PiS amendments to the Act on the Supreme Court in breach of EU law. “A symbolic, historical judgement”

Share

Journalist at OKO.press.

More

"The Law on the Supreme Court was contrary to EU law", ruled the Court of Justice on 24 June. According to the CJEU, the rules shorting judges’ term of office infringed the principle of their irremovability and judicial independence. The Court is in doubt about the real objectives of the PiS-led judiciary reform. More judgments will be issued shortly.



“It’s a symbolic, historical verdict. The first concerning rule of law in Poland and improprieties in the justice system implemented by the current authority,” comments attorney Michał Wawrykiewicz from the “Free Courts” (“Wolne Sądy”) Association.

 

On Monday 24 June 2019, the Court of justice of the European Union ruled that the provisions of the Law on the Supreme Court of 8 December 2017 were contrary to EU law, as they violated the principles of irremovability and independence of judges.

 

The term of office for judges was shortened, forcing into retirement justices who were 65 years of age. Before the “reform” by PiS, their retirement age was 70 years.

 

The Court stressed that if Poland wishes to reform the judiciary, it must be careful that the reforms do not undermine EU values, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Treaties, in particular Art. 19 (1) TEU, which obliges Member States to ensure “effective judicial protection in areas covered by Union law.”

 

According to the CJEU, that protection can only be effective if the courts, including the Supreme Court of Poland, are completely independent and the judges are free to rule without interference.

 

“The freedom of the judges from all external intervention or pressure, which is essential, requires certain guarantees appropriate for protecting the individuals who have the task of adjudicating in a dispute, including the guarantee against removal from office. The principle of irremovability requires, in particular, that judges may remain in post provided they have not reached the obligatory retirement age or until the expiry of their mandate, where that mandate is for a fixed term,” the Court explained in its press release.

 

This judgment is not the last in which the Court will address the destruction of the rule of law in Poland under PiS. On 27 June, Advocate General Tanchev issued a critical opinion on the National Council of the Judiciary and the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court. The CJEU’s judgement in that case will be released in the coming months.

 

“Successive judgments will cover successive areas in which the rule of law has been destroyed in Poland”, emphasises Wawrykiewicz.

 

To prevent a repeat

 

At the end of 2018, under pressure from the CJEU, the Polish government finally withdrew from part of the planned changes. The seventh amendment to the Law on the Supreme Court, adopted 21 November 2018, restored to the bench judges who had been forced to retire early.

 

The new provisions entered into force on 1 January 2019, but the European Commission decided against withdrawing its complaint to the Court. The judgment concerns the legal situation as of the date of the Commission’s application (14 September 2018) and not the present state of the law.

 

“This judgement had to be issued because there was no certainty that the ruling party in Poland would not make further amendments to the Law on the Supreme Court that would result in a repeat infringement of the Treaties,” explains Wawrykiewicz.

 

The broader European legal order

 

The CJEU ruling will also be of key importance to the legal order in the European Union.

 

“This judgment is of systemic importance for the whole legal plane of the EU. The CJEU outlines clearly the distinction between the judiciary and the executive and legislative authorities. It says that the executive and legislative authorities cannot interfere with the independence of the judiciary. And they must not violate one of the fundamental principles of the EU, namely the principle of effective judicial protection,” explains Wawrykiewicz.

 

“That is why this judgment was needed to establish a standard – not only for Poland, but for the whole European Union. It clearly states that the principle of irremovability of judges is one of the priorities for the functioning of the EU, and that political power cannot encroach on the functioning of the judiciary,” he emphasises.

 

More cases in the CJEU

 

Today’s judgment is a symbolic conclusion to the battle over purging the Supreme Court. But it is not the end of the struggle for restoring the rule of law in Poland. The CJEU is set to rule on a wide range of cases involving particular elements of the destruction of the Polish justice system.

 

“Today’s ruling is the first of several judgments to be issued by the Court in relation to violations of the rule of law in Poland. In just three days we will hear the opinion of the Advocate General in another very important case – concerning the construction of the National Council of the Judiciary and the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court,” recalls Michał Wawrykiewicz.

 

“In the autumn, the AG will also issue an opinion on the disciplinary system for judges,” he adds.

 

These provisions will concern prejudicial questions referred to the CJEU by Polish courts. In addition to these, the Court will rule on cases notified by the Commission under the infringement procedure of 258 TfEU. They concern the provisions of the Act on Common Courts and the new disciplinary system for judges.

 

“Subsequent judgments will encompass successive fields of the destruction of the rule of law in Poland. First and foremost, this means the structure of the National Council of the Judiciary and the manner in which judges are appointed to posts. There is also the disciplinary system for judges, that is, the removal by the authorities of ‘uncomfortable’ judges. In my opinion, these are two fundamental issues in the process of the destruction of the justice system in Poland,” explains Wawrykiewicz.

 

“Once we know the Court’s position in all of these matters, it will be the foundation for restoring the rule of law in Poland. To rebuild an independent judiciary, as it is established in the Polish Constitution, and of the kind required by the criteria enshrined in the European Treaties,” says Wawrykiewicz.

 

[translated by Matthew La Fontaine]



Author


Journalist at OKO.press.


More

Published

June 28, 2019

Tags

Supreme CourtPolandConstitutional TribunalDisciplinary Chamberjudgesrule of lawdisciplinary proceedingsZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionMałgorzata ManowskaAndrzej DudaCourt of JusticeMinister of JusticeEuropean Court of Human RightsAdam BodnarIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemneo-judgesCJEUJarosław Kaczyńskimuzzle lawNational Recovery PlanMateusz MorawieckiCourt of Justice of the European UnionCommissioner for Human RightsdemocracyWaldemar ŻurekNational Council for JudiciaryPrzemysław RadzikelectionsJulia Przyłębskadisciplinary commissionercriminal lawpresidential electionsPiotr Schabelections 2023Kamil Zaradkiewiczmedia freedomjudiciaryHungaryprosecutionSupreme Administrative Courtpreliminary rulingsharassmentFirst President of the Supreme Courtelections 2020K 3/21Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaPaweł JuszczyszynPresidentBeata MorawiecNational ProsecutorŁukasz PiebiakMichał LasotaprosecutorsProsecutor GeneralRecovery FundMarek SafjanConstitutionfreedom of expressionimmunitySejmMaciej NawackiIustitiaCriminal ChamberCOVID-19European Arrest WarrantRegional Court in KrakówPrime MinisterMinistry of Justicedisciplinary liability for judgesMałgorzata GersdorfcourtsreformWojciech HermelińskiVenice CommissionEU budgetExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberMaciej FerekOSCEcommission on Russian influenceconditionality mechanismfreedom of assemblyconditionalityTHEMISJustice FundKrystian MarkiewiczcorruptionWłodzimierz WróbelJarosław DudziczStanisław PiotrowiczLaw and JusticePiSStanisław BiernatAnna DalkowskaAleksander StepkowskiNational Public ProsecutorLabour and Social Security ChamberPresident of the Republic of PolandLGBTCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsreformsNCJKrzysztof ParchimowiczP 7/20SenateMarcin RomanowskiNational Reconstruction PlanPresident of PolandReczkowicz and Others v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandProfessional Liability Chambermedia independenceLex DudaK 7/21suspensionparliamentCivil ChamberSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramPegasusParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeEAWUrsula von der LeyenTVPmediaLex Super OmniaLech Garlickielectoral codePiotr PrusinowskiabortionEwa ŁętowskaArticle 6 ECHRDidier ReyndersAmsterdam District CourtPiotr GąciarekConstitutional Tribunal PresidentdefamationAndrzej StępkaMichał WawrykiewiczChamber of Professional LiabilityChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationSLAPPNext Generation EUMay 10 2020 electionsOrdo IurisAndrzej ZollNational Electoral CommissionJarosław WyrembakPM Mateusz MorawieckiFreedom HouseJustice Defence Committee – KOSacting first president of the Supreme CourtSupreme Court PresidentArticle 72017policePiotr TulejaJerzy StępieńAndrzej RzeplińskiFerdynand RymarzStanisław RymarTeresa Dębowska-Romanowskarestoration of the rule of lawaccountabilitySławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczSupreme Audit OfficeMirosław WyrzykowskiBohdan ZdziennickiOKO.pressMarek ZubikWojciech MaczugaZiobrocourt presidentsMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaJanusz Niemcewiczintimidation of dissenterstransfervetoDariusz ZawistowskiOLAFViktor Orbanpublic mediaDariusz Kornelukinsulting religious feelingsJózef IwulskiSzymon Szynkowski vel SękAndrzej MączyńskiMarek MazurkiewiczWojciech ŁączkowskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaStefan JaworskiAdam JamrózMirosław GranatKazimierz DziałochaMaciej Miteraelectoral processtransparencyK 6/21Astradsson v IcelandrecommendationJakub IwaniecXero Flor v. PolandMariusz KamińskiKrakówstate of emergencyInternational Criminal CourtJoanna Misztal-KoneckadecommunizationJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraEdyta Barańskaright to fair trialCentral Anti-Corruption BureauLaw on the NCJsurveillanceUkraineBelarusAdam Synakiewiczsmear campaignKrystyna Pawłowiczpublic opinion pollmilestonesMarek PietruszyńskiMichał LaskowskireportMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekMariusz MuszyńskiThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeDariusz DrajewiczMarian BanaśMaciej TaborowskiPaweł FilipekRafał PuchalskiHuman Rights CommissionerKonrad WytrykowskiCCBEdemocratic backslidingjudcial independenceEU law primacyBelgiumSLAPPs11 January March in Warsawcivil societyelections integrityLGBT ideology free zoneslex NGOPiotr PszczółkowskiPiebiak gateEuropean Association of Judgeshuman rightscourt changesAdam TomczyńskiGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgescriminal codeC-791/19Jarosław GowinNetherlandsEuropean ParliamentlexTuskEwa Wrzosekabuse of state resourcesZuzanna Rudzińska-Bluszczelections fairnessBogdan ŚwięczkowskicoronavirusRussiaMarcin Warchołretirement agePATFoxFree CourtsMarek JaskulskienvironmentWiesław KozielewiczArkadiusz RadwanJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczGrzegorz FurmankiewiczinvestmentWałęsa v. PolandLech WałęsaEwa ŁąpińskaE-mail scandalOsiatyński'a ArchiveTomasz SzmydtEmilia SzmydtArkadiusz CichockiMonika FrąckowiakAssessment ActIvan MischenkoAndrzej Skowronright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawUS State DepartmentChamber of Professional ResponsibilityPaweł StyrnaKasta/AntykastaZbigniew ŁupinaThe Codification Committee of Civil LawKatarzyna Chmurastrategic investmentMałgorzata Wąsek-WiaderekJarosław MatrasPaulina AslanowiczKaczyńskiPutinismCourt of Appeal in Krakówsame-sex unionsRafał Wojciechowskicivil partnerships billKRSDobrochna Bach-Goleckaelection fairnessJudicial ReformsMarek AstNational Broadcasting Councilct on the Protection of the PopulatioKrystyna Morawa-Fryźlewiczlegislationcivil partnershipsGeneral Court of the EUKatarzyna KotulaIrena BochniakStanisław Zdungag lawsuitsAntykastadisinformationlex RaczkowskiAleksandra RutkowskaŁukasz BilińskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActRome Statutelex WośAct sanitising the judiciaryJakub KwiecińskiRafał LisakKarolina MiklaszewskaWatchdog PolskaPoznańDariusz BarskiKoan LenaertsAnti-SLAPP Directivejustice system reformKarol WeitzLasotaDonald TuskVěra JourováKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiRThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFMałgorzata FroncJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiSebastian MazurekdiscriminationMarcin MatczakAct on the Supreme CourtState Tribunalinsulttest of independenceNational School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (KSSiP)Dariusz Dończykelectoral commissionscodification commissionEuropean Court of HuAdam GendźwiłłdelegationsoppositionKrzysztof RączkaJoanna Scheuring-WielgusElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikJustice MinistryAction Planextraordinary commissionMarcin KrajewskiBohdan BieniekZbigniew KapińskiC‑718/21repairing the rule of lawpreliminary referenceEU lawethicsDonald Tusk governmentAnna Głowacka#RecoveryFilespilot-judgmentmedia pluralismMichał DworczykDworczyk leaksTomasz KoszewskiPiotr HofmańskiMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakHater ScandalJustyna WydrzyńskaNGOFull-Scale Election Observation MissionODIHRAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszPetros TovmasyanJerzy KwaśniewskiPiotr MazurekNational Council for the JudiciaryGrzegorz PudaHelsinki Foundation for Human RightsNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeRadosław BaszukJoanna KnobelCrimes of espionagecivil lawCourt of Appeal in WarsawEU valuesGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawPrzemysła RadzikElżbieta KarskaJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarnekhate speechhate crimesENCJIsraelforeign agents lawWojciech SadurskiOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationlegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited NationsSimpson judgmentAK judgmentOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsC-487/19Article 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieLeszek Mazurinfringment actionpopulismLIBE CommitteeFrans TimmermansUS Department of StateSwieczkowskiadvocate generalpress releaseRights and Values ProgrammeC-619/18defamatory statementsStanisław ZabłockiCouncil of the EUequal treatmentfundamental rightsCT PresidentEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justice2018Nations in TransitWorld Justice Project awardjudgePechKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote billresolution of 23 January 2020Leon Kieresrepressive actAct of 20 December 2019KochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakAmnesty Internationaltrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersPKWIpsosLux VeritatisMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykTVNjournalistslexTVNPolish mediaRzeszówborderPolish National FoundationEuropean Public Prosecutor's OfficeOlimpia Barańska-MałuszeHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr Burasauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258clientelismoligarchic systemprimacyEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawErnest BejdaJacek SasinSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej RutkiewiczMirosław Wróblewskiright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMichał WośMinistry of FinancePorozumienie dla PraworządnościEducation Ministerinterim measuresC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service Actmedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruCelmerGermanyautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingproteststhe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huSebastian KaletaC-156/21C-157/21Marek PiertuszyńskiNational Prosecutor’s OfficeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOlsztyn courtEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeForum shoppingTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióGazeta WyborczaPollitykaBrussels IRome IIArticle 2Przemysła Czarnek