New retirement rules for Polish judges contravene EU law – according to Advocate General

Share

Lawyer and advocacy officer at Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights in Warsaw

More

In a long-awaited opinion addressing an element of the so-called reform of the judiciary in Poland, the Court of Justice Advocate General Tanchev states that “by lowering the age of retirement of judges of the common law courts, and by vesting the Minister of Justice with the discretion to extend the active period of such judges, Poland has breached its obligations under EU law”.



Changes in the system of common courts

 

In July 2017, after massive protests in defense of the independence of courts, the President of Poland decided to veto two of three highly controversial bills concerning the judiciary system. Whereas the two bills concerned the position of the Supreme Court and the National Council of the Judiciary, the third bill, which was eventually signed by the President and came into force in August 2017, related to the common courts.

 

The Act of August 2017 lowered the retirement age of judges (from 67 years old to 60 in the case of women and 65 in the case of men). Judges who reached the new retirement age were required to file an application with the Minister of Justice, who could decide whether a justice could remain in office until the age of 70 or not. The decision was a wholly discretional one, and the procedure did not provide any possibility for challenging the Minister’s decision.

 

Although after a couple of months, in April 2018, the governing majority yet again changed these provisions and reinstituted a uniform retirement age for judges (65 years), the damage had already been done. According to data obtained by the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, by April 2018 the Minister of Justice received 219 applications from common court judges, and reviewed 130 of them. Of those applications reviewed, the Minister allowed only 69 judges to remain in office, while the remaining 61 were dismissed.

 

Contrary to the situation of justices of the Supreme Court who returned to their offices in October 2018 following the CJEU’s interim measure, the dismissed judges of ordinary courts never had the possibility to return to office.

 

Common courts infringement proceeding

 

“It is with a heavy heart that we have decided to initiate Article 7(1), but the facts leave us no choice,” said Vice President of the European Commission Frans Timmermans in December 2017, announcing that for the very first time in its history the European Commission had decided to activate the sanction proceedings prescribed by Article 7 TEU. At the same time, the European Commission decided to take the next step in infringement proceedings regarding the changes in the common courts system and direct the case to the European Court of Justice.

 

Although the Article 7 procedure has been turned into something of a political football, infringement proceedings seem to be the most effective tool for upholding and protecting the rule of law in Poland, forcing the governing majority to step back from some of the changes.

 

Comparing to other pending proceedings (such as those concerning Supreme Court justices initiated in 2018), this one was carried out rather slowly. While the governing majority was going full steam ahead with other changes in the Polish judiciary system (especially the ones concerning the Supreme Court), the infringement proceedings went essentially unnoticed.

 

It took exact one and a half years for the Advocate General’s opinion to be released. Much like other pending proceedings concerning the Polish judiciary saga, this opinion as well touches upon the very core of the crisis in Poland – judicial independence.

 

In the opinion of Advocate General Tanchev, “lowering the retirement age of judges must and of itself be accompanied by safeguards to ensure against de facto removal of a judge, while the law of 2017 fails to meet the guarantee of the irremovability of judges and their independence.”

 

What is left behind and what will be next

 

Regrettably, neither the European Commission nor the Advocate General concentrated on another aspect of the reform of ordinary courts, namely, the dismissal of the courts’ senior justices. In the period between August 2017 and February 2018, the Minister of Justice dismissed over 140 presidents and deputy presidents of courts solely on the basis of discretional decisions, and replaced them with people hand-picked by senior Ministry officials (a process HFHR has documented).

 

These changes had an even more detrimental impact on the courts’ functioning than the forced early retirement of judges, but this problem has not been addressed by the Commission.

 

A ruling by the ECJ in the case of the lower retirement age for common court judges is expected later this year. The decision will be one link in a longer chain of ECJ judgements addressing independence of the judiciary in Poland. It remains unclear how the governing majority will respond to these decisions. On the one hand, it is not in Poland’s best interest to escalate the existing conflict with Brussels, but on the other hand this governing majority has on several occasions already demonstrated its nonchalance in ignoring binding decisions of courts.

 

There is no doubt that the ECJ’s decisions in Polish cases will constitute a milestone in the Court’s jurisprudence concerning the rule of law and judicial independence. The question is, however, if they will be enough to protect Polish judges’ independence.



Author


Lawyer and advocacy officer at Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights in Warsaw


More

Published

June 20, 2019

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandrule of lawZbigniew Ziobrojudicial independenceCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean CommissionNational Council of the JudiciaryjudgesEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeMałgorzata ManowskaAndrzej DudaIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemCommissioner for Human RightsEuropean Court of Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeMateusz MorawieckiJarosław Kaczyńskipresidential electionsjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsdemocracyK 3/21muzzle lawHungaryelections 2020Kamil ZaradkiewiczBeata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsWaldemar Żurekdisciplinary commissionerEuropean Arrest WarrantProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19Julia PrzyłębskaPresidentmedia freedomfreedom of expressionCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynNational Public ProsecutorPiotr SchabPrzemysław Radzikcriminal proceedingsPrime Ministerfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorelectionsWojciech HermelińskiStanisław PiotrowiczAndrzej ZollMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsBroda and Bojara v Polandmedia independenceAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczTHEMISMaciej NawackiEAWmediaimmunityAnna DalkowskaCouncil of Europe2017policeFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaArticle 7Venice CommissionWłodzimierz WróbelPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaP 7/20Justice FundPiSC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesSejmXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandReczkowicz and Others v. PolandIustitiaKrystian MarkiewiczMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramdefamationcourtsEwa 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 RzeplińskiSupreme Court PresidentJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskireportBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersEuropean ParliamentOKO.pressZiobroMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiPiotr Gąciarekhuman 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 2020K 6/21Mirosław WróblewskiCivil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaLeon Kieresright to protestSławomir JęksaPKWWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMariusz Kamińskiinfringment actionsurveillanceEU valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauENCJJacek SasinErnest Bejdalex NGOThe First President of the Supreme Courtcivil societyMaciej CzajkaRussiaMariusz JałoszewskiIsraelŁukasz Radkeforeign agents lawpolexitNational Recovery PlanK 7/21Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechcriminal codeGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawPrzemysła RadzikSenateMarcin WarchołElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsC-487/19Article 6 ECHRArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieUrsula von der LeyenAK 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 InternationalHudocŁukasz PiebiakRegional Court in KrakówPiebiak gateKonrad 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