Poland’s Justice Minister Continues Dissembling about Judiciary “Reform”

Share

Journalist at OKO.press and Archiwum Osiatyńskiego

More

The Law and Justice government argues that the reforms introduced since 2015 do not differ from solutions in place elsewhere. But Law and Justice has politicised the National Council of the Judiciary and subjugated the Constitutional Tribunal. They are trying to take over the Supreme Court and is going after judges who dare to voice criticism. They have carried out a ghastly purge in the public prosecutorial service. Every particular change is troubling, but all the more so when viewed in its entirety.



In a statement dated of 2 September 2019, after a meeting with Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro, the Dutch Minister for Legal Protection Sander Dekker promised further support for organizations fighting for the rule of law in Poland.

 

“Changes in the judiciary are a violation of constitutional democracy in Poland. The Netherlands cannot stand aside because the situation is getting worse,” emphasized Dekker.

 

In response, Ziobro depicts Dekker as incompetent and fanatical: “He was not able to mention any European norm that the Polish law currently in force could violate. Asked several times by the Polish side for examples of such regulations, he ultimately stated that he questions the entirety of Polish legal solutions.”

 

We were not present at the meeting, so we can’t definitively say whether this was the case. However, we can analyse Ziobro’s arguments on an ad hoc basis, which, according to his own account, he used in his conversation with Dekker. They make up a narrative that PiS repeats like a mantra.

 

Equal before the law

 

“Poland is an equal member of the EU and cannot be treated worse in the discussion over the organisation of the justice system. One of the cornerstones of the rule of law is equality of EU Member States in the face of EU law and EU institutions,” writes Ziobro in a statement.

 

Poland is indeed a full member of the EU and has the same rights as the other Member States. But it also has the same obligations. Among other things, we are bound by respect for the values of the EU as set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union. The rule of law is one of them.

 

And the “reforms” of the judiciary by Ziobro, aimed at politicising the justice system, are in conflict with this value.

 

If Poland is a full member of the EU, it must be prepared for the EU to notice and react to this. To this end, the treaties include defence mechanisms – Article 7 TEU and Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. Both have been used by the European Commission to counter the Law and Justice (PiS) government. Everything within the boundaries of the law that applies to Poland – just as it does to everyone else.

 

Mutual trust

 

Ziobro is being disingenuous by saying that the polemic with the EU and the Dutch minister concern the “organisation of the justice system.”

 

This is not the case. Courts can be set up in any manner, provided that they remain independent. This is because Member States must guarantee citizens the right to an effective remedy and an impartial court under Article 19 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

 

Dekker himself has every reason to be interested in the Polish reforms, because European courts act as an interconnected system and in accordance with the principle of mutual trust. Doubts about their independence in one country can shatter this delicate balance.

 

We already know what its absence means in practice. Over the past year, successive courts have refused to immediately surrender to Poland citizens sought under a European Arrest Warrant. What was previously only been a formality now requires review and new procedures. Dutch courts have twice refused to send Polish citizens back.

 

On the one hand, Ziobro stresses that EU law applies to Poland in the same way as to other EU Member States. On the other hand, he has repeatedly claimed that the EU cannot impose anything on Poland. The Law and Justice party wants to be protected by the EU, but does not intend to do anything to protect the EU.

 

Two European Unions?

 

“The European Union was founded […] on the basis of an idea that rejected the division of Europe into better and worse countries. […] We cannot […] return to a policy in which, from a position of superiority towards a Member State presented by other countries, it is treated unequally and its achievements or legal culture are subjected to depreciation,” Ziobro explains to Dekker.

 

Let’s start at the beginning. Yes – all EU countries (at least in theory) are equal. Yes – all EU citizens (at least in theory) have the same rights. Respect for the national specificity of individual countries is obligatory.

 

All on condition that these countries do not violate democratic standards – the foundation of the EU community.

 

When Poland joined the EU in 2004, it had to meet the so-called Copenhagen criteria. It had to prove, among other things, that it had “stable democratic institutions fulfilling the ideal of the rule of law” and declare its “willingness to accept the EU legal and institutional acquis”.

 

In 2018, we would have had problems with meeting most of the criteria. Not only through the “reforms” of Law and Justice, which destabilized the institutions of the justice system. This is also due to the lack of a clear willingness of the government to accept the EU acquis and respect EU institutions.

 

Thus, Minister Dekker is not deprecating the Polish “acquis” or “legal culture”, but only the effects of the “reforms” of the Law and Justice government, which put Poland on the margins of the EU. When we joined the EU, we could count on equal treatment. We have made ourselves a second-class country.

 

What about Spain?

 

“Minister Zbigniew Ziobro pointed out that the aim of the changes introduced in Poland is to democratize the system for selecting judges in a manner similar to another European country – Spain,” he wrote in a Ministry statement.

 

The fact that Ziobro used the example of Spain comes as no surprise – Law and Justice politicians use it whenever it is necessary to defend their attack on the courts.

 

The similarities between Law and Justice legislation and the Spanish system are, however, merely superficial:

 

    – judges in Spain are nominated and selected in a different mode
    – there are stricter requirements for candidates
    – the Spanish parliament selects members of the Judicial Council by a 3/5 majority, while the Polish Sejm does so by simple majority

 

Moreover, Spain is not a very good example to follow. In a 2016 report by the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ), the Spanish system was ranked at the bottom in Europe in terms of judicial independence.

 

What about the Germans?

 

Like usual, after the “Spanish” argument the time came for the “German” argument.

 

“Minister Dekker could not explain why German citizens were allowed to influence the personnel of German courts through democratic elections and why Polish citizens should be deprived of this right,” the Ziobro statement reads.

 

The German system is indeed one of the most politicised in Europe. And yet in many ways it is less controversial than the “reforms” by Law and Justice. Long tradition, the presence of the opposition on the recruitment committee, the opinion of judges and good practice particularly favour the German system.

 

In Germany, for example, it is unthinkable that a candidate without experience and competence could be appointed to adjudicate in a court.

 

Ziobro jokes that the Dutch minister criticizes Poland “in its entirety” instead of “specifics.” The Law and Justice party politicized the National Council of the Judiciary. It subordinated the Constitutional Tribunal. It is trying to take over the Supreme Court. It is persecuting judges who dare to criticise these ideas. And there remains the matter of the purge in the public prosecutor service.

 

[translated by Matthew La Fontaine]



Author


Journalist at OKO.press and Archiwum Osiatyńskiego


More

Published

September 25, 2019

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandZbigniew Ziobrorule of lawEuropean CommissionjudgesCourt of Justice of the EUjudicial independenceNational Council of the JudiciaryEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaIgor TuleyaEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary systemMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiWaldemar Żurekdemocracymuzzle lawpresidential electionsPiotr SchabjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020Kamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerBeata MorawiecPrzemysław RadzikFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsMichał LasotaEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiPrime MinisterJulia Przyłębskamedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19electionsNational Recovery PlanNational Council for JudiciaryPresidentfreedom of expressionŁukasz PiebiakCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawdisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanMałgorzata GersdorfAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynAnna DalkowskaNational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetWłodzimierz WróbelCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorDagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaStanisław PiotrowiczJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisK 7/21May 10 2020 electionsLex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandSejmXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v Polandmedia independenceIustitiaJarosław DudziczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczArticle 6 ECHRTHEMISEAWUrsula von der LeyenChamber of Professional LiabilitymediaimmunityCouncil of Europe2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaRecovery FundP 7/20Justice Fundneo-judgesPiSC-791/19National Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Piotr PszczółkowskiPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaProfessional Liability ChamberJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikorasuspensionJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesReczkowicz and Others v. PolandUkraineKrystian MarkiewiczKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczDariusz DrajewiczRafał PuchalskidefamationcourtsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekEwa WrzosekEU law primacyTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej Miterademocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetoJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJrecommendationTeresa 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 RzeplińskiJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskireportBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersEuropean ParliamentOKO.pressZiobroMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskitransferPiotr GąciarekKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiRegional Court in KrakówPiebiak gatehuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencycoronavirusXero Flor v. PolandEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej Rutkiewiczresolution of 23 January 2020Mirosław WróblewskiCivil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaLeon Kieresright to protestSławomir JęksaPKWWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMariusz Kamińskiinfringment actionsurveillanceEU valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauENCJJacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiIsraelŁukasz Radkeforeign agents lawpolexitDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościLGBT free zonesAct sanitising the judiciaryequalityMarek AstMaciej FerekChamber of Extraordinary VerificationEdyta Barańskahate crimesCourt of Appeal in Krakówhate speechPutinismcriminal codeKaczyńskiGrzęda v Polandright to fair trialPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasŻurek v PolandMałgorzata Wąsek-WiaderekSobczyńska and Others v Polandct on the Protection of the PopulatioparliamentlegislationRafał Trzaskowskilex Wośmedia lawRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtPrzemysła RadzikAntykastaSenateStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczMarcin WarchołKatarzyna ChmuraElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiGrzegorz FurmankiewiczJacek CzaputowiczMarek JaskulskiPrzemysław CzarnekJoanna Kołodziej-Michałowiczlegislative practiceEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaENAPaweł StyrnaZbigniew BoniekKasta/AntykastaAndrzej SkowronŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoOmbudsmanMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiKraśnikEmilia SzmydtNorwayTomasz SzmydtNorwegian fundssmear campaignNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał DworczykC-487/19media pluralism#RecoveryFilesArticle 10 ECHRmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentRegional Court in Amsterdamrepairing the rule of lawharassmentOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentBohdan BieniekSimpson judgmentMarcin KrajewskiForum Współpracy SędziówMałgorzata Dobiecka-Woźniakelectoral processChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairspublic broadcasterWiesław KozielewiczNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeGrzegorz PudaPiotr MazurekJerzy Kwaśniewskimutual trustPetros Tovmasyancourt presidentsLMelections 2023ODIHRIrelandFull-Scale Election Observation MissionNGOIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited NationsLeszek Mazurpopulisminterim 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 StatePechOlsztyn courtKochenovPrzemysła CzarnekEvgeni TanchevEducation MinisterFreedom in the WorldECJIpsosFrackowiakOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeretirement ageAmnesty InternationalHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr Bogdanowicztrans-Atlantic valuesPiotr BurasLSOauthoritarian equilibriumlawyersArticle 258Act of 20 December 2019clientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officerepressive actPolish National FoundationLux VeritatisKoen LenaertsMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykharrassmentMarian BanaśAlina CzubieniakSupreme Audit OfficeTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediapostal voteKrakówRzeszówborderpostal vote billprimacy