Polish government demands the end of political discussions with the EU over rule of law

Share

Co-founder and editor of Rule of Law in Poland and coordinator of The Wiktor Osiatyński Archive, a rule of law…

More

Reporting to the European Commission on the implementation of its recommendations regarding rule of law, the Law and Justice government is demanding the end of the procedure implemented under Article 7 of the Treaty on the EU. In the report, the government makes unsubstantiated claims that the changes into judiciary are addressing ‘high public expectations’



In the report on the implementation of the European Commission’s rule of law recommendations, dated 28 January 2019, the Polish government suggests that the EC does not understand the judiciary reforms and is demonstrating ill will by not withdrawing the complaint about the Act on the Supreme Court from the Court of Justice of the European Union.

 

Furthermore, the Polish government is demanding the end of the procedure implemented under Article 7 of the Treaty on the EU as well as the end of the ‚political’ discussions. It will willingly talk about ‘specifics’ instead.

 

The Law and Justice government alleges that the procedure ‘no longer contributes to achieving proper understanding of the content of the reform [of the judiciary]’ and proposes withdrawing from the dialogue with the Commission in this procedure and focusing on ‘a detailed discussion on the substance of the reform’.

 

The document was addressed to the General Affairs Council and copied to the European Commission and the governments of all EU Member States.

 

The first page of Poland’s report on the implementation of the European Commission’s recommendations on the rule of law:

 

 

Assertive – or arrogant – position

 

The document starts with the words, ‘In 2015 the Polish competent authorities (President of the Republic, Parliament and Government) initiated actions aimed at increasing efficiency of the judiciary and restoring public trust in its functioning’. It later states, no more no less, that the steps taken by the Law and Justice government within the framework of the reforms of the judiciary were ‘in conformity with the rule of law (with the principle of “democratic state ruled by law)’.

 

Perhaps the optimistic story about the pursuit of the honourable goals in accordance with European standards, presented in the document, was supposed to have put the Commission to sleep, but it will more likely infuriate it.

 

Firstly, the report provides another portion of the dubious quality of arguments and outright manipulations, which the EC has already seen in such documents as the “White Paper”, published by the Polish government in the spring of 2018.

 

Secondly, the Polish government implies that the EC does not understand the intricacies of the complicated issues regarding the legal system in an EU Member State. Even so, the Law and Justice government declares – very generally – its willingness to continue the dialogue and its readiness to provide further clarifications.

 

Thirdly, it accuses other EU Member States of ill will. ‘We reckon that our concrete actions and positive attitude towards the dialogue have not been met with a symmetric reaction from some of our partners’, complains the Polish government, finding the ‘accusations’ that the changes being introduced in Poland constitute a serious systemic threat to the rule of law ‚difficult to accept’.

 

Attacks on the independence of judiciary

 

Despite some concessions concerning the Act on the Supreme Court, the Polish government has been ignoring the vast majority of detailed recommendations on the rule of law presented to Poland by the European Commission in four reports in 2016 and 2017. Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the European Commission, specified in detail which steps the EC expects Poland to take at the meeting of the General Council in December 2018. Timmermans’ speech proved that the EC has been watching further alarming developments in Poland.

 

In particular, it was closely observing the actions of the new National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ), a body that is supposed to protect the impartiality of judges. 3,000 Polish judges wants its dismissal. In September 2018, the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary suspended the membership of the Polish NCJ in its network for failing to ensure „the support of the judiciary in the independent delivery of justice”. The EC is also aware of the harassment of judges and prosecutors who publicly criticized the changes in the courts introduced by the Law and Justice, as well as the disciplinary proceedings being conducted with respect to the outspoken judges by the disciplinary commissioners appointed by Justice Minister / Prosecutor General Mr. Zbigniew Ziobro.

 

In the January report, the Law and Justice government rejects the Commission’s view that the assessment should be of the cumulative effect of the changes it is introducing in the justice system. It is even ironically trying to state that all the changes, which are assessed positively or neutrally (by the Law and Justice party), cannot give a bad cumulative effect:

 

‘The Commission claims that individual parts of the judiciary reform do not necessarily pose a threat to the rule of law, but when they are considered together, they create a so called “cumulative effect” with negative impact on the rule of law. This kind of concept is difficult to defend as it is hardly possible that individual, positive (or even neutral) amendments can be harmful when they are introduced together.’

 

Unsubstantiated claims

 

In the report, the Polish government also makes unsubstantiated claims that the changes into judiciary are addressing ‘high public expectations’ regarding the reorganization of the justice administration in Poland, which ‘have been growing over recent years’.

 

The Law and Justice government believes that the judges should be consulted on the reforms of the justice administration, although it is ultimately parliament and the Polish president who are ‘responsible for addressing social expectations’. The document does not specify what these expectations are.

 

Translated by Roman Wojtasz

 


 

Anna Wójcik writes about law and politics and coordinates the works of the Wiktor Osiatyński Archive, a rule of law monitoring center. She can be followed on Twitter at @annawojcik



Author


Co-founder and editor of Rule of Law in Poland and coordinator of The Wiktor Osiatyński Archive, a rule of law…


More

Published

February 19, 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