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 Chamberdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawjudicial independencePolandConstitutional TribunalEuropean CommissionjudgesZbigniew ZiobroCourt of Justice of the EUNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of JusticeEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaIgor TuleyaMałgorzata Manowskadisciplinary systemMinister of JusticeCommissioner for Human Rightspresidential electionsjudiciarypreliminary rulingsdemocracyCJEUmuzzle lawJarosław Kaczyńskielections 2020Beata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsHungaryEuropean Court of Human RightsEuropean Arrest WarrantMateusz MorawieckiAdam BodnarCOVID-19Kamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerPresidentfreedom of expressioncriminal lawOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynNational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsPrime MinisterExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberProsecutor GeneralSupreme Administrative CourtconditionalityConstitutionCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJNational ProsecutorelectionsMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsWaldemar Żurekmedia independenceAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczMaciej NawackiEAWmediaimmunityAnna DalkowskaPiotr SchabPrzemysław RadzikCouncil of Europe2017freedom of assemblyJulia PrzyłębskaFreedom HouseVenice CommissionEU budgetWłodzimierz WróbelPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaMinistry of JusticeC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionWojciech HermelińskiStanisław PiotrowiczAndrzej ZollMarek SafjanGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesAleksander StepkowskiPresident of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesSejmMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramdefamationTHEMISTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskidemocratic backslidingViktor OrbandecommunizationNext Generation EUvetopoliceJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJJustice Defence Committee – KOSLech GarlickirecommendationHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europepublic opinion pollSupreme Court Presidentreportmedia freedomArticle 7European ParliamentZiobroconditionality mechanismMichał LaskowskiMarek Pietruszyńskihuman rightsEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawcoronavirusPiSresolution of 23 January 2020Piotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakLeon KieresPKWinfringment actionEU valuesENCJlex NGOcivil societyRussiaIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtPresident of the Republic of PolandLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechcriminal codeGrzęda v PolandXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara 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 measuresOLAFautocratizationMultiannual 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 EuropeEUStanisław BiernatTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaWhite PaperKazimierz DziałochalustrationMirosław Granattransitional justiceAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiEwa ŁętowskaMarek MazurkiewiczAndrzej MączyńskiJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław RymarFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiJerzy Stępień2018Piotr TulejaNations in TransitSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczCouncil of the EUMirosław WyrzykowskiBohdan ZdziennickiMarek Zubikmedia taxStanisław Zabłockiadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerDidier ReyndersKlubrádióSLAPPLIBE 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 StatetransferK 3/21PechOlsztyn courtKochenovPrzemysła CzarnekEvgeni TanchevEducation MinisterPiotr GąciarekFreedom in the WorldKrystyna PawłowiczECJIpsosFrackowiakretirement ageAmnesty InternationalŁukasz PiebiakPiebiak gatetrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakJustice FundGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote bill