Bodnar’s Action Plan. How to restore the rule of law and unblock funds for the National Recovery and Resilience Plan [DETAILS]

Share

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

More

Adam Bodnar presented a plan to the European Commission for fixing the justice system after the PiS government. This is a package of 10 acts, which are intended to help end the disputes with Brussels, unblock the billions for the NRRP and truly reform the courts and the prosecution service. We have the details.



Justice Minister Adam Bodnar’s action plan for restoring the rule of law in Poland – this is how the minister himself calls the plan – consists of two parts:

 

  • The first applies to the activities that the government will take without the need to pass new acts. These are the so-called soft activities.
  • The second part applies to legislative activities planned up to the beginning of 2025.

 

In this part, the ruling coalition intends to enact 10 bills. These will be the Acts on

  • the Constitutional Tribunal,
  • the National Council of the Judiciary (two bills),
  • the Supreme Court,
  • the Prosecution Service (two bills),
  • the Ordinary Courts (two bills, including an ‘Anti-Muzzle’ Act),
  • the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
  • and the status of the employees of the courts and the prosecutor’s office.

 

Bodnar presented his plan in Brussels on Tuesday 20 February 2024. He talked about it, among others, with the deputy head of the European Commission, Věra Jourová, and the Commissioner for Justice, Didier Reynders. It arises from leaks from the meetings that the plan was positively received.

 

Donald Tusk’s government hopes it will help the European Commission resolve two matters:

 

  1. Unblocking of  billions of euros for the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) – it is speculated that head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, who is to be in Poland on Friday, will announce a breakthrough in this matter.
  2. The second objective is for the European Commission to end the infringement proceedings against Poland under Article 7 of the EU Treaty in connection with breaches of the rule of law.

 

These proceedings were initiated in 2017 in connection with PiS’s ‘reforms’ subordinating the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Tribunal and the National Council of the Judiciary to the authorities. Minister Bodnar mentioned earlier that his dream is to end this procedure against Poland.

 

Tusk’s government has a good chance of reaching an extensive compromise with Brussels. The key bills in Bodnar’s plan are to be adopted in the first half of this year. The government enacted the first bill from the plan on Tuesday, 20 February 2024. This is an amendment to the Act on the National Council of the Judiciary, which introduces elections for the 15 judge-members of the NCJ. They will be elected by judges instead of MPs, as the current members of the neo-NCJ were elected. The bill also terminates the neo-NCJ.

 

These acts will require President Andrzej Duda’s consent for them to enter into force. But even if he vetoes them, the government will still send a strong signal to Brussels that it is willing to restore the rule of law. And the proof will be the legislative actions. Such a signal could be enough for the EC, because it knows that Duda is connected with PiS.

 

The non-legislative actions proposed in the ‘action plan’ are also intended to help unblock the funding for the NRRP and end the infringement proceedings. And so are the decisions Minister Bodnar has already implemented since the beginning of his rule.

 

  • Bodnar replaced the management of the prosecutor’s office, which was politicized by Ziobro, and which is an important element of the justice system. It was also prosecuting independent judges.
  • The minister also started the process of dismissing the Ziobro-nominated court presidents. He appointed three extraordinary disciplinary commissioners, who are taking over the disciplinary activities from Ziobro’s disciplinary commissioners. Namely from Piotr Schab, Przemysław Radzik and Michał Lasota. These actions are intended to help change the climate in the courts and end the repression of judges for defending the rule of law and applying European law. And this is one of the conditions for unblocking the funds for the NRRP.

 

Furthermore, the minister changed the rules of procedure of the ordinary courts. According to these, neo-judges cannot participate in the consideration of applications for disqualification and testing of other neo-judges. The ability to test neo-judges is also one of the conditions for receiving funding for the NRRP. During the PiS rule, judges were prosecuted for this by Minister Ziobro’s disciplinary commissioners.

 

The activities intended to restore the full rule of law, the applicability of European law and the constitutional order in Poland are being coordinated by an inter-ministerial team. It includes not only government representatives, but also experts from non-governmental organizations dealing with the rule of law.

 

Importantly, Bodnar wants to use the need to restore the rule of law to truly reform the justice system. This is also a part of his action plan. To this end, he will also appoint four codification commissions, for

  1. criminal law;
  1. civil law;
  1. family law;
  1. and the structure of the courts and prosecution service.

 

There will also be an act on court experts.

 

 

How Bodnar wants to restore the application of European law through soft actions

 

The first part of Adam Bodnar’s action plan envisages decisions regarding the restoration of the rule of law, which do not require statutory changes.

 

A review of Poland’s positions in cases pending before the ECtHR and the Court of Justice of the EU (not only those that apply to Poland) has already started. These mainly apply to matters regarding the rule of law, the relationship between national law and EU law, and the applicability of CJEU and ECtHR judgments in Poland. The government is also checking various objections from EU institutions with respect to Poland.

 

The government has changed its position on the EC’s complaint regarding Julia Przyłębska’s Constitutional Tribunal and has accepted the EC’s allegations. It agrees that full independence needs to be restored to the Constitutional Tribunal. The government has also submitted positions to the CJEU in which it confirms the right of judges to submit requests for preliminary rulings. It also requests a positive response on matters regarding the independence and impartiality of the courts.

 

The government also accepts the ECtHR judgments issued so far regarding Poland and has declared its willingness to implement them. Meanwhile, in the ongoing cases, the Ministry of Justice is reviewing its position and is accepting the ECtHR’s interpretation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

This Article gives citizens the right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial court established by law. It was on this basis that the Court of Justice questioned the status of the Disciplinary Chamber, the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs, the neo-NCJ and the nominations it gave to neo-judges (a tribunal with neo-judges is defective). The government is also working on implementing other ECtHR human rights judgments.

 

Package of acts

The second part of Justice Minister Adam Bodnar’s action plan assumes the adoption of a package of 10 acts. The government does not want to concern itself with the problem of whether Duda will veto them. The legislative offensive will be a clear signal that it wants to restore the rule of law and change the justice system. Furthermore, it wants to hold a debate on the real reform of the courts, which has to take place anyway. Minister Bodnar announces that real public consultations will be held.

 

Nothing will be wasted if there are any presidential vetoes. Because if a new president who is willing to cooperate appears in the middle of 2025, it will be possible to quickly pass ready bills.

 

The bill partially amending to the Act on the NCJ will go first, because it is the source of problems with the rule of law in Poland

 

The government adopted it on Tuesday, 20 February 2024. It is speculated that the Sejm will adopt it at the Sejm’s session starting on Wednesday (it is not yet on the agenda). The bill assumes a change in the method of electing 15 judge-members of the NCJ.

 

PiS abolished their election by judges. And introduced their election by the Sejm in conflict with the Constitution. The PiS MPs primarily elected judges who decided to cooperate with Ziobro’s ministry. This is why the CJEU, the ECtHR, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court questioned the legality of the neo-NCJ. Because this body is politicized and in conflict with the Constitution. And the neo-judges it nominates do not guarantee citizens the right to a trial before an independent court.

 

The bill enacted by the government assumes that judges will be elected to the NCJ by judges in elections organized by the National Electoral Commission. Neo-judges will not be able to enter them. Groups of 10–40 judges will be able to nominate candidates. There will be public hearings of them. The current, illegal neo-NCJ will be terminated.

 

This bill does not reform the whole of the NCJ. It also does not resolve the problem of its nominations for neo-judges. Bodnar is leaving this for stage II.

 

The association of judges, Iustitia, which has its own bill, supports the holistic reform of the NCJ. It is in favour of the new NCJ taking over administrative supervision over the courts from the Ministry of Justice. Bodnar is not saying no. In an interview with OKO.press, he said this would be considered during the further talks. Meanwhile, the minister agrees with Iustitia that neo-judges should not be vetted. But recruitments should be repeated before the legal NCJ.

 

The second bill reforming the whole of the NCJ is to be enacted this year, before the summer holidays.

 

The Supreme Court and the Constitutional Tribunal

 

The Constitutional Tribunal and the Supreme Court are also on the list of priority bills. Both bills are to be enacted before the summer holidays.

 

In the case of the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Justice will use the bill prepared by Iustitia as the basis. Bodnar assumes – he also said this in his interview with OKO.press – the liquidation of the two chambers of the Supreme Court that were established by PiS. These are the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs and the Professional Liability Chamber.

 

Both are illegal, their status is questioned by the CJEU, the ECtHR, the EC and the legal Supreme Court. They are staffed with neo-judges and have the status of special courts. Additionally, the president and the prime minister, namely politicians, nominated the people who are to adjudicate in the Professional Liability Chamber.

 

Furthermore, the extraordinary complaint, which PiS also introduced, will be abolished. Minister Ziobro used it to cancel judgments that were inconvenient for the government in the illegal Review Chamber. He also used it to the detriment of his opponents. It was used to cancel two judgments that were favourable for Judge Waldemar Żurek and one that was favourable for Lech Wałęsa. Minister Bodnar is conducting an audit of extraordinary complaints which have not yet been examined by the Review Chamber to check whether they can be withdrawn.

 

As for the Constitutional Tribunal, the government wants to start making changes with a resolution from the Sejm. Perhaps it will be discussed during the current session of the Sejm, but it is not yet on the agenda.

 

It is unknown what it will contain. Minister Bodnar said in an interview that it would encompass stand-in judges and the matter of Julia Przyłębska’s presidency in the Constitutional Tribunal and its consequences for the whole of the Tribunal. According to lawyers, her term of office has expired.

 

Regardless of this, there will be a bill reforming the Constitutional Tribunal.

 

The Ministry is relying on a bill prepared by experts under the auspices of the Batory Foundation. The government is not ruling out the possibility that the Constitution may need to be amended.

 

Prosecutor’s Office, Anti-Muzzle Act

 

Two more bills are urgent

  • the separation of the positions of prosecutor general and minister of justice;
  • and the withdrawal of the repressive provisions regarding judges which were introduced by PiS through the Muzzle Act of 2020.

 

The Muzzle Act was intended to block the questioning of the status of the Disciplinary Chamber, the Constitutional Tribunal, the neo-NCJ and neo-judges under threat of penalties. In other words, it prohibited judges from implementing the judgments of the CJEU and the ECtHR on this. Both of these bills are to be enacted before the summer holidays.

 

The current ruling coalition promised to separate the positions of prosecutor general and minister of justice. Adam Bodnar also wants this. Because this will make the prosecution service independent of politicians. Because  Zbigniew Ziobro subordinated it to his party. The Sejm will most probably elect the new prosecutor general, with the consent of the Senate. An absolute majority of votes will be needed for this.

 

The new prosecutor general will receive significant guarantees of independence. Notwithstanding this, the recruitment of a new national prosecutor is currently in progress. He will replace Dariusz Barski, Ziobro’s trusted person, who was removed from office in January 2024.

 

 

  • An act on the new prosecutor’s office will be passed later.

 

It will establish its final structure, promotion paths, the responsibilities of prosecutors and their individual independence. It will also introduce a new model of their disciplinary liability.

 

In the case of the ‘Anti-Muzzle’ Act, a quick amendment to the Act on the Structure of the Ordinary Courts is planned, removing the provisions regarding repression of judges from it. This amendment is urgent because the CJEU ruled in June 2023 that it was in conflict with EU law.

 

Therefore the Ministry of Justice will propose:

  • the removal of the obligation for judges to submit declarations of membership in associations. They were also being prosecuted for this;
  • the provisions of Article 107 of the Act on the Courts prohibiting the examination of the status of neo-judges or neo-NCJ, prohibiting activities allegedly obstructing the administration of justice and referring to the alleged refusal to administer justice will also be removed.

 

They were used to attack judges demanding the implementation of court decisions that applied to them or refusing to adjudicate with neo-judges. For example, disciplinary commissioners initiated disciplinary proceedings for the refusal to adjudicate with neo-judges. It is planned that disciplinary action taken under the Muzzle Act will be discontinued.

 

Courts, pay rises for employees, implementation of ECtHR judgments

 

Bodnar’s ministry also wants to regulate the matter of the secondment of judges to adjudicate in higher courts by the summer holidays.

 

The CJEU questioned the minister’s right to second and dismiss judges without giving any reasons in 2021. Because the minister can influence judgments of judges in this way. The ministry plans to introduce criteria for seconding and withdrawing secondments. So that these are not arbitrary decisions. Minister Ziobro punished unruly judges by withdrawing secondments.

 

  • Furthermore, the minister considers that it urgent to restore the judicial self-government in the courts, to once again jointly decide on the most important matters, 
  • as well as changing the disciplinary system of judges.

 

The CJEU also contested this system in its judgment in July 2021. And its change is a condition for unblocking the funds for the NRRP.

 

The ministry wants disciplinary proceedings to be objective and independent. Therefore, the disciplinary commissioners will need to be replaced and the Professional Liability Chamber will need to be liquidated.

 

Other changes to the courts are planned for a later stage.

 

  • This applies to a holistic bill on the structure of the ordinary courts, referring to their structure, organization, financing, computerization of the courts and the status of judges (what is required of them and their disciplinary liability). Work on this bill is due to start in the second half of the year.
  • Additionally, Minister Bodnar wants to regulate the status of the employees of the courts and prosecutor’s offices with another new act. In an interview with OKO.press, he said that he would fight for pay rises for them.
  • The last of the planned bills applies to Poland’s implementation of the judgments of the ECtHR. The PiS authorities, with the help of Przyłębska’s Constitutional Tribunal, questioned their validity in Poland. The new act to be adopted in the first half of 2024 will specify the principles and timing for implementing ECtHR judgments.

 

Translated by Roman Wojtasz

 

The article was published in Polish in OKO.press on 20 February 2024.



Author


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


More

Published

March 4, 2024

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