Prof. Marc de Werd: Standing up for justice and the justice system is a shared responsibility of European citizens

Share

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

More

As far as I can remember, this is the first time that judges from the Netherlands have joined a silent march at all. Marching together with other judges from Europe in another country is unique. And I know it is politically sensitive. It emphasizes how much we are worried about what’s going on in Poland and elsewhere in Europe,” a senior judge of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal explained his reasons for joining Polish colleagues in a silent protest in Warsaw against curbing the independence of judges in Poland.



Prof. Dr. Marc de Werd is a senior judge at the Amsterdam Court of Appeal in the Netherlands and professor of law at the University of Amsterdam. He is a Member of the CCJE of the Council of Europe.

 

Anna Wójcik: You will join your Dutch colleague-judges, together with Polish judges in Warsaw, to protest against the political attacks on judicial independence in Europe. Do you know how many Dutch judges are coming to Warsaw? What is your personal reason for coming?

 

We will be in Warsaw with approximately 10 judges. Among them, members of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, delegates from the Dutch Association of Judges and Judges for Judges.

 

My personal reason for coming is that I am worried about the decline of the rule of law in Europe. Poland is no exception. Judicial independence is the cornerstone of our justice system. I find it important that we explain the historical background of the EU. After the Second World War, the world wanted the atrocities of the Holocaust never to happen again. For the first time in Europe’s history, we have enjoyed a period of more than seventy years without wars. We should keep the memory of our history alive and explain the importance of democracy and human rights.

 

The “repressive” Act of 20 December 2019 adopted by the Sejm would curb basic freedoms of judges in Poland. The politicians who support the bill claim it is unbecoming of judges to protest and voice their opinions, among others. Can you as a judge in the Netherlands take part in demonstrations, voice your views in newspapers and in the social media? How does the status of a judge in the Netherlands affect your civic freedoms? Are there any limits to your activity and if so, how are they justified?

 

For this matter I do not only consider myself a judge of the Netherlands but also a European judge. Standing up for justice and the justice system is a shared responsibility of European citizens and the Member States. Not only political institutions must raise their voice but also judges, who are the guardians of the rule of law.

 

I must admit that this is an exceptional situation. As far as I can remember, this is the first time that judges from the Netherlands have joined a silent march at all. Marching together with other judges from Europe in another country is unique. And I know it is politically sensitive. It emphasizes how much we are concerned about what’s going on in Poland and elsewhere in Europe.

 

We have not come to Poland to protest against your government. We have great respect for your democracy. And we want to stay out of politics. But we do find it important to support our Polish colleagues who are worried about their independence.

 

How does the attack on judicial independence in Poland affect you as a judge in the Netherlands and as a EU citizen?

 

Cooperation in the EU is based on the principle of mutual confidence. I am a criminal law judge. When I receive a request from Poland to surrender a suspect or a convicted person to Poland I must trust the Polish authorities that they will give him a fair trial. If we European judges cannot trust each other anymore, that would mean the end of judicial cooperation in the EU. It would also seriously affect, for example, trade relations in Europe. If Dutch commercial businesses do not trust the Polish judge that is deciding on their civil dispute, they might go elsewhere.

 

Where do you get information about developments in Poland? Is the situation related to the rule of law in Poland reported in the general, mass media in your country? Or is it more of a niche, expert issue?

 

I get my information where I can. Newspapers, television and social media. I am a member of the Consultative Council of European Judges that is closely monitoring Polish developments. I don’t believe everything I read. And I am aware that there is more than just black and white.

 

The Polish President and government officials often suggest that people in other countries – especially in established democracies in Western Europe with markedly different historical experiences from those in Central and Eastern Europe – cannot understand the situation in Poland and changes in the judiciary. What would be your response to such claim?

 

To a certain extent they have a point. Our histories differ. But when Poland joined the EU, it wanted to build a new future. The EU has been tremendously important for the Polish economy. When joining the EU, Poland was well aware of the common European values. The separation of powers, democracy, respect for minorities and an independent and impartial judiciary are all part of the concept of the rule of law.

 

Paradoxically, Polish government’s attacks on judicial independence resulted in the EU Court of Justice detailing criteria about independence of judges and standards of judicial councils in the EU. Have the authorities in the Netherlands reacted to these criteria specified in the judgment of 19 November? Are there any plans to review the regulations in the Netherlands in the light of these criteria and perhaps to adjust them? Is there any discussion in the Netherlands that perhaps the CJEU has gone too far?

 

No, not to my knowledge. I must explain this. In the Netherlands we are less ‘scared’ of European and international human rights law. That is because we have no Constitutional Court. Since the 1950s, we have got used to the idea that the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights has sometimes been quite strong about deficiencies in our justice system. We are not afraid that this will curtail our sovereignty. On the contrary, it only makes us stronger. We have strongly benefited from the ECHR’s case law. We expect the Luxembourg Court to do the same if necessary.

 

In your opinion, what is the biggest issue regarding the justice system, the rule of law and judicial independence in the Netherlands? Did you recently have or are you planning any substantial reforms? If so, in which areas?

 

Every court in the world has a limited financial budget. In one way or another, the amount of the judicial budget is ultimately decided by the legislator. Which is natural because it is tax payers’ money. But who decides how much money is enough? Parliament, the Minister of Justice, Court presidents, individual judges? Underfinancing of the courts can undermine the quality of justice. As in many other countries in Europe we are currently debating this issue.

 

And the last question, which is perhaps a little silly on the surface: can you as a Dutch judge and will you protest in Warsaw in your robes? There have been lengthy discussions among various legal professions in Poland whether they can actually wear their robes during demonstrations. 

 

This is a sensitive topic indeed. We have lengthy debates about this issue. I can imagine that wearing robes can appear to the Polish people as a foreign intrusion in national affairs. As I explained, we – European judges – want to express our solidarity with our Polish colleagues. We are not coming to Poland as representatives of the Dutch government. We have our own responsibility. I shall bring my robe anyway. But I shall decide about whether or not to wear it when I arrive in Warsaw.

 



Author


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


More

Published

January 10, 2020

Tags

Supreme CourtConstitutional TribunalDisciplinary ChamberPolandjudgesdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of Justice of the EUjudicial independenceEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaCourt of JusticeEuropean Court of Human RightsMinister of JusticeIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemAdam Bodnarmuzzle lawJarosław KaczyńskiNational Recovery PlanCJEUMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human Rightsneo-judgesCourt of Justice of the European UniondemocracyPrzemysław RadzikWaldemar ŻurekNational Council for Judiciarypresidential electionselectionselections 2023disciplinary commissionercriminal lawJulia PrzyłębskaPiotr SchabKamil Zaradkiewiczmedia freedomharassmentpreliminary rulingsHungarySupreme Administrative Courtelections 2020K 3/21Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickajudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme CourtŁukasz PiebiakprosecutorsPresidentRecovery FundBeata MorawiecPaweł JuszczyszynProsecutor GeneralMichał Lasotafreedom of expressionMaciej NawackiEuropean Arrest WarrantSejmprosecutionCOVID-19Regional Court in KrakówCriminal ChamberNational ProsecutorConstitutionPrime MinisterMinistry of JusticecourtsMałgorzata GersdorfMarek SafjanEU budgetdisciplinary liability for judgesMaciej FerekOSCEWojciech HermelińskiExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberIustitiacriminal proceedingsWłodzimierz WróbelVenice Commissionconditionality mechanismAleksander StepkowskiTHEMISLabour and Social Security ChamberStanisław BiernatPiScommission on Russian influenceStanisław PiotrowiczPresident of the Republic of PolandNCJimmunityconditionalityAnna DalkowskaJustice FundcorruptionLaw and JusticeNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europefreedom of assemblyKrystian MarkiewiczreformsReczkowicz and Others v. PolandKrzysztof Parchimowiczacting first president of the Supreme Court2017policeSenateAndrzej Zollmedia independenceSLAPPdefamationStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationLGBTJustice Defence Committee – KOSEwa ŁętowskaDidier ReyndersFreedom HouseAmsterdam District CourtMay 10 2020 electionsXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandOrdo IurisPresident of PolandAndrzej StępkaBroda and Bojara v PolandSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramPiotr GąciarekJarosław WyrembakPM Mateusz MorawieckiArticle 7Next Generation EUConstitutional Tribunal PresidentUrsula von der LeyenLex DudaTVPmediaLex Super OmniaProfessional Liability ChamberreformJarosław DudziczK 7/21National Reconstruction PlansuspensionparliamentChamber of Professional LiabilityEAWArticle 6 ECHRP 7/20Supreme Court PresidentLech GarlickiMichał WawrykiewiczabortionPiotr PrusinowskiNational Electoral Commissionelectoral codeJanusz NiemcewiczTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaStanisław RymarMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaKazimierz DziałochaBogdan ŚwięczkowskiNetherlandsAndrzej MączyńskiMarek MazurkiewiczvetoStefan JaworskiMirosław GranatOLAFBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaViktor OrbanJózef IwulskiMaciej MiteraSLAPPsjudcial independenceWojciech ŁączkowskiAdam JamrózPATFoxFerdynand RymarzKonrad WytrykowskiRafał Puchalskismear campaignmilestonesKrakówMarzanna Piekarska-Drążekstate of emergencyUkraineelectoral processBelaruscourt presidentsAdam SynakiewiczXero Flor v. PolandAstradsson v Icelandright to fair trialEdyta BarańskaJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraCentral Anti-Corruption BureauJakub IwaniecsurveillancePegasusDariusz DrajewiczJoanna Misztal-KoneckaCivil ChamberK 6/21Wojciech MaczugaSzymon Szynkowski vel SękDariusz ZawistowskiOKO.presselections integrityelections fairnessMarek ZubikBohdan ZdziennickiMirosław WyrzykowskiSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczPiotr TulejaJerzy StępieńAndrzej RzeplińskitransparencyMariusz KamińskiMaciej Taborowskiinsulting religious feelingsPaweł Filipekpublic mediaMariusz MuszyńskiKrystyna PawłowiczlexTuskcourt changesMarek PietruszyńskiMichał LaskowskiSupreme Audit Officeabuse of state resourcesLaw on the NCJEuropean ParliamentJarosław GowincoronavirusRussiaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczFree Courts11 January March in WarsawCCBEPiebiak gatehuman rightsrecommendationC-791/19Human Rights CommissionerMarcin WarchołLGBT ideology free zonesreportEuropean Association of JudgesPiotr Pszczółkowskiretirement agedecommunizationGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgesintimidation of dissentersdemocratic backslidingpublic opinion pollZiobroEU law primacyMarian BanaśThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europecriminal codeBelgiumlex NGOEwa Wrzosekcivil societytransferAdam Tomczyńskimedia pluralismBohdan Bieniek#RecoveryFilesFrans TimmermansLIBE Committeerepairing the rule of lawUS Department of StateMarcin KrajewskiKarolina Miklaszewska2018NGOFull-Scale Election Observation MissionODIHRNations in TransitStanisław ZabłockiPetros TovmasyanJerzy KwaśniewskiPiotr MazurekGrzegorz PudaNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeWiesław KozielewiczChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakCouncil of the EURafał LisakMichał DworczykWojciech Sadurskidefamatory statementsRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtC-619/18Rights and Values Programmejudgepress releaseAntykastalex WoślegislationCourt of Appeal in KrakówPutinismKaczyńskiPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderekct on the Protection of the PopulatioWorld Justice Project awardStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiEmilia SzmydtTomasz SzmydtE-mail scandalAndrzej SkowronKasta/AntykastaKatarzyna Chmuraadvocate generalGrzegorz FurmankiewiczMarek JaskulskiEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaSwieczkowskiDworczyk leaksMałgorzata FroncHater ScandalAleksandra RutkowskaGeneral Court of the EUArkadiusz RadwanLech WałęsaWałęsa v. Polandright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawpilot-judgmentDonald Tusk governmentRafał WojciechowskiDobrochna Bach-Goleckalex RaczkowskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActdisinformationCT Presidentfundamental rightsNational Broadcasting Councilelection fairnessequal treatmentcivil lawMarcin MatczakDariusz KornelukNational School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (KSSiP)codification commissiondelegationsWatchdog PolskaDariusz BarskiLasotapopulismState TribunalRadosław BaszukAction PlanJustice MinistryVěra JourováDonald Tuskjustice system reformAnti-SLAPP Directiveinsultgag lawsuitsstrategic investmentinvestmentlustrationJakub KwiecińskidiscriminationAct on the Supreme Courtelectoral commissionsEuropean Court of HuKrzysztof RączkaPoznańTomasz Koszewskitest of independenceSebastian MazurekElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikJoanna Scheuring-WielgusoppositionThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentAdam Gendźwiłłtransitional justiceDariusz DończykKoan LenaertsKarol WeitzZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaCourt of Appeal in WarsawOsiatyński'a ArchiveEUUS State DepartmentAssessment Actenvironmentextraordinary commissionWhite PaperKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiREuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFJustyna WydrzyńskaAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszJoanna KnobelCrimes of espionageJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiMarek Piertuszyńskihate speechhate crimesmedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandPrzemysław CzarnekJacek CzaputowiczMarcin RomanowskiElżbieta KarskaPrzemysła Radzikmedia lawRafał TrzaskowskiSobczyńska and Others v PolandTelex.huJelenForum shoppingFirst President of the Suprme CourtEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian KaletaOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeC-156/21C-157/21foreign agents lawArticle 2Rome IIJózsef SzájerChamber of Extraordinary VerificationKlubrádióequalityGazeta WyborczaLGBT free zonesPollitykaBrussels Ilegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekAK judgmentautocratizationMultiannual Financial FrameworkOpenbaar MinisterieRegional Court in Amsterdamabortion rulingArticle 10 ECHRprotestsinterim measuresLeszek MazurIrena MajcherAmsterdamLMmutual trustthe Regional Court in Warsawpublic broadcasterUnited NationsForum Współpracy Sędziówthe NetherlandsDenmarkact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsNorwegian fundsNorwayKraśnikOmbudsmanKarlsruheAusl 301 AR 104/19SwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońC-487/19GermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUIrelandMarek AstLSOright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman Giertychtrans-Atlantic valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinancelawyersMirosław Wróblewskirepressive actborderprimacyEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej RutkiewiczAct of 20 December 2019Amnesty InternationalJacek SasinEvgeni TanchevKochenovPechPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryFreedom in the WorldECJErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitFrackowiakDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandRzeszówKoen LenaertsharrassmentOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeinfringment actionHudocPKWKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr BurasLeon KieresIpsosEU valuesNational Prosecutor’s OfficeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOlsztyn courtPrzemysła CzarnekEducation MinisterENCJauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258postal voteTVNjournalistslexTVNEwa MaciejewskaGerard BirgfellerPolish mediaAlina CzubieniakSimpson judgmentpostal vote billclientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officeresolution of 23 January 2020Polish National FoundationLux VeritatisMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykIsrael