Poles agree: EU Court of Justice has the right to stop illegal judiciary reform [POLL]

Share

Co-founder of the Rule of Law in Poland and the Wiktor Osiatyński Archive, rule of law monitoring projects. Doctor of…

More

According to the latest poll, majority of Poles believe that the Court of Justice of the EU is entitled to stop Law and Justice's judiciary reform if it concludes that the EU rules have been violated. The Polish people widely support firm actions by the Court against the right-wing government



Two thirds of the Poles who do not support Law and Justice party (PiS) believe that we have witnessed an unacceptable attempt against the nation’s judiciary; three quarters think that the Court of Justice of the European Union does have the right to stop the “judiciary reform”. The PiS electorate’s views are quite reverse though: two thirds approve of the reforms, three quarters are against the EU’s intervention. Yet even among Kaczyński’s voters second thoughts are on the rise.

 


 

PRZECZYTAJ PO POLSKU / POLISH VERSION

 


 

As the latest IPSOS poll for OKO.press reveals, it seems that PiS has lost the propaganda “battle for courts”.

 

The continually spread arguments that the present judges have formed a privileged caste –  an evil elite of the previous political order, whose omnipotence needs to be restricted – are supported mainly by Kaczyński’s electorate – and even then only in 62 percent. Among the non-PiS voters two thirds believe that PiS has committed an unacceptable attempt against the rule of law:

 

In your opinion, the government’s policy towards the judiciary and judges constitutes:

 

All respondents Law and Justice electorate Remaining respondents
All respondents                                           Law and Justice electorate                         Remaining respondents

 

We asked the very same question through an IPSOS poll already in April 2017. 16 months have passed since then, during which PiS, step by step, was taking over the judiciary, while the government, along with its subordinate media, has been constantly trying to convince the public that – as Prime Minister Morawiecki has put it – “[Justice] Minister Ziobro’s reform is good, it promotes judicial autonomy. Decreases it?! It’s just stories that you’re telling” – and so far there has been no effect. Half of the respondents (51%) were against the “reform” then and just as many (49%) are still speaking out against it today, while the number of its proponents has slightly decreased (from 39% to 35%).

 

There has been a sharp drop in support for the “judiciary reform” among the PiS electorate: it used to be favoured by 74 percent, now it stands at 62. Another 22 percent do not know what to think of their government’s actions.

 

Majority of Poles support the Court of Justice

 

The authorities have also failed to convince Poles that the European Union should stay away from Law and Justice’s “reforms”, for it has no reason, nor any legitimation to impose its will on the “sovereign nation” and its party.

 

54 percent of Poles agree that the Court of Justice of the European Union is entitled to stop Law and Justice’s judiciary reform if it concludes that the EU rules have been violated; 41 percent are against.

 

In this case, the PiS voters have shown more discipline and as many as 77 percent of them have expressed the view that the Court of Justice of the EU has no power to stop the “judiciary reforms”. However, the responses of the Poles who would not vote for Kaczyński are extremely pro-European: as many as 73 percent believe that the Court of Justice does hold the right to halt the “judiciary reform”.

 

Is the Court of Justice of the European Union entitled to stop Law and Justice’s judiciary reform if it concludes that the EU rules have been violated?

 

All respondents Law and Justice electorate Remaining respondents
All respondents                                          Law and Justice electorate                        Remaining respondents

 

It means that when it comes to the “battle for courts”, Poles generally seem to share the opposition’s and European institutions’ views more often than those of the authorities. It is almost exclusively the PiS electorate that shares the PiS narrative, and even there the opinions fluctuate more than usual.

 

Who’s with PiS, who’s against

 

The differences are even more apparent among the voters of particular parties. Law and Justice’s policy towards the judiciary is considered an “unacceptable violation of the rule of law” by:

 

  • 91 percent of the .Modern (.Nowoczesna) electorate;
  • 89 percent of the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD);
  • 83 percent of the Civic Platform (PO);
  • 83 percent of Robert Biedroń’s (hypothetical) party;
  • 72 percent of the Together party (Razem);
  • 53 percent of the Polish People’s Party (PSL);
  • 49 percent of Kukiz’15;
  • 48 percent of the Liberty party (Wolność);
  • 16 percent of Law and Justice (PiS).

 

Meanwhile, the idea of the Court of Justice of the EU stopping the “judiciary reforms” is approved by:

 

  • 95 percent of the .Modern electorate;
  • 94 percent of the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD);
  • 94 percent of the Civic Platform (PO);
  • 93 percent of the Together party (Razem);
  • 89 percent of Robert Biedroń’s (hypothetical) party;
  • 68 percent of the Polish People’s Party (PSL);
  • 59 percent of the Liberty party (Wolność);
  • 55 percent of Kukiz’15;
  • 19 percent of Law and Justice (PiS)

 

The differences are clearly visible also in specific socioeconomic groups. There are similar dependencies for both questions, we will illustrate them with the example of the question about the attempt against the judiciary.

 

Assesment of the government’s policy towards the judiciary and judges with regard to the respondents’ age

 

 

The age profile here resembles one encountered in numerous other surveys: violation of democratic rules is accepted by the youngest Poles (more often supporters of Kukiz’15 than PiS), but they grow out of that tendency quite quickly. On the other hand, approval for PiS policy appears to reemerge among the oldest Poles.

 

The education level profile is just as clear: those better educated prove more sensitive to violation of law and more often prone to approve of the Court of Justice of the EU’s intervention.

 

Assessment of the government policy towards the judiciary and judges with regard to education

 

from left: Basic and lower secondary education, Professional training, Secondary education, Higher education
from left: Basic and lower secondary education, Professional training, Secondary education, Higher education

 

Even in rural areas, where there is generally more followers of the PiS narrative, the view that PiS policy is an attempt against the rule of law (43 percent) outweighs the argument about the “judicial caste” (37 percent), while as many as 52 percent believe that the Court of Justice of the EU has the right to stop the “judiciary reforms” (41 percent oppose this view). In major cities the approval for such an intervention reaches 57 percent.

 

It is only among the poorest group (with net income below 1500 zł [~ €350]) that the PiS narrative has slightly more proponents.

 

ABOUT OKO.PRESS

 

OKO.press is a non-profit, investigative journalism and fact-checking project created to preserve freedom of speech and secure availability of information in Poland.

 

WHAT WE DO:

 

  • We investigate and evaluate statements made by politicians.
  • We monitor public spending.
  • We fight for access to public information.
  • We publish our own analyses.
  • We carry out our own opinion polls.
  • We are a first in Poland to use a safe drop-box called Sygnał.


Author


Co-founder of the Rule of Law in Poland and the Wiktor Osiatyński Archive, rule of law monitoring projects. Doctor of…


More

Published

August 29, 2018

Tags

Supreme CourtPolandDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaljudgesrule 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 RightsIgor TuleyaAdam Bodnardisciplinary systemCJEUmuzzle lawJarosław Kaczyńskineo-judgesNational Recovery PlanMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European UniondemocracyNational Council for JudiciaryPrzemysław RadzikWaldemar Żurekdisciplinary commissionermedia freedomKamil Zaradkiewiczcriminal lawelectionspresidential electionsPiotr Schabelections 2023judiciaryJulia PrzyłębskaharassmentK 3/21First President of the Supreme CourtprosecutionSupreme Administrative Courtpreliminary rulingsHungaryDagmara Pawełczyk-Woickaelections 2020Michał LasotaŁukasz PiebiakNational ProsecutorBeata MorawiecPresidentProsecutor GeneralPaweł JuszczyszynRecovery FundprosecutorsRegional Court in KrakówConstitutionfreedom of expressionimmunityEuropean Arrest WarrantIustitiaMaciej NawackiPrime MinisterSejmCriminal ChamberMarek SafjanCOVID-19Venice CommissionExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberWojciech HermelińskiMałgorzata GersdorfMinistry of Justicedisciplinary liability for judgesreformMaciej FerekOSCEEU budgetcourtsStanisław Biernatcommission on Russian influenceAnna DalkowskacorruptionLGBTcriminal proceedingsStanisław PiotrowiczconditionalityJustice Fundconditionality mechanismWłodzimierz WróbelCouncil of EuropeNational Public ProsecutorPiSreformsNCJfreedom of assemblyLaw and JusticeAleksander StepkowskiJarosław DudziczKrystian MarkiewiczTHEMISLabour and Social Security ChamberPresident of the Republic of PolandPiotr GąciarekMay 10 2020 electionsOrdo IurisLex DudaPresident of Poland2017Lex Super OmniaAndrzej StępkaEwa ŁętowskaMichał WawrykiewiczArticle 6 ECHREAWUrsula von der LeyenParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeLech GarlickiTVPmediaabortionKrzysztof ParchimowiczdefamationAmsterdam District CourtStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationSLAPPXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandDidier ReyndersReczkowicz and Others v. Polandmedia independenceSenateSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramMarcin RomanowskiNext Generation EUacting first president of the Supreme CourtsuspensionPiotr PrusinowskiChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsJustice Defence Committee – KOSChamber of Professional LiabilityCivil ChamberFreedom HouseConstitutional Tribunal PresidentNational Reconstruction PlanPM Mateusz MorawieckiK 7/21Professional Liability ChamberparliamentSupreme Court PresidentNational Electoral CommissionArticle 7policeP 7/20Andrzej ZollJarosław Wyrembakelectoral codeelectoral processStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaSzymon Szynkowski vel SękKonrad WytrykowskiWojciech ŁączkowskiInternational Criminal CourtMarek MazurkiewiczAndrzej MączyńskiOLAFUkraineJanusz NiemcewiczAdam Jamrózright to fair trialEdyta BarańskaJakub IwaniecDariusz Drajewiczrestoration of the rule of lawMaciej Miterapublic mediaJózef IwulskiMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekViktor Orbanjudcial independencevetomilestonesTeresa Dębowska-Romanowskasmear campaignKazimierz DziałochaWojciech Maczugacourt presidentsRafał PuchalskiMirosław GranatMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaPaweł Filipekstate of emergencySLAPPsXero Flor v. PolandAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21transparencyDariusz ZawistowskiOKO.pressBelarusPATFoxMichał LaskowskiMaciej TaborowskiMariusz MuszyńskiKrystyna PawłowiczMarian BanaśSupreme Audit OfficeAdam SynakiewiczMarek PietruszyńskiDariusz Kornelukabuse of state resourceselections fairnessJoanna Misztal-KoneckaMirosław Wyrzykowskiinsulting religious feelingsSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczPiotr TulejaJerzy StępieńAndrzej RzeplińskiFerdynand RymarzJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoralexTuskBohdan ZdziennickiaccountabilityKrakówPegasuselections integrityMariusz KamińskisurveillanceMarek ZubikCentral Anti-Corruption Bureaucourt changesStanisław RymarrecommendationMarcin WarchołHuman Rights CommissionerLGBT ideology free zonesEwa WrzosekreportEU law primacyPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław Gowinhuman rightsFree Courtscivil societyZiobrocriminal codeZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczcoronavirusEuropean ParliamentC-791/1911 January March in WarsawEuropean Association of JudgesLaw on the NCJPiebiak gateretirement ageAdam TomczyńskiCCBEdecommunizationpublic opinion polllex NGOThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropetransferNetherlandsBelgiumintimidation of dissentersdemocratic backslidingRussiaBogdan ŚwięczkowskiGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesJerzy KwaśniewskiLIBE CommitteeWiesław KozielewiczNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeNGOGrzegorz PudaPetros TovmasyanPiotr Mazurektest of independenceCouncil of the EUStanisław ZabłockiODIHRJoanna Scheuring-WielgusNations in TransitElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikSebastian MazurekJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiMałgorzata Froncopposition2018Karolina MiklaszewskaAdam GendźwiłłDariusz DończykRafał LisakFull-Scale Election Observation MissionFrans TimmermanslegislationMarek JaskulskiJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczEwa ŁąpińskaIrena BochniakZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaC-619/18Kasta/AntykastaGrzegorz Furmankiewiczdefamatory statementsKatarzyna Chmuralex WośPechRome StatutejudgeWorld Justice Project awardAntykastaStanisław ZdunKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczAndrzej SkowronŁukasz Bilińskipress releaseTomasz Szmydtadvocate generalrepairing the rule of lawSwieczkowskiBohdan BieniekMarcin KrajewskiUS Department of State#RecoveryFilesmedia pluralismIvan MischenkoMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiEmilia SzmydtRights and Values ProgrammeE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał DworczykMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakGeneral Court of the EUVěra JourováDonald Tuskjustice system reformAnti-SLAPP DirectiveinsultState Tribunalfundamental rightsMarcin MatczakJustice MinistryAction PlanRadosław BaszukArkadiusz RadwanLech WałęsaWałęsa v. Polandright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawpilot-judgmentDonald Tusk governmentCT Presidentcivil lawequal treatmentNational School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (KSSiP)preliminary referenceEU lawethicsChamber of Professional ResponsibilityThe Codification Committee of Civil Lawcivil partnershipsKatarzyna Kotulasame-sex unionsC‑718/21Piotr HofmańskiHelsinki Foundation for Human Rightscodification commissiondelegationsWatchdog PolskaDariusz BarskiLasotaHater ScandalpopulismNational Council for the Judiciarycivil partnerships billAleksandra RutkowskaTomasz KoszewskiNCBiRThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFJustyna WydrzyńskaAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszJoanna KnobelCrimes of espionageextraordinary commissionNCR&DKaspryszyn v PolandKarol WeitzJakub KwiecińskidiscriminationAct on the Supreme Courtelectoral commissionsEuropean Court of HuKrzysztof RączkaPoznańKoan LenaertsZbigniew KapińskiAnna Głowackathe Spy ActdisinformationlustrationWhite PaperEUNational Broadcasting Councilelection fairnessDobrochna Bach-GoleckaPiotr Raczkowskilex Raczkowskigag lawsuitsCourt of Appeal in WarsawOsiatyński'a Archivetransitional justiceUS State DepartmentAssessment Actenvironmentinvestmentstrategic investmentRafał WojciechowskiKochenovPrzemysław CzarnekIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerŻurek v PolandKlubrádióGrzęda v PolandGazeta WyborczaKESMAJacek KurskiJacek CzaputowiczElżbieta KarskaPrzemysła Radzikmedia lawRafał Trzaskowskimedia taxadvertising taxSobczyńska and Others v Polandhate speechPollitykaBrussels IMarek PiertuszyńskiLGBT free zonesNational Prosecutor’s OfficeFirst President of the Suprme CourtOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateequalityC-157/21Rome IIArticle 2Forum shoppinghate crimesChamber of Extraordinary VerificationEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian KaletaC-156/21Wojciech Sadurskilegislative practicethe Regional Court in Warsawabortion rulingpublic broadcasterproteststhe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz Krasońmutual trustMultiannual Financial FrameworkAmsterdamUnited NationsIrena MajcherLeszek MazurIrelandinterim measuresLMautocratizationForum Współpracy SędziówGermanyCelmerArticle 10 ECHRC-487/19Norwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsNorwegian fundsNorwayKraśnikOmbudsmanZbigniew BoniekRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActSimpson judgmentAK judgmentENAAlina CzubieniakAct of 20 December 2019Jacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitMinistry of FinanceMichał WośMirosław WróblewskiharrassmentKoen Lenaertsright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman Giertychrepressive actlawyersLSODolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandFreedom in the WorldCourt of Appeal in KrakówPutinismKaczyńskiEvgeni TanchevPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-WiaderekECJMarek Asttrans-Atlantic valuesAmnesty InternationalPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryFrackowiakct on the Protection of the PopulatioMaciej RutkiewiczOlsztyn courtauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258clientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's OfficeENCJPolish National FoundationLux VeritatisPiotr BurasPiotr BogdanowiczPrzemysła CzarnekEducation Ministerforeign agents lawIsraelIpsosOlimpia Barańska-MałuszeHudocKonrad SzymańskiEU valuesMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykRzeszówpostal voteborderprimacyEwa MaciejewskaEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional Courtmediabezwyborupostal vote billinfringment actionPKWLeon KieresTVNjournalistslexTVNresolution of 23 January 2020Polish mediaGerard Birgfeller