTHEMISEAWUrsula von der LeyenChamber of Professional LiabilitymediaimmunityCouncil of Europe2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaRegional Court in KrakówRecovery FundP 7/20Justice Fundneo-judgesPiSC-791/19National Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Piotr PszczółkowskiPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaProfessional Liability ChamberJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikorasuspensionJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesReczkowicz and Others v. PolandUkraineKrystian MarkiewiczKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczDariusz DrajewiczRafał PuchalskidefamationcourtsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekEwa WrzosekEU law primacyTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej Miterademocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetoJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJrecommendationTeresa 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 PietruszyńskitransferPiotr GąciarekKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiPiebiak gatehuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyKrakówcoronavirusXero 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 lawpolexitDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtPaulina 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 Wośmedia lawRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtPrzemysła RadzikAntykastaSenateStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczMarcin WarchołKatarzyna ChmuraElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiGrzegorz FurmankiewiczJacek CzaputowiczMarek JaskulskiPrzemysław CzarnekJoanna Kołodziej-Michałowiczlegislative practiceEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaENAPaweł StyrnaZbigniew BoniekKasta/AntykastaAndrzej SkowronŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoOmbudsmanMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiKraśnikEmilia SzmydtNorwayTomasz SzmydtNorwegian fundssmear campaignNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał DworczykC-487/19media pluralism#RecoveryFilesArticle 10 ECHRmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentRegional Court in Amsterdamrepairing the rule of lawharassmentOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentBohdan BieniekSimpson judgmentMarcin KrajewskiForum Współpracy SędziówMałgorzata Dobiecka-Woźniakelectoral processChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairspublic broadcasterWiesław KozielewiczNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeGrzegorz PudaPiotr MazurekJerzy Kwaśniewskimutual trustPetros Tovmasyancourt presidentsLMelections 2023ODIHRIrelandFull-Scale Election Observation MissionNGOIrena MajcherWojciech MaczugaAmsterdamKarolina MiklaszewskaRafał LisakMałgorzata FroncJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiSebastian Mazurekthe Regional Court in WarsawElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikUnited NationsLeszek Mazurpopulisminterim 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 StatePechOlsztyn courtKochenovPrzemysła CzarnekEvgeni TanchevEducation MinisterFreedom in the WorldECJIpsosFrackowiakOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeretirement ageAmnesty InternationalHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr Bogdanowicztrans-Atlantic valuesPiotr BurasLSOauthoritarian equilibriumlawyersArticle 258Act of 20 December 2019clientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officerepressive actPolish National FoundationLux VeritatisKoen LenaertsMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykharrassmentMarian BanaśAlina CzubieniakSupreme Audit OfficeTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediapostal voteRzeszówborderpostal vote billprimacy