The European Commission intervenes on “LGBT-free” zones in Poland

Share

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

More

The letter from the European Commission is a confirmation that the homophobic resolutions passed by local governments in Poland have legal consequences, violate the rights of their residents, and should conform to EU values. It also opens the way to EU funds being blocked – right now



by Anton Ambroziak

 

The addressees of the European Commission’s letter are the marshals (wojewodowie) of five provinces (voivodships, województwa) that have adopted anti-LGBT resolutions or their equivalent, i.e. the homophobic ‘Local Government Charter on the Rights of the Family’ drawn up by an NGO Ordo Iuris. These are the Lublin, Łódź, Malopolskie, Podkarpackie and Świętokrzyskie provinces.

 

What does the Commission want? In short: for the provincial governors (wojewodowie) to check whether the money from the EU’s cohesion policy is actually being spent in violation of European regulations.

 

This mainly concerns Art. 2 of the European Union Treaty, which speaks of the values ​​on which the Community is founded:

  • respect for human dignity;
  • freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law,
  • and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.

 

“These values ​​are common to the Member States in a society based on pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men.”

 

The obligation to combat discrimination based on sex, race or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation is also included in art. 7 of the Regulation on EU funds dating from 2013. Moreover, the preventive actions to which the beneficiaries of EU funds are obliged are explicitly included in the partnership agreement, and include both investments and programmes run by local authorities, as well as soft activities accompanying them, such as ‘communication’.

 

In the opinion of the European Commission, the adoption by some Polish local governments of homophobic documents, which reduces the LGBT community to an ‘ideology’, calls into question the regional institutions’ ability to implement the principle of non-discrimination.

 

“In addition, there is a risk that the beneficiaries of the funds (…) will discriminate against the LGBT community in their activities,” writes the European Commission, instructing the provincial governors to investigate the matter.

 

“We cannot be full members of the EU if we exclude some of our citizens.”

 

Why is this letter so important? 

 

First of all, this is not just another commentary expressing moral indignation; rather it is a specific intervention. 

 

Anna Błaszczak-Banasiak, a lawyer of the Commissioner for Human Rights’ Office says the EC’s position confirms that the anti-LGBT resolutions, regardless of their form, directly affect the lives of citizens.

 

“In the Commissioner’s opinion, the EC’s letter embodies the principle of non-discrimination as a fundamental principle of the European Union. In other words, we cannot be full members of the community if we fail to apply the principle of equal treatment and exclude some of our citizens from social life.”

 

The local governments that adopted the homophobic documents have defended themselves by claiming that they did not exclude LGBT people, but were only protesting against a harmful ‘ideology’, or promoting the values ​​of the traditional family.

 

“I’m glad that the Commission has confirmed the arguments of the Commissioner, who emphasised from the beginning that this was not about ideology or beliefs, but about living people,” commented Błaszczyk-Banasiak.

 

Local governments may lose EU funds straight away

 

The EC’s position thus clearly demonstrates that the anti-LGBT resolutions have legal consequences, are in conflict with EU regulations, and that the Polish institutions which should defend them have been neglecting their duties. But the most revolutionary matter is the threat that the joint funding might be lost.

 

Until now, the example of the homophobic self-governments gave impetus to the parties which wanted to link the next EU budget to compliance with the basic principles enshrined in the EU Treaty. 

 

Now, the European Commission has shown that the consequences of compromising EU values ​​can even be borne today. 

 

“And that would be the worst possible news if it seems that any self-government has lost EU funding due to the ill-considered actions they carried out during the course of the election campaign,” says Anna Błaszczak-Banasiak. 

 

This is a clear signal to those local governments that have adopted homophobic resolutions that their actions are not neutral, and the European community is not only a collection of rights and benefits, but also of obligations which must be fulfilled. And if they aren’t, then the money to renovate historic parts of the city, a new sewage system or a road may run out.

 

Pressure on local authorities is not just defensive in nature. It is not just about whether the provincial governors will check to see whether the funds are spent in accordance with the law, but whether they also take active measures aimed at preventing discrimination.

 

The Commissioner has appealed against 9 resolutions to administrative courts

 

The Commission’s letter coincides with the position adopted by the European Parliament, which in December 2019 called on the Polish authorities to repeal homophobic resolutions by administrative means, i.e. via the provincial governor (wojewoda) or the administrative courts. The Parliament also urged the EC to verify whether the local governments that adopted anti-LGBT resolutions and still collect money from the EU are using it for purposes that violate human rights and the principle of equal treatment.

 

“Since the expected action has not been taken after the resolution by the European Parliament in December, which indicated that member states are obliged to uphold the fundamental rights enshrined in the EU Treaties, the Commission has naturally taken further steps. We hope that the local governments will come to their senses, and that this statement will contribute to the immediate revocation of the resolutions,” says Justyna Nakielska from the Campaign Against Homophobia.

 

Also in December 2019, the Polish Commissioner for Human Rights appealed against the nine most flagrant resolutions to the administrative courts. However, as Anna Błaszczak-Banasiak explained, the legal status in Poland is more complex.

 

The local communes (gminy) are trying to show that the resolutions do not affect the residents’ subjective rights. On the other hand, the Commissioner accuses the local governments of failing to comply with the legalist principle expressed in Art. 7 of the Constitution. “Our basic complaint is therefore a formal one. We want to demonstrate that the local governments have exceeded the scope of their competence when adopting these documents. We must remember that these are precedential proceedings; we are waiting patiently for the first decisions to be handed down.”

 

Pressure from the partner regions

 

The withdrawal of EU funds would be the most severe loss for the local governments that have passed the homophobic laws. So far, some municipalities or provinces have – temporarily – lost their partnership agreements with foreign regions. Some of this happened after the intervention of OKO.press, which in February 2020 sent information on the local authorities’ activities to 52 partner regions around Europe

 

So far, none of the local governments have withdrawn the resolutions. Kraśnik came the closest; after losing its partnership with Nogent-sur-Oise in France, it is still debating the future of the document.

 

The first of the so-called ‘LGBT-free’ zones was established on 26 March 2019 in Świdnik (in the Lublin voivodeship). Since then, similar documents in various forms have been adopted by over 80 local government units.



Author


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


More

Published

June 2, 2020

Tags

Supreme CourtPolandConstitutional TribunalDisciplinary Chamberjudgesrule of lawdisciplinary proceedingsZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaCourt of JusticeMinister of JusticeEuropean Court of Human RightsAdam BodnarIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemneo-judgesmuzzle lawCJEUJarosław KaczyńskiNational Recovery PlanMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsWaldemar ŻurekCourt of Justice of the European UnionNational Council for JudiciaryPrzemysław RadzikdemocracyPiotr Schabjudiciarypresidential electionselectionscriminal lawKamil Zaradkiewiczelections 2023disciplinary commissionerJulia Przyłębskamedia freedomelections 2020harassmentSupreme Administrative Courtpreliminary rulingsK 3/21Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaprosecutionHungaryFirst President of the Supreme CourtBeata MorawiecMichał LasotaprosecutorsRecovery FundPresidentProsecutor GeneralPaweł JuszczyszynNational ProsecutorŁukasz PiebiakConstitutionEuropean Arrest WarrantPrime Ministerfreedom of expressionMaciej NawackiCOVID-19Marek SafjanVenice CommissionSejmimmunityCriminal ChamberRegional Court in KrakówIustitiaExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberMałgorzata GersdorfreformMinistry of JusticeNCJMaciej FerekOSCEcourtsWojciech Hermelińskidisciplinary liability for judgesEU budgetcorruptionStanisław PiotrowiczNational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsCouncil of EuropeJustice FundLGBTAnna DalkowskaWłodzimierz WróbelPresident of the Republic of Polandconditionality mechanismTHEMISKrystian MarkiewiczStanisław BiernatAleksander StepkowskiPiSreformsLaw and JusticeJarosław DudziczLabour and Social Security Chamberconditionalitycommission on Russian influencefreedom of assemblyMarcin RomanowskiSLAPPReczkowicz and Others v. PolandPiotr PrusinowskiOrdo IurisDidier ReyndersPiotr Gąciarekmedia independenceStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationBroda and Bojara v PolandXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. Polandelectoral codeAndrzej StępkaChamber of Professional LiabilityChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsArticle 7President of PolandSupreme Court PresidentSenateUrsula von der LeyenParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeTVPmediaLex Super OmniapoliceabortionNext Generation EUEAWJustice Defence Committee – KOSMay 10 2020 electionsSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtdefamationKrzysztof ParchimowiczFreedom HouseMichał WawrykiewiczEwa ŁętowskaArticle 6 ECHR2017Constitutional Tribunal PresidentsuspensionNational Electoral CommissionProfessional Liability ChamberAndrzej ZollNational Reconstruction PlanJarosław WyrembakPegasusLex DudaP 7/20K 7/21parliamentcivil societyLech Garlickiacting first president of the Supreme CourtCivil ChamberPM Mateusz MorawieckiAdam Jamrózright to fair trialStefan JaworskiKrakówMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaStanisław RymarJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraWojciech Łączkowskistate of emergencyMarek MazurkiewiczAndrzej MączyńskiJanusz NiemcewiczJózef IwulskiMirosław GranatTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskavetoJoanna Misztal-KoneckaOLAFViktor OrbanDariusz KornelukMaciej Miterajudcial independenceMariusz KamińskiAstradsson v IcelandKazimierz DziałochaSLAPPsrestoration of the rule of lawCentral Anti-Corruption BureausurveillanceEdyta BarańskaXero Flor v. PolandPATFoxaccountabilityKrystyna Pawłowiczinsulting religious feelingsDariusz DrajewiczK 6/21transparencyDariusz ZawistowskiOKO.pressJakub IwaniecPaweł FilipekSzymon Szynkowski vel SękNational Prosecutor’s OfficeWojciech MaczugaMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekMariusz MuszyńskiBelaruselectoral processmilestonessmear campaigncourt presidentsMichał LaskowskiMaciej TaborowskiMarian BanaśSupreme Audit OfficeMarek PietruszyńskiSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczPiotr TulejaJerzy Stępieńelections fairnessAndrzej RzeplińskiUkraineFerdynand RymarzMirosław WyrzykowskiBohdan ZdziennickiAdam SynakiewiczKonrad WytrykowskiRafał Puchalskipublic medialexTuskcourt changeselections integrityInternational Criminal CourtMarek Zubikabuse of state resourcescriminal codeMarcin WarchołZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczJarosław GowinreportPiotr Pszczółkowskiretirement ageEuropean Association of JudgesPiebiak gateZiobroEU law primacyLaw on the NCJhuman rightsEwa WrzosekC-791/19Free Courtspublic opinion pollcoronavirusAdam Tomczyńskidemocratic backslidingNetherlandsEuropean ParliamentRussiadecommunizationlex NGOtransferintimidation of dissentersBogdan ŚwięczkowskiGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesHuman Rights CommissionerBelgiumrecommendationLGBT ideology free zones11 January March in WarsawThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeCCBEJerzy KwaśniewskiNGOStanisław ZabłockiFull-Scale Election Observation MissionODIHRNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeGrzegorz PudaPiotr MazurekPetros TovmasyanCouncil of the EUKarolina MiklaszewskaJakub KwiecińskiTomasz Koszewskitest of independenceDariusz DończykAdam GendźwiłłRafał Lisakopposition2018Joanna Scheuring-WielgusNations in TransitElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikAct on the Supreme CourtSebastian MazurekJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiMałgorzata FroncdiscriminationRome StatuteJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaRights and Values ProgrammeKasta/AntykastaAndrzej SkowronŁukasz BilińskiMarek JaskulskiGrzegorz FurmankiewiczC-619/18Wojciech SadurskiWorld Justice Project awarddefamatory statementsAntykastaStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczKatarzyna ChmuraIvan MischenkoMonika Frąckowiakrepairing the rule of lawE-mail scandalUS Department of StateBohdan BieniekMarcin KrajewskiFrans TimmermansMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakLIBE CommitteeSwieczkowskiadvocate generalArkadiusz CichockiEmilia SzmydtTomasz Szmydtpress releaseDworczyk leaksMichał Dworczykmedia pluralism#RecoveryFilesWiesław Kozielewiczright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawinsultState Tribunalfundamental rightsMarcin Matczakequal treatmentNational School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (KSSiP)codification commissiondelegationsAnti-SLAPP Directivejustice system reformDonald Tuskpilot-judgmentDonald Tusk governmentCT Presidentcivil lawRadosław BaszukAction PlanJustice MinistryVěra JourováWatchdog PolskaDariusz BarskiLasotacivil partnershipsKatarzyna Kotulasame-sex unionscivil partnerships billKRSJudicial Reformsmigration strategyPenal CodeThe Codification Committee of Civil LawChamber of Professional ResponsibilityethicsHater ScandalpopulismNational Council for the JudiciaryHelsinki Foundation for Human RightsPiotr HofmańskiC‑718/21preliminary referenceEU lawLGBTQ+Wałęsa v. Polandelectoral commissionsAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszJoanna KnobelCrimes of espionageKESMAextraordinary commissionZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaCourt of Appeal in WarsawJustyna WydrzyńskaEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentEuropean Court of HuKrzysztof RączkaPoznańKoan LenaertsKarol WeitzKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiROsiatyński'a Archivetransitional justiceUS State DepartmentEUNational Broadcasting Councilelection fairnessDobrochna Bach-GoleckaRafał WojciechowskiAleksandra RutkowskaGeneral Court of the EUArkadiusz RadwanWhite PaperlustrationdisinformationAssessment Actenvironmentinvestmentstrategic investmentgag lawsuitslex RaczkowskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActLech WałęsaPrzemysław CzarnekJózsef SzájerRafał TrzaskowskiKlubrádióSobczyńska and Others v PolandŻurek v PolandGazeta WyborczaGrzęda v PolandPollitykaJelenTelex.huIndex.huJacek CzaputowiczElżbieta KarskaPrzemysła Radzikmedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek Kurskimedia lawBrussels IRome IILGBT free zonesFirst President of the Suprme CourtBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeOlsztyn courtPrzemysła CzarnekequalityMarek PiertuszyńskiChamber of Extraordinary VerificationArticle 2Forum shoppinghate speechEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian Kaletahate crimesC-156/21C-157/21Education Ministerthe Regional Court in Warsawproteststhe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońGermanyCelmermutual trustabortion rulingLMUnited NationsLeszek MazurAmsterdamIrena Majcherinterim measuresIrelandautocratizationMultiannual Financial FrameworkC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUC-487/19Norwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsNorwegian fundsNorwayKraśnikOmbudsmanZbigniew BoniekENAArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service Actpublic broadcasterForum Współpracy SędziówSimpson judgmentAK judgmentlegislative practicerepressive actThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz Radkepolexittrans-Atlantic valuesDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandAmnesty InternationalErnest BejdaJacek SasinLSOright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychAct of 20 December 2019lawyersMichał WośMinistry of FinanceFrackowiakECJKaczyńskiPechPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderekct on the Protection of the Populatiolegislationlex WośPutinismCourt of Appeal in KrakówKochenovPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryFreedom in the WorldMarek AstEvgeni Tanchevjudgeforeign agents lawENCJEuropean Public Prosecutor's OfficeEU valuesPolish National FoundationLux Veritatisinfringment actionMałgorzata BednarekPiotr Wawrzykoligarchic systemclientelismArticle 258IsraelIpsosOlimpia Barańska-MałuszeHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr Burasauthoritarian equilibriumPKWLeon KieresprimacyAlina CzubieniakEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtharrassmentMaciej RutkiewiczKoen LenaertsborderGerard BirgfellerRzeszówresolution of 23 January 2020TVNjournalistslexTVNpostal vote billPolish mediapostal voteEwa MaciejewskaMirosław Wróblewski