Report: Rule of Law in Poland 2020: International and European responses to the crisis

Share

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

More

In its second report, the Civil Development Forum (FOR) evaluates measures used by the European Union, Council of Europe and other international actors to deal with the rule of law breakdown in Poland



The ongoing negotiations between the EU institutions and members states about how to link funding to respect for rule of law might lead to another tool ensure that member state comply with the treaties. In this report, Rule of Law in Poland co-founder, Civil Development Forum (FOR), evaluates previous activities and tools employed by the European Union, other international organisations and foreign bodies regarding the rule of law crisis in Poland.

 

The report deals mostly with the political and judicial measures adopted by the European Union, due to the profound impact of the situation in Poland to the bloc and the broad array of tools used against it, but also refers to the Council of Europe, the United Nations and its agendas, and private or unilateral responses to the crisis. It further elaborates on the assessment of the tools deployed by the said actors and, lastly, offers recommendations on how to deal with the rule of law crisis in the most efficient way.

 

In the first part, FOR analysed the current state of the rule of law from domestic and comparative perspectives. It explained the reasons behind the key Law and Justice policies regarding the justice system and presented main changes in the courts and prosecution service since 2015.

 

Executive Summary: 

  • As a member of various international and European organisations, Poland is bound by the requirement to respect the rule of law so as to effectively fulfil its commitments and ensure sincere cooperation between all member states.
  • The crisis of the rule of law in Poland endangers the proper functioning of the international organisations Poland belongs to. That risk depends directly on the level and scope of integration and the importance of mutual commitments.
  • The European Union has not sufficiently used its tools to combat the crisis. While judicial measures employed by the Court of Justice effectively prevented the situation from getting worse, political tools, such as Article 7(1), have been watered down and require improvements.
  • Despite the limited array of measures at the disposal of the Council of Europe and the United Nations, they form an important basis for judicial bodies and contribute to the prevention of a crisis. In particular, the opinions of the Venice Commission and the summary of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers provide independent and reliable assessments of the state of play in Poland in light of international standards.
  • Moreover, tools employed by individual actors, in particular international organisations of judges and lawyers, allow the international community to familiarise itself with Poland’s situation, and provide reliable sources in specific areas of the crisis, e.g. the role of the National Council of the Judiciary.
  • It is highly recommended that international bodies, most importantly the European Union, realise the fact that time is of the essence when it comes to deal with the rule of law crisis in Poland. Since infringement actions before the Court of Justice have been the most efficient measures so far, it is important that other tools facilitate them by providing up-to-date and reliable evidence, also covering new developments in Poland.

 

Download full report:Rule of Law 2020

 

 

The publication is supported by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom. The Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom is not responsible for the content of this publication, or for any use that may be made of it. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) alone. These views do not necessarily reflect those of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom.



Author


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


More

Published

November 20, 2020

Tags

Supreme Courtdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawjudicial independenceDisciplinary ChamberPolandEuropean CommissionjudgesNational Council of the JudiciaryZbigniew ZiobroCourt of JusticeConstitutional TribunalCourt of Justice of the EUAndrzej DudaEuropean UnionIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemMinister of Justicepresidential electionsjudiciarydemocracyJarosław Kaczyńskielections 2020Beata Morawiecpreliminary rulingsCJEUmuzzle lawCommissioner for Human RightsFirst President of the Supreme Courtprosecutorsdisciplinary commissionerEuropean Arrest WarrantAdam BodnarCOVID-19OSCEMateusz MorawieckiPresidentProsecutor Generalfreedom of expressionLaw and JusticeNCJHungaryelectionsacting first president of the Supreme CourtMay 10 2020 electionsEuropean Court of Human RightsWaldemar Żurekmedia independenceAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof Parchimowicz2017Freedom HouseExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberVenice CommissionEU budgetConstitutionprosecutioncriminal lawNational Prosecutordisciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionMarek SafjanKamil ZaradkiewiczGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesAleksander StepkowskiOrdo IurisPresident of PolandMałgorzata ManowskaJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesSejmMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramTHEMISMaciej NawackiEAWPaweł JuszczyszynAnna DalkowskaNetherlandsPiotr Schabdemocratic backslidingdecommunizationNext Generation EUPrime Ministervetofreedom of assemblyJulia PrzyłębskaLaw on the NCJrecommendationHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropereportArticle 7ZiobroSupreme Administrative CourtconditionalityPM Mateusz MorawieckiEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawcoronavirusPiSC-791/19Wojciech Hermelińskiresolution of 23 January 2020Stanisław PiotrowiczPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakLeon KieresAndrzej ZollPKWMałgorzata Gersdorfinfringment 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 BoniekdefamationcourtsOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian 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 SędziówTVPmediapublic broadcasterLex Super OmniaAdam Tomczyńskiimmunitymutual trustLMBelgiumIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamBogdan ŚwięczkowskiNational Public ProsecutorPrzemysław Radzikthe Regional Court in WarsawCouncil of EuropeUnited Nationsjudcial independenceLeszek MazurMaciej Miteracriminal proceedingspopulisminterim measuresViktor OrbanOLAFautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingequal treatmentabortionfundamental rightspoliceCT PresidentJustice Defence Committee – KOSEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justicepublic opinion pollSupreme Court President2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUStanisław ZabłockiEuropean ParliamentLIBE CommitteeFrans TimmermansUS Department of StateSwieczkowskiadvocate generalpress releaseRights and Values ProgrammeC-619/18defamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardintimidation of dissentersWojciech SadurskijudgetransferPechKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakretirement ageAmnesty InternationalŁukasz PiebiakPiebiak gatehuman rightstrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakMinistry of JusticeJustice FundGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote bill