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 JudiciaryCourt of Justice of the EUjudicial independenceEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaCourt of JusticeMinister of JusticeEuropean Court of Human RightsAdam BodnarIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemmuzzle lawJarosław KaczyńskiNational Recovery PlanCJEUMateusz Morawieckineo-judgesCommissioner for Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European UnionPrzemysław RadzikWaldemar ŻurekdemocracyNational Council for JudiciaryPiotr Schabelectionspresidential electionsKamil ZaradkiewiczJulia Przyłębskamedia freedomcriminal lawelections 2023disciplinary commissionerharassmentprosecutionSupreme Administrative CourtHungaryelections 2020preliminary rulingsjudiciaryDagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaK 3/21First President of the Supreme CourtPaweł JuszczyszynNational ProsecutorRecovery FundPresidentMichał LasotaProsecutor GeneralŁukasz PiebiakBeata MorawiecprosecutorsEuropean Arrest Warrantfreedom of expressionConstitutionPrime MinisterSejmimmunityMaciej NawackiIustitiaRegional Court in KrakówCriminal ChamberCOVID-19Maciej FerekOSCEMałgorzata GersdorfcourtsVenice CommissionMarek SafjanMinistry of JusticeExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberEU budgetdisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiPiSNCJKrystian MarkiewiczStanisław PiotrowiczPresident of the Republic of PolandAleksander Stepkowskicommission on Russian influenceJustice FundTHEMISLabour and Social Security ChamberLaw and JusticeNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsconditionalitycorruptionStanisław BiernatreformsAnna Dalkowskafreedom of assemblyconditionality mechanismWłodzimierz WróbelsuspensionPiotr GąciarekOrdo IurisReczkowicz and Others v. PolandparliamentMarcin RomanowskiAndrzej Stępkamedia independenceChamber of Professional LiabilityBroda and Bojara v PolandXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandP 7/20K 7/21LGBTPresident of PolandNational Reconstruction PlanJarosław DudziczLex DudaProfessional Liability ChamberMay 10 2020 electionsStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationPiotr PrusinowskidefamationLex Super OmniamediaUrsula von der LeyenKrzysztof ParchimowiczEAWabortionMichał Wawrykiewiczelectoral codeAmsterdam District CourtNext Generation EUSLAPPConstitutional Tribunal PresidentDidier ReyndersTVPEwa ŁętowskaSenateParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeLech GarlickiSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramArticle 6 ECHRAndrzej ZollNational Electoral CommissionFreedom HouseJarosław WyrembakJustice Defence Committee – KOSreformArticle 7acting first president of the Supreme CourtSupreme Court President2017PM Mateusz MorawieckipolicePiotr TulejaJerzy StępieńAndrzej RzeplińskiFerdynand RymarzStanisław RymarMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaDariusz ZawistowskiOKO.pressreportSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskiMarek ZubikDariusz KornelukMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekEuropean Parliamentmilestoneselectoral processAndrzej MączyńskiJózef IwulskiWojciech MaczugavetoOLAFViktor OrbanSzymon Szynkowski vel SękMaciej Miterajudcial independencecourt presidentsJanusz NiemcewiczTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaMarek MazurkiewiczZiobroMirosław GranatWojciech ŁączkowskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaStefan JaworskiAdam JamrózKazimierz Działochainsulting religious feelingsrestoration of the rule of lawright to fair trialXero Flor v. PolandLaw on the NCJKrakówstate of emergencydecommunizationBelarusAdam SynakiewiczAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Joanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraCentral Anti-Corruption BureausurveillanceMariusz KamińskiPegasusEdyta BarańskaJoanna Misztal-KoneckaCivil ChamberUkraineSupreme Audit OfficeMarian BanaśKrystyna PawłowiczCCBERafał PuchalskiThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeMarek PietruszyńskiMichał Laskowskipublic opinion pollsmear campaignMariusz MuszyńskiHuman Rights CommissionerMaciej TaborowskiPaweł FilipekInternational Criminal CourtKonrad WytrykowskirecommendationaccountabilityJakub IwaniecDariusz DrajewicztransparencyFree CourtsBohdan Zdziennickiretirement ageSLAPPsPATFoxLGBT ideology free zoneslexTuskAdam Tomczyński11 January March in Warsawabuse of state resourcesEuropean Association of Judgespublic mediaEwa Wrzosekcourt changesC-791/19democratic backslidingcoronavirushuman rightscriminal codePiebiak gateelections fairnessZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczJarosław GowinEU law primacyPiotr PszczółkowskiBelgiumtransferNetherlandscivil societyRussiaBogdan Święczkowskielections integrityintimidation of dissentersMarcin Warchołlex NGOGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszCrimes of espionageNCBiRJoanna KnobelKasta/AntykastaThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentHater ScandalPaweł StyrnaGrzegorz FurmankiewiczDariusz BarskiJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczJustyna WydrzyńskaKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczEwa ŁąpińskaIrena BochniakZbigniew ŁupinaNational Broadcasting CouncilKatarzyna ChmuraStanisław ZdunLasotaAntykastaEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFMarek JaskulskiRome StatuteCourt of Appeal in Warsawlex RaczkowskiCourt of Appeal in KrakówNational Council for the JudiciaryMarek Astgag lawsuitsAssessment ActAct sanitising the judiciaryenvironmentPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAgreement for the Rule of LawMaria Ejchart-DuboisPaulina Kieszkowska-Knapikstrategic investmentPiotr HofmańskiUS State DepartmentPutinismKaczyńskilex Wośdisinformationextraordinary commissionlegislationthe Spy ActZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaHelsinki Foundation for Human RightsinvestmentMałgorzata Wąsek-WiaderekOsiatyński'a ArchiveJarosław MatrasPaulina AslanowiczPiotr Raczkowskict on the Protection of the PopulatioAndrzej SkowronoppositionDariusz DończykPetros TovmasyanJerzy KwaśniewskiPiotr MazurekGrzegorz PudaNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeinsultState TribunalDonald Tusk governmenttest of independencepilot-judgmentVěra JourováTomasz Koszewskiright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawJakub KwiecińskidiscriminationAnti-SLAPP DirectiveODIHRcivil lawDonald TuskJustice MinistryJoanna Scheuring-WielgusAction PlanAdam GendźwiłłElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikSebastian Mazurekjustice system reformJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiEuropean Court of HuMałgorzata FroncRafał LisakKarolina MiklaszewskaRadosław BaszukNGOFull-Scale Election Observation MissionWałęsa v. PolandAct on the Supreme CourtLech WałęsaMichał DworczykDworczyk leaksAleksandra RutkowskaE-mail scandalRafał WojciechowskidelegationsTomasz SzmydtEmilia SzmydtWatchdog PolskaArkadiusz CichockiKaspryszyn v PolandDobrochna Bach-GoleckaMonika FrąckowiakNCR&Delection fairnessIvan Mischenkomedia pluralism#RecoveryFilesWiesław Kozielewiczelectoral commissionsMarcin MatczakChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakArkadiusz RadwanMarcin KrajewskiBohdan BieniekGeneral Court of the EUKrzysztof Rączkarepairing the rule of lawPoznańNational School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (KSSiP)Koan Lenaertscodification commissionKarol WeitzŁukasz BilińskiPKWhate speechGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawPrzemysła RadzikElżbieta KarskaJacek Czaputowiczhate crimesChamber of Extraordinary Verificationinfringment actionEU valuesENCJIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceAK judgmentSimpson judgmentpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawOpenbaar MinisterieRegional Court in AmsterdamENAZbigniew BoniekOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsC-487/19Article 10 ECHRUnited NationsLeon KierespopulismLIBE 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 awardWojciech SadurskiAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote billlawyersLSOjudgePechKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakAmnesty Internationaltrans-Atlantic valuesresolution of 23 January 2020Olsztyn courtoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's OfficePolish National FoundationLux VeritatisMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykTVNjournalistslexTVNclientelismArticle 258Przemysła CzarnekEducation MinisterIpsosOlimpia Barańska-MałuszeHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr Burasauthoritarian equilibriumPolish mediaRzeszówMichał WośMinistry of FinanceJacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitRoman GiertychWiktor JoachimkowskiborderprimacyEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej RutkiewiczMirosław Wróblewskiright to protestSławomir JęksaDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandTribunal of StateLeszek MazurCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActForum Współpracy Sędziówmedia taxGermanyMariusz Krasońinterim measuresautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingproteststhe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandadvertising taxmediabezwyboruArticle 2Forum shoppingEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian KaletaC-156/21C-157/21Marek PiertuszyńskiNational Prosecutor’s OfficeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiRome IIBrussels IJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióGazeta WyborczaPollitykaDisicplinary Chamber