PiS Threatens to Take Over Courts, Liquidate Supreme Court, and Challenge CJEU

Share

Journalist covering law and politics for OKO.press. Previously journalist at Gazeta Wyborcza, Rzeczpospolita, Polska The Times, Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.

More

PiS is not hiding the fact that it wants to destroy the independent courts in Poland. It is admitting this in its election programme. It is promising the liquidation of the current courts and the establishment of new ones with ‘its own’ judges. Independent judges will be removed or retired



Conventions of the major parties and committees running in the elections were held on Saturday 9 September 2023. The Law and Justice Party (PiS) had its convention in Końskie, but little was said there about its plans for the courts. Which is a shame. Because it wants to finally deal with them, which will mean a total dispute with the EU, which could end with funds for Poland being blocked and the PolExit issue being raised.

 

However, PiS has revealed its plans for the courts in its election programme, which is on the party’s website. This is a 300-page document. The judiciary is addressed on pages 158–164. And it is clearly stated there that PiS is going for the courts.

 

PiS confirms there what Jarosław Kaczyński and Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro have already been repeatedly announcing. The party wants to liquidate the current courts, including the Supreme Court, and appoint new courts in their place, with ‘its own judges’. This means that independent judges will be removed. This will give PiS full power over Poland. The only thing left to take over will be the free media. PiS is even hoping to ‘reform’ the CJEU and send neo-judges to it.

 

PiS is going for the courts and for a collision with the EU

 

The ruling party is already making no secret of the fact that it will finally take control of the courts if it wins the elections. After all, its leader, Jarosław Kaczyński, recently announced this once again. He said at a rally in Sokołów Podlaski: ‘This time no one will stop us. We will change this’. And he said earlier that the courts are the last barricade to be overcome.

 

The party’s programme devotes several paragraphs to this. But this is enough to know what PiS will do with the courts if it wins the elections. Because draft laws, which Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro had prepared, have already been around for months. They have been waiting in the so-called freezer for the time being; because the government was holding negotiations with Brussels to unblock billions for the NRRP. It is now clear that PiS has already abandoned any plans to make concessions to the EU and is setting its sights on confrontation.

 

The programme is announcing the ‘reform’ of the Supreme Court: ‘It will become an elite court of law. It will focus on cases of special importance and extraordinary complaints when there are grossly unjust final court judgments.’ What does that mean? Minister Ziobro has a ready bill abolishing the current Supreme Court and establishing a small Supreme Court with 30 vetted judges who would only deal with legal issues and look after the uniformity of judgments (but only within the framework of the extraordinary complaint passed by PiS).

 

Such a ‘reform’ means the removal of all the current legal judges of the Supreme Court and the neo-judges of the Supreme Court and the reappointment – after vetting – of 30 of ‘their own’ judges. The current cassations and cassation complaints would go to the courts of appeal. But the authorities would only appoint 5 such courts for the whole of Poland.

 

The PiS programme also confirms the plan to liquidate the current ordinary courts. It states: ‘We will also consistently aim to reform the structure of the courts. Their structure will change and will become simple and transparent. This will shorten the route of citizens to court; they will be able to settle matters of importance to them closer to home.’

 

Minister Ziobro also has bills ready for that, which are waiting in the so-called freezer. This is the plan. The current courts of appeal, as well as the regional and district courts will be liquidated. New area and provincial/appeal courts will be established in their place. This reorganisation will open the door to the vetting of all judges in Poland. Because they will have to be reappointed to the new courts.

 

This means that there will be no place in the new courts for the independent judges who are fighting today for the rule of law. They will either be removed from them or sent on early retirement. And those who remain could end up working far away from home and they will continue to experience repression.

 

The reorganisation of the courts will give the authorities the control they desire, because they will be able to staff them with ‘their own’ judges, who they will not have to control.

 

If these changes are pushed through, this will mean war with the European Commission. Because independent courts are one of the values of the EU. And Brussels will have to react strongly to this.

 

What else PiS wants to do to the judiciary

 

Furthermore, in its programme, as if to sweeten the deal for the citizens, PiS is announcing:

  • A reduction in the jurisdiction of the courts. Fewer cases are to be submitted to them; 15 million cases are currently being filed with them each year. PiS wants to take registration and land and mortgage cases out of the courts. These are to be handled by notaries public. They will make entries in the land and mortgage registers and issue notarial payment orders for unpaid invoices.
  • Reinforcement of the separation of powers. This is a general slogan, which promises to further strengthen the authority and weaken the courts. It arises from the programme that PiS does not like the application of European law by judges, the undermining of the legality of the neo-NCJ or neo-judges and the refusal to apply unconstitutional laws. PiS writes about an anarchised judiciary. It wants to put an end to this. This could mean new repressions and a new Muzzle Act disciplining judges.
  • The abolition of immunity. It is only to apply to private indictments. However, it will not protect judges against the prosecutor’s office, which will be able to intimidate judges in this way, as has been the case under the current government. For example, the prosecutor’s office wanted to lift Igor Tuleya’s immunity for allowing journalists into the courtroom for the announcement of a ruling that was unfavourable to PiS.
  • Justices of the peace. This is Paweł Kukiz’s and President Andrzej Duda’s postulate. They are to handle minor cases. Only that the institution of magistrates may be in conflict with the Constitution. Ziobro previously also disagreed with these.
  • Fast-track trials for borrowers of franc denominated loans. The burden of proof is to be shifted to the banks.
  • Reform of court experts. This has been the biggest problem of the courts for years. There is a shortage of them. Opinions are often poor because the rates for experts are too low and the best experts do not want to be court experts. All the more so because PiS has passed a law punishing them for allegedly wrong opinions. PiS has done nothing about this for the past eight years. Its promises do not solve the problems either. The ruling party is only promising to introduce criteria that court experts are to satisfy. Not a word about whether it will increase the rates for them. And this is a problem.
  • Further digitization of the courts.
  • Merging of the associations of legal counsels (radca prawny) and attorneys-at-law (adwokat). Such ideas were already around during the PO-PSL [Civic Platform – Polish Peasants’ Party] government. They were also around during the tem of the current government. When implemented by the PiS government, this could be dangerous and could strike at both of the associations.
  • Audit of the contracts between the corporations and small businesses. This postulate smacks of the socialist times. PiS assumes that large companies are cheating small Polish companies. That is why it is planning audits at corporations.
  • Licences for debt collectors and allocation of cases to receivers by draw.

 

PiS is going for the CJEU

That is not all. PiS even has plans to ‘reform’ the EU. It is proposing the establishment of a Higher Chamber of the CJEU, in which half of the judges would come from the national Supreme Courts or Tribunals.

 

This means that PiS would like to send ‘its own’ neo-judges to the CJEU. It also wants to retain the right of veto in the EU’s decisions, to take the courts out of the EU’s hands with regard to the examination of whether they satisfy the criteria of independence. It also wants to examine the rule of law of EU institutions.

 

Not a word was mentioned in PiS’s programme about how the party wants to eliminate the huge backlogs and queues in the courts. It does not mention this because the authorities would have to admit that Minister Zbigniew Ziobro is responsible for the current collapse of the courts. Instead of reforming the courts over the past eight years, he has focused on staffing them with his own people.

 

Unprecedented repressions against independent judges have been unleashed. In its programme, PiS is blaming the independent judges and the EU institutions, which have challenged the legality of Ziobro’s ‘reforms’ for what is happening in the courts.

 

Translated by Roman Wojtasz

 

Published in Polish in OKO.press.



Author


Journalist covering law and politics for OKO.press. Previously journalist at Gazeta Wyborcza, Rzeczpospolita, Polska The Times, Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.


More

Published

September 12, 2023

Tags

Supreme CourtPolandConstitutional TribunalDisciplinary Chamberjudgesrule of lawdisciplinary proceedingsZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaCourt of JusticeMinister of JusticeEuropean Court of Human RightsAdam BodnarIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemneo-judgesmuzzle lawCJEUJarosław KaczyńskiNational Recovery PlanMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsWaldemar ŻurekCourt of Justice of the European UnionNational Council for JudiciaryPrzemysław RadzikdemocracyPiotr Schabjudiciarypresidential electionselectionscriminal lawKamil Zaradkiewiczelections 2023disciplinary commissionermedia freedomJulia PrzyłębskaK 3/21First President of the Supreme Courtelections 2020harassmentSupreme Administrative Courtpreliminary rulingsDagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaprosecutionHungaryMichał LasotaprosecutorsBeata MorawiecRecovery FundPresidentProsecutor GeneralPaweł JuszczyszynNational ProsecutorŁukasz PiebiakConstitutionEuropean Arrest WarrantPrime Ministerfreedom of expressionMaciej NawackiCOVID-19Marek SafjanVenice CommissionSejmimmunityCriminal ChamberRegional Court in KrakówIustitiaMaciej FerekMałgorzata GersdorfreformMinistry of JusticeNCJExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberOSCEcourtsWojciech Hermelińskidisciplinary liability for judgesEU budgetcorruptionStanisław PiotrowiczNational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsCouncil of EuropeAnna DalkowskaLGBTJustice FundPresident of the Republic of PolandWłodzimierz Wróbelconditionality mechanismTHEMISKrystian MarkiewiczAleksander StepkowskiStanisław BiernatPiSreformsLaw and Justicecommission on Russian influenceLabour and Social Security ChamberJarosław Dudziczconditionalityfreedom of assemblyPresident of PolandChamber of Professional LiabilityOrdo Iurismedia independenceDidier ReyndersReczkowicz and Others v. PolandSLAPPStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationBroda and Bojara v PolandXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsSupreme Court PresidentMarcin Romanowskielectoral codeAndrzej StępkaArticle 7Piotr PrusinowskiSenateSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeTVPmediaLech GarlickiLex Super OmniapoliceabortionNext Generation EUUrsula von der LeyenEAWJustice Defence Committee – KOSAmsterdam District CourtdefamationKrzysztof ParchimowiczFreedom HouseMichał WawrykiewiczEwa ŁętowskaArticle 6 ECHRMay 10 2020 elections2017Piotr GąciarekPegasussuspensionP 7/20acting first president of the Supreme CourtNational Electoral CommissionK 7/21PM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej ZollJarosław WyrembakLex DudaProfessional Liability ChamberCivil Chamberparliamentcivil societyNational Reconstruction PlanConstitutional Tribunal PresidentAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraKrakówBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaStanisław RymarMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaJanusz NiemcewiczAndrzej MączyńskiMarek MazurkiewiczAdam Synakiewiczstate of emergencyWojciech ŁączkowskiEdyta BarańskaMirosław GranatKazimierz DziałochaJoanna Misztal-Koneckajudcial independenceMaciej MiteraDariusz KornelukViktor OrbanOLAFrestoration of the rule of lawvetoMariusz KamińskisurveillanceK 6/21Józef IwulskiAstradsson v IcelandCentral Anti-Corruption BureauPATFoxSLAPPsTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaaccountabilityUkraineKrystyna PawłowiczRafał PuchalskitransparencyDariusz ZawistowskiOKO.pressright to fair trialDariusz DrajewiczPaweł FilipekMaciej Taborowskismear campaigninsulting religious feelingsNational Prosecutor’s OfficeMariusz MuszyńskiBelaruselectoral processcourt presidentsMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekmilestonesWojciech MaczugaMichał LaskowskiMarian BanaśJakub IwaniecSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczPiotr TulejaJerzy Stępieńelections fairnessAndrzej RzeplińskiSzymon Szynkowski vel SękFerdynand RymarzInternational Criminal CourtMarek PietruszyńskiMirosław WyrzykowskiBohdan ZdziennickiXero Flor v. Polandpublic mediaSupreme Audit OfficelexTuskcourt changeselections integrityMarek ZubikKonrad Wytrykowskiabuse of state resourcesGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesEuropean ParliamentZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczMarcin Warchoł11 January March in WarsawEuropean Association of JudgesZiobroFree CourtsdecommunizationEwa WrzosekEU law primacyhuman rightsPiebiak gaterecommendationreportLaw on the NCJlex NGORussiaCCBEpublic opinion pollHuman Rights CommissionerJarosław GowinPiotr PszczółkowskiLGBT ideology free zonesC-791/19coronaviruscriminal coderetirement ageNetherlandsAdam Tomczyńskidemocratic backslidingintimidation of dissentersThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeBogdan ŚwięczkowskitransferBelgiumJoanna Scheuring-WielgusNations in TransitCouncil of the EUElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikKatarzyna ChmuraSebastian MazurekJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiLIBE Committeedefamatory statementsMałgorzata FroncRafał LisakKarolina MiklaszewskaNGOKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczIrena BochniakoppositionEuropean Court of Huelectoral commissionsAct on the Supreme CourtdiscriminationJakub KwiecińskiWorld Justice Project awardTomasz Koszewskitest of independenceDariusz DończykGrzegorz FurmankiewiczAntykastaStanisław ZdunAdam Gendźwiłł2018Wojciech SadurskiFull-Scale Election Observation MissionODIHRMarek Jaskulskirepairing the rule of lawadvocate generalpress release#RecoveryFilesmedia pluralismMichał DworczykDworczyk leaksE-mail scandalAndrzej SkowronRights and Values ProgrammeTomasz SzmydtŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoMonika FrąckowiakEmilia SzmydtSwieczkowskiKasta/AntykastaBohdan BieniekStanisław ZabłockiJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczPetros TovmasyanJerzy KwaśniewskiPiotr MazurekGrzegorz PudaNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeWiesław KozielewiczFrans TimmermansMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakUS Department of StateMarcin KrajewskiEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaC-619/18Arkadiusz CichockiCT PresidentMarcin Matczakequal treatmentNational School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (KSSiP)codification commissiondelegationsWatchdog PolskaDariusz BarskiLasotafundamental rightsState Tribunalinsultcivil lawRadosław BaszukAction PlanJustice MinistryVěra JourováDonald Tuskjustice system reformAnti-SLAPP DirectiveHater ScandalpopulismNational Council for the Judiciarycivil partnerships billKRSJudicial Reformsmigration strategyPenal CodeLGBTQ+NIKProfetosame-sex unionsKatarzyna Kotulacivil partnershipsHelsinki Foundation for Human RightsPiotr HofmańskiC‑718/21preliminary referenceEU lawethicsChamber of Professional ResponsibilityThe Codification Committee of Civil LawInvestigationPoznańKrzysztof Rączkaextraordinary commissionZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaCourt of Appeal in WarsawOsiatyński'a Archivetransitional justiceUS State DepartmentAssessment ActCrimes of espionageJoanna KnobelAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszKoan LenaertsKarol WeitzKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiRThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFJustyna Wydrzyńskaenvironmentinvestmentstrategic investmentRafał WojciechowskiAleksandra RutkowskaGeneral Court of the EUArkadiusz RadwanLech WałęsaWałęsa v. Polandright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawpilot-judgmentDobrochna Bach-Goleckaelection fairnessNational Broadcasting Councilgag lawsuitslex RaczkowskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActdisinformationlustrationWhite PaperEUDonald Tusk governmentjudgePrzemysław CzarnekJózsef SzájerRafał TrzaskowskiKlubrádióSobczyńska and Others v PolandŻurek v PolandGazeta WyborczaGrzęda v PolandPollitykaJelenmedia lawIndex.huJacek CzaputowiczElżbieta KarskaPrzemysła Radzikmedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMABrussels IRome IILGBT free zonesFirst President of the Suprme CourtBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeOlsztyn courtPrzemysła CzarnekequalityMarek PiertuszyńskiChamber of Extraordinary VerificationArticle 2Forum shoppinghate speechEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian Kaletahate crimesC-156/21C-157/21Education Ministerthe Regional Court in Warsawproteststhe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońGermanyCelmermutual trustabortion rulingLMUnited NationsLeszek MazurAmsterdamIrena Majcherinterim measuresIrelandautocratizationMultiannual Financial FrameworkC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUC-487/19Norwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsNorwegian fundsNorwayKraśnikOmbudsmanZbigniew BoniekENAArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service Actpublic broadcasterForum Współpracy SędziówSimpson judgmentAK judgmentlegislative practiceforeign agents lawrepressive actMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitLSOtrans-Atlantic valuesDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandAmnesty InternationalThe First President of the Supreme CourtErnest BejdaJacek Sasinright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychAct of 20 December 2019Michał WośMinistry of FinancelawyersFrackowiakPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikKochenovPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderekct on the Protection of the PopulatioPechlegislationlex WośKaczyńskiPutinismCourt of Appeal in KrakówMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryECJMarek AstFreedom in the WorldEvgeni TanchevRome StatuteIsraelEuropean Public Prosecutor's OfficeEU valuesPolish National FoundationLux Veritatisinfringment actionMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykPKWENCJoligarchic systemclientelismIpsosOlimpia Barańska-MałuszeHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr Burasauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258Leon Kieresresolution of 23 January 2020Telex.huEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtAlina CzubieniakMaciej RutkiewiczharrassmentMirosław WróblewskiprimacyborderGerard BirgfellerTVNjournalistslexTVNpostal vote billPolish mediapostal voteEwa MaciejewskaRzeszówKoen Lenaerts