Slovakian president appeals for observance of rule of law in Visegrad Group and queries Poland’s president on changes to justice system

Share

Co-founder and editor of Rule of Law in Poland and The Wiktor Osiatyński Archive, a rule of law monitoring project,…

More

During an official visit to Budapest and Warsaw, Slovak President Zuzana Čaputová reminded the Central European leaders that the rule of law was one of the fundamental values of the Visegrad Group. She called for an end to the violation of the rule of law, which weakens the position of the eastern Member States in the EU. She also asked Poland’s president asked about the status of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court.



by Anna Wójcik

 

The rule of law remains one of the primary themes in European politics. Finland, which assumed the Presidency of the EU on 1 July, is giving the issue of rule of law high priority.

 

The new head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, stressed at the European Parliament in Strasbourg on 16 July that the Commission will always remain an independent guardian of the Treaties, and that it will itself be a fierce opponent of anyone who tries to divide and weaken Europe and destroy European values.

 

On 17 July the European Commission initiated the second stage of the procedure related to breach of EU law against Poland in connection with the disciplinary system for judges.

 

Such values as rule of law a foundation of Visegrad cooperation

 

A few days earlier, during official visits to Budapest and Warsaw, Slovak President Zuzana Čaputová had called on the members of the Visegrad Group (V4) to base their cooperation not only on economic issues, but also on values such as the rule of law. Čaputova feels that breaches of the rule of law weaken the position of the eastern Member States in the EU.

 

On 11 July, following a meeting with Hungarian President János Áder, she appealed to Central European leaders to respect the rule of law. She invoked the common interest: in Čaputova’s view, this is the only way for the eastern Member States to avoid internal divisions of the bloc, which weakens the EU from within.

 

She added that Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary should be guided by common values, including the rule of law. She recalled that cooperation within the V4 was built in the 1990s on respect for this value and on the pursuit of European integration.

 

In Budapest, Čaputová also stressed that liberal democracy serves to guarantee the protection of the rights of minorities. These words were of particular importance in that particular place: Slovak-Hungarian tensions are largely focused on historical issues and the situations of the large Hungarian minority in Slovakia and large Slovakian minority in Hungary.

 

Čaputová queries Andrzej Duda on changes in the courts

 

During her visit to Warsaw on 15 July, Čaputová reiterated the theme of shared values for Central Europe. She pointed out that Polish–Slovak cooperation is based on these values to an equal extent as on economic cooperation.

 

She recalled the collaboration of Polish, Czech and Slovak dissidents which contributed to the collapse of the communist regime and the shared experience of defending and consolidating democracy in the 1990s.

 

She spoke about Lech Walesa, Tadeusz Mazowiecki, but also about Lech Kaczynski (in all Visegrad capitals the President of Slovakia engaged in a retelling of history in the liberal paradigm: in the Czech Republic she invoked the heritage of Václav Havel, while in Hungary she discussed Prime Minister Árpád Göncz).

 

Stressing the importance of the Polish–Slovak friendship and community of interests, the President of Slovakia was nevertheless not afraid to ask Polish President Andrzej Duda difficult questions.

 

“I smiled and said to President Čaputová that there are no problems between Poland and Slovakia. We have only common issues, which are in our shared interest, and which need to be managed. That is why we discussed cooperation within the Visegrad Group and the Tri-Seas,” said Andrzej Duda at the start of a joint press conference.

 

He admitted, however, that apart from regional and economic cooperation, Eastern policy, energy and security, as well as climate policy, a significant part of the “face to face” discussion concerned changes in the Polish judicial system.

 

“President Čaputová asked me about the reforms of the justice system in Poland. She asked me about the disciplinary system for judges in Poland. We discussed the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, the way in which judges are elected to it and what the Disciplinary Chamber means,” Duda stated.

 

The detailed nature of these questions demonstrates that the new Slovak president is closely monitoring the state of the rule of law in Poland and cases pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union.

 

In addition to the CJEU ruling on the Supreme Court Act, at the end of June the Advocate General of the EU Court of Justice delivered a negative verdict on the founding of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, in which a key role was played by the neo-National Council of the Judiciary.

 

In addition, the European Commission will soon issue a “Reasoned Opinion” on the judicial disciplinary system in Poland. This is part of the procedure that the Commission initiated against Poland in April 2019.

 

As part of this procedure, the Commission may file a third complaint against Poland to the CJEU regarding the state of the rule of law in Poland (the first was a complaint against the Common Courts Act, in which a judgment will be announced in the autumn; the second was a complaint against the provisions of the Supreme Court Act, which the CJEU has already found to be in breach of EU law).

 

During a press conference with the Slovakian president, Andrzej Duda again repeated the well-worn assurances of Law and Justice politicians that everything is in order, and once again publicly discredited the Polish judiciary.

 

“I told the President that the Disciplinary Chamber is a response to the behaviour of the people who are responsible for the justice system. So I have no doubt that the issue of disciplinary responsibility of judges, which unfortunately in many cases has been a fiction in Poland, must be dealt with responsibly and decisively.

 

And I am pleased that the Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Chamber operates as it does, as we have already seen a number of examples where the behaviour of judges did not comport in any way with the rule of law or ethics. I am pleased that these matters have indeed been dealt with responsibly by this House in recent times. And I am convinced that these events are to the benefit of the entire judicial community, and, above all, of the Polish judiciary, because that is the most important thing for me.”

 

President Čaputová maintained a diplomatic silence during this tirade. It would appear that her position is much closer to that of the new head of the European Commission than to the governments in Warsaw and Budapest.

 

[translated by Matthew La Fontaine]



Author


Co-founder and editor of Rule of Law in Poland and The Wiktor Osiatyński Archive, a rule of law monitoring project,…


More

Published

July 22, 2019

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional TribunalPolandjudgesdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean Commissionjudicial independenceEuropean UnionMałgorzata ManowskaAndrzej DudaCourt of JusticeIgor TuleyaEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary systemMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiMateusz MorawieckiCJEUmuzzle lawNational Recovery PlanAdam BodnarCommissioner for Human RightsdemocracyWaldemar ŻurekPrzemysław Radzikcriminal lawpresidential electionselectionsKamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerPiotr Schabmedia freedomneo-judgeselections 2023Julia PrzyłębskajudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme Courtpreliminary rulingsSupreme Administrative CourtHungaryelections 2020K 3/21Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaNational Council for JudiciaryharassmentProsecutor GeneralprosecutorsŁukasz PiebiakMichał LasotaBeata MorawiecPaweł JuszczyszynCourt of Justice of the European UnionPrime MinisterPresidentConstitutionCOVID-19European Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiCriminal ChamberRegional Court in KrakówRecovery FundExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberEU budgetfreedom of expressionprosecutiondisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanMałgorzata GersdorfSejmcourtsMaciej Ferekfreedom of assemblyconditionalityLaw and JusticeNCJMinistry of JusticeJustice FundNational ProsecutorPiSStanisław PiotrowiczAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPresident of the Republic of PolandIustitiaTHEMISimmunityAnna DalkowskaNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsStanisław Biernatconditionality mechanismWłodzimierz WróbelLabour and Social Security Chambercommission on Russian influence2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiNational Electoral CommissionJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsPresident of PolandLGBTXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. Polandmedia independenceKrystian MarkiewiczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczMichał WawrykiewiczArticle 6 ECHREAWUrsula von der LeyenTVPmediaLex Super OmniaLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaDidier ReyndersStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationAndrzej StępkaPiotr GąciarekcorruptionP 7/20K 7/21Lex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanProfessional Liability ChambersuspensionparliamentJarosław DudziczChamber of Professional Liabilityelectoral codePiotr Prusinowskidemocratic backslidingdecommunizationLaw on the NCJrecommendationHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europepublic opinion pollreportEuropean ParliamentZiobrointimidation of dissenterstransferretirement agePiebiak gatehuman rightsEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawcoronavirusC-791/19Piotr PszczółkowskiGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaJarosław GowinLGBT ideology free zonescriminal codeSenateZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczMarcin WarchołdefamationFree CourtsEwa WrzosekEU law primacyAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej MiteraViktor OrbanOLAFNext Generation EUvetoabortionJózef IwulskiTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiMarek MazurkiewiczAndrzej MączyńskiJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław RymarFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskiBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikSLAPPOKO.pressDariusz ZawistowskiMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiMarian BanaśSupreme Audit OfficeAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyKrakówXero Flor v. PolandAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Civil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaPegasusMariusz KamińskisurveillanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraEdyta Barańskaright to fair trialUkraineKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecDariusz DrajewiczRafał Puchalskismear campaignmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentMarzanna Piekarska-Drążekelectoral processWojciech Maczugapublic medialexTuskcourt changeselections integrityelections fairnessabuse of state resourcesPATFoxpopulismequal treatmentfundamental rightsCT PresidentEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justice2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUStanisław ZabłockiLIBE CommitteeFrans TimmermansUS Department of StateSwieczkowskiadvocate generalpress releaseRights and Values ProgrammeC-619/18defamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardWojciech SadurskijudgePechKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakAmnesty Internationaltrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote billresolution of 23 January 2020Leon KieresPKWinfringment actionEU valuesENCJIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawPrzemysła RadzikElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsC-487/19Article 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentSimpson judgmentForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited NationsLeszek Mazurinterim measuresautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingproteststhe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europemedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióGazeta WyborczaPollitykaBrussels IRome IIArticle 2Forum shoppingtransparencyEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian KaletaC-156/21C-157/21Marek PiertuszyńskiNational Prosecutor’s OfficeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOlsztyn courtPrzemysła CzarnekEducation MinisterIpsosOlimpia Barańska-MałuszeHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr Burasauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258clientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's OfficePolish National FoundationLux VeritatisMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykTVNjournalistslexTVNPolish mediaRzeszówborderprimacyEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej RutkiewiczMirosław Wróblewskiright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMichał WośMinistry of FinanceJacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryMarek AstCourt of Appeal in KrakówPutinismKaczyńskiPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderekct on the Protection of the Populatiolegislationlex WośRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtAntykastaStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczKatarzyna ChmuraGrzegorz FurmankiewiczMarek JaskulskiJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaKasta/AntykastaAndrzej SkowronŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiEmilia SzmydtTomasz SzmydtE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał Dworczykmedia pluralism#RecoveryFilesrepairing the rule of lawBohdan BieniekMarcin KrajewskiMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsWiesław KozielewiczNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeGrzegorz PudaPiotr MazurekJerzy KwaśniewskiPetros Tovmasyancourt presidentsODIHRFull-Scale Election Observation MissionNGOKarolina MiklaszewskaRafał LisakMałgorzata FroncJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiSebastian MazurekElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikSzymon Szynkowski vel SękJoanna Scheuring-Wielgusinsulting religious feelingsoppositionAdam GendźwiłłDariusz Dończyktest of independenceTomasz KoszewskiJakub KwiecińskidiscriminationAct on the Supreme Courtelectoral commissionsEuropean Court of HuKrzysztof RączkaPoznańKoan LenaertsKarol WeitzKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiRThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFJustyna WydrzyńskaAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszJoanna KnobelCrimes of espionageextraordinary commissionZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaCourt of Appeal in WarsawOsiatyński'a ArchiveUS State DepartmentAssessment Actenvironmentinvestmentstrategic investmentgag lawsuitslex RaczkowskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActdisinformationNational Broadcasting Councilelection fairnessDobrochna Bach-GoleckaRafał WojciechowskiAleksandra RutkowskaGeneral Court of the EUArkadiusz RadwanLech WałęsaWałęsa v. Polandright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawpilot-judgmentDonald Tusk governmentSLAPPscivil lawRadosław BaszukAction PlanJustice MinistryVěra JourováDonald Tuskjustice system reform