Polish judges demand apology from Prime Minister over comparison to Nazi collaborators

Share

Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland

More

Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki compares current judiciary reforms in Poland to legal cleansing in France after the Second World War



Mr Morawiecki made his remarks at The Jean Monnet Center for International and Regional Economic Law & Justice at New York University School of Law event “Europe and the United States: A Transatlantic Dialogue – Poland’s 15 years in the European Union” on 17 April 2019.

 

In his remarks, Mr Morawiecki said that ‘a significant part of this [justice] system is corrupted. We cannot debate here only this or another element, selecting them from the whole. To me, this is a situation comparable to France in the post-Vichy period when Charles de Gaulle rebuilt the system completely’. Read more in Polish.

 

Statement of the Board of Polish Judges Association “Iustitia” on the remarks of Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki:

 

24 April 2019

 

Prime Minister of Republic of Poland Mateusz Morawiecki

 

Dear Sir,

 

As patriots and judges, hereby we express our deep indignation at your words spoken in the last days in New York. In our judgement, they insult the dignity of the office of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Poland. Your short expose consists of a mix of manipulations, false statements and we consider it a sign of defamation of our own country and of our allies. Below we provide explanation to our position and we demand immediate release of official apologies. Otherwise we shall be obliged to initiate appropriate legal action.

 

1) Manipulation – comparison of judges to fascist collaborators is disgraceful. With whom and how shall the judges secretly collaborate in order to perform mass crimes against humanity? What are the grounds for Prime Minister of Polish government to equate Polish judges with the people responsible for deportation of thousands French Jews to the Nazi death camps? Yet another time we hear the charges of corruption, without presenting any evidence. We demand this issue to be explained and we remind you, that the public officer is obliged to report immediately any crimes he is aware of,  to the prosecution.

 

2) False statements – the statement, that 80-85% of Poles support governments activities regarding judiciary is untrue. In 2017 in CBOS poll, the support to government’s proposals was declared by 23% and in poll by IBRIS for Rzeczpospolita – 31% of respondents. Subsequent polls yield similar results. Never in the history of Poland-wide polls on representative groups, the support for government’s ‘reforms ‘ of judiciary has reached over 50% and never the number of protagonist s of so called ‘reforms’ was greater than those opposing it. We remind you, that as the largest association of Polish judges, we have supported and are supporting  reforms of judiciary in our country, but we shall never support such resulting in submitting judiciary to politicians of whatever party. Government has never taken into account any proposals from judiciary nor from citizens, participating in mass street protests in many Polis cities.

 

3) Defamation of own country and undermining its credibility – we consider the expose of the Prime Minister as defamation – incomprehensible and unheard of – of the institutions of own country. Not only it has connotations with the term ‘oikophobia’, existing in government’s circles but also undermines the trust of Poles as well as foreign bodies in Polish judiciary. The judiciary which already suffers from a range of activities aiming at increasing political influence on courts’ and has been damaged by so called ‘billboard campaign’, paid by Polish taxpayers (with total cost of approx. 4 MEUR). We remind, that the critical assessment of the ‘reforms’ of judiciary in Poland has been expressed by: Venice Commission, European Commission, United Nations, American Bar Association, European Network of Councils of Judiciary, Amnesty International, Helsinki Foundation of Human Rights, the Ombudsman and many more institutions and legal authorities.  We do not understand, why the Prime Minister of Republic of Poland, using abroad the term ‘collaborator’ to call his compatriots, associates some of Poles with Nazi and recalls the connotations that we are apparently obliged to fight against. Giving false statements and undermining the trust in Polish authorities administering the law during official foreign visits is an activity damaging our country, as – in consequence – other information provided by Polish representatives will be treated with caution in the future.

 

4) Defamation of our allies – naming and shaming our French allies for their hard moments in the history, during PM’s official visit in the US is – at least – inconsiderate. Perhaps Mr Prime Minister does not notice, that being in the US, he is also treated as the representative of the EU country and shall express the solidarity with other EU countries. Worth of special condemnations are the words justifying taking control over judiciary: ‘The European Union interferes, as it has no clue about Poland’. The efforts to portray EU as some entity separated from Poland, naive, clueless and unauthorised to speak out, in our assessment is damages Polish interests in the eve of the elections to the European Parliament and the discussion of the community’s budget for subsequent years.

 

Finally we would like to add that we agree with Prime Minister, that the activities of some post-communists politicians are worrying. We can also observe this phenomena, especially when they call judges ‘thieves’ while being responsible for introducing ‘judicial reforms’ in Poland.

 

We call upon Prime Minister to provide explanations and apologies and we call upon national and international institutions to express similar disapproval.

 

We cannot agree to spreading false statements, defaming of Polish institutions, destroying the image of Poland and associating Poles with fascist collaborators.

 

The Board of Polish Judges Association “Iustitia”

 

Source: Polish Judges Association “Iustitia” website



Author


Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland


More

Published

April 24, 2019

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroEuropean Commissionjudicial independenceCourt of Justice of the EUNational Council of the JudiciaryjudgesEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemEuropean Court of Human RightsMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeWaldemar ŻurekJarosław Kaczyńskidemocracymuzzle lawpresidential electionsjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020Kamil ZaradkiewiczBeata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme Courtprosecutorsdisciplinary commissionerEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiPrzemysław RadzikPrime Ministermedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19Piotr SchabJulia PrzyłębskaPresidentfreedom of expressionŁukasz PiebiakCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawdisciplinary liability for judgesMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiOSCENational Council for JudiciaryMichał LasotaPaweł JuszczyszynAnna DalkowskaNational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetWłodzimierz WróbelCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorelectionsWojciech HermelińskiStanisław PiotrowiczAndrzej ZollMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisK 7/21May 10 2020 electionsLex DudaSejmXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v Polandmedia independenceIustitiaJarosław DudziczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczTHEMISEAWUrsula von der LeyenmediaimmunityCouncil of Europe2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaP 7/20Justice FundDagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaPiSC-791/19National Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Piotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaNational Reconstruction PlanJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesReczkowicz and Others v. PolandUkraineKrystian MarkiewiczKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczDariusz DrajewiczRafał PuchalskidefamationcourtsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsArticle 6 ECHREwa 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 PietruszyńskiPiotr GąciarekRegional Court in KrakówPiebiak gatehuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawRecovery FundPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyneo-judgescoronavirusXero 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 lawpolexitNational Recovery PlanDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeProfessional Liability ChamberFirst President of the Suprme CourtsuspensionPaulina 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 pluralismArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentSimpson judgmentForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena 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 StatetransferPechOlsztyn courtKochenovPrzemysła CzarnekEvgeni TanchevEducation MinisterFreedom in the WorldKrystyna PawłowiczECJIpsosFrackowiakOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeretirement ageMariusz MuszyńskiAmnesty 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