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 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