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 coordinator of The Wiktor Osiatyński Archive, a rule of law…

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 coordinator of The Wiktor Osiatyński Archive, a rule of law…


More

Published

July 22, 2019

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