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 Chamberdisciplinary proceedingsPolandrule of lawConstitutional Tribunaljudicial independenceZbigniew ZiobroEuropean CommissionCourt of Justice of the EUjudgesNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of JusticeEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaIgor TuleyaMałgorzata Manowskadisciplinary systemMinister of JusticeCommissioner for Human RightsEuropean Court of Human RightsMateusz MorawieckiCJEUpresidential electionsjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsdemocracymuzzle lawHungaryJarosław Kaczyńskielections 2020Beata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsKamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerEuropean Arrest WarrantCOVID-19PresidentProsecutor GeneralConstitutionfreedom of expressioncriminal lawMarek SafjanOSCEWaldemar ŻurekPaweł JuszczyszynNational Public ProsecutorPiotr SchabPrzemysław Radzikcriminal proceedingsPrime MinisterJulia PrzyłębskaExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chambermedia freedomSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJNational ProsecutorelectionsWojciech HermelińskiStanisław PiotrowiczAndrzej ZollMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtAleksander StepkowskiOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsmedia independenceAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczMaciej NawackiEAWmediaimmunityAnna DalkowskaCouncil of Europe2017freedom of assemblyFreedom HouseLech GarlickiStanisław BiernatArticle 7Venice CommissionWłodzimierz WróbelPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaK 3/21P 7/20Ministry of JusticeC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesSejmBroda and Bojara v PolandMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramdefamationTHEMISTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskidemocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetopoliceJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJJustice Defence Committee – KOSrecommendationTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiEwa ŁętowskaHuman Rights CommissionerMarek MazurkiewiczCCBEAndrzej MączyńskiThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław Rymarpublic opinion pollFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiSupreme Court PresidentJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskireportBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersEuropean ParliamentZiobroMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiPiotr Gąciarekhuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawCourt of Justice of the European UnionJustice FundAdam SynakiewiczcoronavirusPiSresolution of 23 January 2020Piotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakLeon KieresPKWinfringment actionEU valuesENCJlex NGOcivil societyRussiaIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechcriminal codeGrzęda v PolandXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawIustitiaKrystian MarkiewiczPrzemysła RadzikSenateMarcin WarchołElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekcourtsOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsC-487/19Article 6 ECHRArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieUrsula von der LeyenEwa WrzosekAK judgmentSimpson judgmentEU law primacyForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited Nationsjudcial independenceLeszek MazurMaciej Miterapopulisminterim 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 WyborczaOKO.pressUS 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 StatetransferPechOlsztyn courtKochenovPrzemysła CzarnekEvgeni TanchevEducation MinisterFreedom in the WorldKrystyna PawłowiczECJIpsosFrackowiakOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeretirement ageMariusz MuszyńskiAmnesty InternationalHudocŁukasz PiebiakRegional Court in KrakówPiebiak gateKonrad SzymańskiPiotr Bogdanowicztrans-Atlantic valuesPiotr BurasLSOauthoritarian equilibriumlawyersArticle 258Act of 20 December 2019clientelismoligarchic systemRecovery FundEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officerepressive actPolish National FoundationLux VeritatisKoen LenaertsMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiharrassmentMarian BanaśAlina CzubieniakSupreme Audit OfficeTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerBelarusEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediastate of emergencypostal votepostal vote bill