The History of the 48-Hour Lawsuit: Democratic Backsliding, Academic Freedom, and the Legislative Process in Poland

Share

postdoc at the Department of European and Economic Law, University of Groningen

More

On 15 June 2019 the Polish Ministry of Justice announced on its website that the Ministry would sue a group of lawyers from the Cracow Institute of Criminal Law, who criticized draft amendments to the Criminal Code. The Ministry of Justice argued that the opinion contained lies about the amended rules concerning liability for corruption conducted by managers of public companies. The experts strongly rejected the Ministry’s allegations. On Monday afternoon the Minister of Justice announced that the lawsuit is “no longer needed” and that the Ministry withdrew their idea. The case of “48-hours-lasting lawsuit” touches upon two fundamental issues: academic freedom and the quality of the legislative process.



[editor’s note: This article was originally published at the IACL Blog. We would like to express our gratitude to the IACL Blog for their permission to repost the text at here RoL.]

 

by Barbara Grabowska Moroz, Katarzyna Łakomiec and Michał Ziółkowski

 

Amendments to the Criminal Code

 

The draft amendments to the Criminal Code were announced to the public at the end of January 2019. An enormous draft law, changing numerous detailed provisions and basic principles of the criminal code, increased penalties for a number of crimes. Part of the amendments were presented as a reaction to a documentary film presenting cases of paedophilia in the Catholic church in Poland covered up by the church hierarchy. The film (published two weeks before the European Parliament elections) provided a convenient explanation for adopting new legislation in a highly accelerated procedure.

 

The draft bill was delivered to Members of the Government on 14 May 2019 and on the same day submitted to the Sejm (Parliament). According to the Standing Orders, all draft bills regarding amendments of the codes (i.e. civil, criminal or election code) have to be discussed on the Sejm’s plenary session not earlier than 14 days after draft bill submission. The Speaker of the Sejm said that he would not apply a special (prolonged) procedure[1] required for amending codifications, because the draft law amending a Criminal Code … is not a “code project”. His decision “made it possible to meet the social expectations regarding undertaking urgent work on strengthening the protection of children against sexual abuse”. The amendments were adopted by Sejm on 16 May 2019 – two days after the bill was submitted to the Parliament. The opinion prepared by the expert of Parliamentary Research Bureau (Biuro Analiz Sejmowych) was delivered six days after the law was adopted by Sejm. The opinion concluded that many of the introduced amendments “violate the internal coherence and internal justice of the penal code”.

 

The hasty legislative procedure does not allow for debate and in fact, discourages any participation in such a process. That is why in general academic participation in a legislative process is less than satisfactory. This time, however, the experts from the Jagiellonian University, who established their own NGO (Krakowski Instytut Prawa Karnego), devoted their time to prepare two legal opinions about the draft bill which fundamentally changes the criminal law in Poland. The opinion was drafted by two professors of criminal law and by five experts holding PhDs in criminal law (the Ministry described them as “PhD students”).

 

The idea that a public institution sues academic experts already sounds unimaginable in a democratic state. The situation is even more ridiculous when we realize that a person who runs the office of Minister of Justice is also a Prosecutor General and a supervisor of common courts. Such institutional arrangements were criticized by the Venice Commission,[2] but the international criticism was ignored by the Ministry of Justice. This time the criticism from academic experts led to a civil lawsuit.

 

As the Ministry’s press release stated, the lawsuit was aimed at protecting the “good name of the Ministry”, but also at “defending the Polish justice system and defending the reputation of the Jagiellonian University itself”. Such statement causes a number of questions and comments. First of all, what kind of personal goods can a Ministry of Justice potentially have? Secondly, is there a better way to protect the Polish justice system, rather than to adopt thoroughly evaluated legislation? Thirdly, a statement that the Ministry will defend “the reputation of the Jagiellonian University” by suing their experts is highly problematic, because no one asked for such defence.

 

State of lawmaking: lesson unlearned

 

This case is also a perfect example of the distortion of the standards of the legislative process in Poland. Before 2015, the executive branch assumed the leading role in the legislative process concerning many subjects relevant to the functioning of the state and human rights protection. At that time, many solutions that took into account the need for transparency and public participation in the executive law-making were developed. With changes to the Council of Ministers’ internal regulations, there were more opportunities for public discussion about the draft legislation. After overcoming initial reservations also important impact assessment tools were developed and implemented.

 

The most important effect of these changes was creating a legal and institutional environment allowing trust to be built between the public authorities and civil society. It was also a starting point in developing a perception of the legislative process as a group effort for achieving a common goal with each participant bringing a unique perspective and knowledge. As the case of amending Criminal Code shows, all those developments seem to be wasted. The expert opinion in the legislative process is once again perceived as a tool of attack used to undermine the competence of the lawmakers. Threatening experts with a lawsuit is one of the best examples of regress in this area. Unfortunately, this phenomenon does not apply only to the opinions of independent bodies or NGOs, but to the opinions of other ministries and state authorities. It was recently noted, that critical opinions about the project, [3]have been disclosed only after the amendment was passed by the Sejm. Minister of Foreign Affairs underlined, for instance, that introduction of irreducible life sentence is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. All this contributes to the vision of the legislative process as a battlefield. One can only wonder if you can reach the best vantage point peeping from the foxhole.

 

Constitutionally protected freedom of research

 

According to the well-established interpretation, Article 73 of the Constitution of Poland (freedom of academic research) covers three connected and detailed freedoms: freedom of choice regarding the subject of the research, its methodology as well as a choice of the place and means of presentation of the research output. The Polish Constitutional Tribunal case-law has not broadly developed this interpretation of this constitutional provision to date. Few elements of the negative definition of the freedom of scientific research have been given by the Tribunal instead. In particular, it is claimed that the Article 73 cannot be a legal basis for material claims of the researchers against state or universities, including for employment or promotion as well as scientific grants or any other claim of this kind. However, from a comparative and historical point of view, it is clear the constitutional provision on the freedom of scientific research shall be read in conjunction with the constitutional guarantees for freedom of expression (Article 54 of the Constitution of Poland). Taking into account that the subsequent freedom is a core-element for a liberal democratic state and may be limited in very exceptional circumstances only, we believe that the Constitution established enhanced protection of the researchers against the state authorities.

 

Firstly, the preventive censorship of scientific research is strictly prohibited (see Article 54(2) of the Constitution). Secondly, the direct or indirect limitation of the subject, methodology, or research output by public authorities shall also be recognised as unconstitutional. There are only a few situations, directly expressed in the constitutional provisions, where the public authorities may intervene or stop scientific research (i.e. experiment without consent – see Article 39 of the Constitution). The constitutional provisions protect researchers against the chilling effect also. Thirdly, it is not for public authorities to decide whether the research fulfils a sufficient argument for the truth or not. Having regard to the fact that the freedom of scientific research is a typical negative freedom, this question must be left exclusively to other researchers, scientist and public opinion. According to the well-established-interpretation of Article 73, any possible legal liability for bad faith and objectively non-evidence-based research is a limited exception.[4] As a consequence, the public authorities shall be prevented from using, directly or indirectly, private law or criminal law institutions in order to influence or stop the scientific research that does not violate the law.

 

Taking into account the above, we are of the opinion that the Minister of Justice statement and declaration directly violated the constitutional guarantees of scientific research. It shall be remembered that the Cracow Institute of Criminal Law scholars delivered the expertise within the field of their research. The expertise was officially presented before the public opinion and the members of the Parliament. After that, it was broadly shared by many other scholars in the country. The critique of the amendments was based on a well-established theory of criminal law as well as dogmatic findings and the polish courts case-law. The scholars’ expertise did not violate the law as well as did not even touched the areas that may be difficult or controversial from an ethical point of view (i.e. biotechnology or trans-human issues). The expertise only disadvantage was that its conclusions were contrary to the Minister of Justice opinion on the scope and consequences of the amendments to the Criminal Code. We believe that such a ‘contradiction’ cannot serve as a sufficient justification for public authorities to take legal or political actions against researchers.

 

Anti-intellectual regional trend?

 

The “48-hours lawsuit” is also disturbing in the light of anti-academic policy developed recently by the Hungarian government. So-called “Lex CEU” was prepared in secrecy and adopted by the Parliament within a few days. The government created a climate of anti-intellectualism by targeting and undermining the role of social science (gender studies in particular). The infringement proceeding regarding so-called “Lex CEU” is still pending before the CJEU. Actions taken by the Hungarian government resulted in a decision of the Central European University to leave Budapest and move to Vienna. Recently, the Hungarian government has taken steps aimed at taking control over the Hungarian Academy of Sciences by creating a National Office for Research, Development and Innovation, which would oversee the academy’s research institutes. The majority of the members will be appointed by the government. As the Hungarian Foreign Minister said: “The academy of sciences is a sovereign institution, but not independent from national interests”.

 

In the Polish case, the Ministry of Justice’s grounds for filing a lawsuit centred on alleged lies in the legal opinion prepared by the criminal law experts. In the Hungarian scenario, the minister for trade and industry argued that “in some cases, the academy has moved towards being politically active and this is not their task”. The legislation concerning CEU was an effect of the anti-Soros governmental campaign, supported with comparative blank arguments that similar regulations (requiring a special agreement between the State of university “origin” and the “receiving” state to be signed) exist in the other Member States.

 

Lawsuit dropped

 

Not later than 48 hours after the lawsuit was announced, the Minister of Justice declared that the lawsuit would be dropped.[5] According to media reports, Minister of Justice was allegedly “convinced” to drop the lawsuit by the Jarosław Kaczyński, a leader of the ruling party. The Minister did not provide any justification for his decision but decided to additionally offend the experts from Cracow. He stated that there is no longer a need to continue the case because everything is clear and the society sees who is afraid of the truth. “It is clear to everyone that the nervous reaction of those who have prepared this opinion and the fear of standing in front of the impartial civil court (…) is sufficient information and a signal that there is no need to continue this case”. He concluded that “the fact of announcing the submission of this lawsuit caused a valuable discussion”. Such a conclusion could suggest that whenever the government drafts any legislative amendments, a number of lawsuits should be submitted (or at least announced) in order to enable a fruitful debate.

 

What are we left with?

 

The whole case represents a broader problem dealing with the rule of law in Poland, where deliberative democracy is at stake: the non-transparent way of adopting laws, arbitrary violation of rules regarding legislative process, threatening academic experts criticising the draft bill with the possible lawsuit, which was finally dropped with further insinuations that the experts lied in their opinion. What is wrong with this picture?

 

The lawsuit will not encourage potential experts in any research field to prepare and present their opinions in the future. The backsliding with regards to the quality and transparency of the legislative process directly resulted from the rule of law backsliding initiated by the capture of the Constitutional Tribunal in Poland in 2017. Recent events concerning lawsuit against the experts from the Cracow Institute of Criminal Law proves that the backsliding is still in progress. In light of the constitutional norms, there are statements or actions that shall be constitutionally excluded from the repertoire of the public authorities. Those actions simply do not fit to the standard of a democratic state ruled by law. The Minister of Justice’s declaration may serve as a flagrant example.

 

Unfortunately “democratic backsliding affects universities as much as any other institution in a society”. The evaluation of professional opinions and academic research should take place within a reasonably scheduled legislative process and not in the courtroom. Such an order of debate secures freedom of speech and freedom of scientific research. What is at stake? As professor Zajadło (University of Gdańsk) stated recently, the steps undertaken by the Polish Ministry of Justice suggest “it is not about making science objective and critical, it is about being defined and serving”. I doubt whether the announcement of a possible lawsuit could transform the Polish academia into serving one. However, what is disturbing is that the line was drawn. The line between two spheres: the first one allows for open and free expression of opinion, the second one where you have to think twice if your work will be approved by political actors. When you cross that line and realize how bad it is to be on the other side, you might do everything to avoid crossing it in the future. This is how chilling effect works in practice.

 

So what happens when we do not defend academic freedom? Here is the answer.

 

About the authors

 

Barbara Grabowska-Moroz, postdoc at the Department of European and Economic Law, University of Groningen.

 

Katarzyna Łakomiec, constitutional law scholar, senior specialist in the Constitutional, International and European Law Department, Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights (Polish Ombudsman).

 

Michał Ziółkowski, assistant professor at Constitutional Law Department, Koźmiński University, Warsaw.

 



Author


postdoc at the Department of European and Economic Law, University of Groningen


More

Published

July 9, 2019

Tags

Supreme CourtPolandConstitutional TribunalDisciplinary Chamberjudgesrule of lawdisciplinary proceedingsZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of Justice of the EUjudicial independenceEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaCourt of JusticeMinister of JusticeEuropean Court of Human RightsAdam BodnarIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemmuzzle lawJarosław KaczyńskiNational Recovery PlanCJEUMateusz Morawieckineo-judgesCommissioner for Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European UnionPrzemysław RadzikWaldemar ŻurekdemocracyNational Council for JudiciaryPiotr Schabelectionspresidential electionsKamil ZaradkiewiczJulia Przyłębskamedia freedomcriminal lawelections 2023disciplinary commissionerharassmentprosecutionSupreme Administrative CourtHungaryelections 2020preliminary rulingsjudiciaryDagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaK 3/21First President of the Supreme CourtPaweł JuszczyszynNational ProsecutorRecovery FundPresidentMichał LasotaProsecutor GeneralŁukasz PiebiakBeata MorawiecprosecutorsEuropean Arrest Warrantfreedom of expressionConstitutionPrime MinisterSejmimmunityMaciej NawackiIustitiaRegional Court in KrakówCriminal ChamberCOVID-19Maciej FerekOSCEMałgorzata GersdorfcourtsVenice CommissionMarek SafjanMinistry of JusticeExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberEU budgetdisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiPiSNCJKrystian MarkiewiczStanisław PiotrowiczPresident of the Republic of PolandAleksander Stepkowskicommission on Russian influenceJustice FundTHEMISLabour and Social Security ChamberLaw and JusticeNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsconditionalitycorruptionStanisław BiernatreformsAnna Dalkowskafreedom of assemblyconditionality mechanismWłodzimierz WróbelsuspensionPiotr GąciarekOrdo IurisReczkowicz and Others v. PolandparliamentMarcin RomanowskiAndrzej Stępkamedia independenceChamber of Professional LiabilityBroda and Bojara v PolandXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandP 7/20K 7/21LGBTPresident of PolandNational Reconstruction PlanJarosław DudziczLex DudaProfessional Liability ChamberMay 10 2020 electionsStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationPiotr PrusinowskidefamationLex Super OmniamediaUrsula von der LeyenKrzysztof ParchimowiczEAWabortionMichał Wawrykiewiczelectoral codeAmsterdam District CourtNext Generation EUSLAPPConstitutional Tribunal PresidentDidier ReyndersTVPEwa ŁętowskaSenateParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeLech GarlickiSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramArticle 6 ECHRAndrzej ZollNational Electoral CommissionFreedom HouseJarosław WyrembakJustice Defence Committee – KOSreformArticle 7acting first president of the Supreme CourtSupreme Court President2017PM Mateusz MorawieckipolicePiotr TulejaJerzy StępieńAndrzej RzeplińskiFerdynand RymarzStanisław RymarMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaDariusz ZawistowskiOKO.pressreportSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskiMarek ZubikDariusz KornelukMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekEuropean Parliamentmilestoneselectoral processAndrzej MączyńskiJózef IwulskiWojciech MaczugavetoOLAFViktor OrbanSzymon Szynkowski vel SękMaciej Miterajudcial independencecourt presidentsJanusz NiemcewiczTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaMarek MazurkiewiczZiobroMirosław GranatWojciech ŁączkowskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaStefan JaworskiAdam JamrózKazimierz Działochainsulting religious feelingsrestoration of the rule of lawright to fair trialXero Flor v. PolandLaw on the NCJKrakówstate of emergencydecommunizationBelarusAdam SynakiewiczAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Joanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraCentral Anti-Corruption BureausurveillanceMariusz KamińskiPegasusEdyta BarańskaJoanna Misztal-KoneckaCivil ChamberUkraineSupreme Audit OfficeMarian BanaśKrystyna PawłowiczCCBERafał PuchalskiThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeMarek PietruszyńskiMichał Laskowskipublic opinion pollsmear campaignMariusz MuszyńskiHuman Rights CommissionerMaciej TaborowskiPaweł FilipekInternational Criminal CourtKonrad WytrykowskirecommendationaccountabilityJakub IwaniecDariusz DrajewicztransparencyFree CourtsBohdan Zdziennickiretirement ageSLAPPsPATFoxLGBT ideology free zoneslexTuskAdam Tomczyński11 January March in Warsawabuse of state resourcesEuropean Association of Judgespublic mediaEwa Wrzosekcourt changesC-791/19democratic backslidingcoronavirushuman rightscriminal codePiebiak gateelections fairnessZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczJarosław GowinEU law primacyPiotr PszczółkowskiBelgiumtransferNetherlandscivil societyRussiaBogdan Święczkowskielections integrityintimidation of dissentersMarcin Warchołlex NGOGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszCrimes of espionageNCBiRJoanna KnobelKasta/AntykastaThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentHater ScandalPaweł StyrnaGrzegorz FurmankiewiczDariusz BarskiJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczJustyna WydrzyńskaKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczEwa ŁąpińskaIrena BochniakZbigniew ŁupinaNational Broadcasting CouncilKatarzyna ChmuraStanisław ZdunLasotaAntykastaEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFMarek JaskulskiRome StatuteCourt of Appeal in Warsawlex RaczkowskiCourt of Appeal in KrakówNational Council for the JudiciaryMarek Astgag lawsuitsAssessment ActAct sanitising the judiciaryenvironmentPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAgreement for the Rule of LawMaria Ejchart-DuboisPaulina Kieszkowska-Knapikstrategic investmentPiotr HofmańskiUS State DepartmentPutinismKaczyńskilex Wośdisinformationextraordinary commissionlegislationthe Spy ActZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaHelsinki Foundation for Human RightsinvestmentMałgorzata Wąsek-WiaderekOsiatyński'a ArchiveJarosław MatrasPaulina AslanowiczPiotr Raczkowskict on the Protection of the PopulatioAndrzej SkowronoppositionDariusz DończykPetros TovmasyanJerzy KwaśniewskiPiotr MazurekGrzegorz PudaNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeinsultState TribunalDonald Tusk governmenttest of independencepilot-judgmentVěra JourováTomasz Koszewskiright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawJakub KwiecińskidiscriminationAnti-SLAPP DirectiveODIHRcivil lawDonald TuskJustice MinistryJoanna Scheuring-WielgusAction PlanAdam GendźwiłłElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikSebastian Mazurekjustice system reformJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiEuropean Court of HuMałgorzata FroncRafał LisakKarolina MiklaszewskaRadosław BaszukNGOFull-Scale Election Observation MissionWałęsa v. PolandAct on the Supreme CourtLech WałęsaMichał DworczykDworczyk leaksAleksandra RutkowskaE-mail scandalRafał WojciechowskidelegationsTomasz SzmydtEmilia SzmydtWatchdog PolskaArkadiusz CichockiKaspryszyn v PolandDobrochna Bach-GoleckaMonika FrąckowiakNCR&Delection fairnessIvan Mischenkomedia pluralism#RecoveryFilesWiesław Kozielewiczelectoral commissionsMarcin MatczakChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakArkadiusz RadwanMarcin KrajewskiBohdan BieniekGeneral Court of the EUKrzysztof Rączkarepairing the rule of lawPoznańNational School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (KSSiP)Koan Lenaertscodification commissionKarol WeitzŁukasz BilińskiPKWhate speechGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawPrzemysła RadzikElżbieta KarskaJacek Czaputowiczhate crimesChamber of Extraordinary Verificationinfringment actionEU valuesENCJIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceAK judgmentSimpson judgmentpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawOpenbaar MinisterieRegional Court in AmsterdamENAZbigniew BoniekOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsC-487/19Article 10 ECHRUnited NationsLeon KierespopulismLIBE CommitteeFrans TimmermansUS Department of StateSwieczkowskiadvocate generalpress releaseRights and Values ProgrammeC-619/18defamatory statementsStanisław ZabłockiCouncil of the EUequal treatmentfundamental rightsCT PresidentEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justice2018Nations in TransitWorld Justice Project awardWojciech SadurskiAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote billlawyersLSOjudgePechKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakAmnesty Internationaltrans-Atlantic valuesresolution of 23 January 2020Olsztyn courtoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's OfficePolish National FoundationLux VeritatisMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykTVNjournalistslexTVNclientelismArticle 258Przemysła CzarnekEducation MinisterIpsosOlimpia Barańska-MałuszeHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr Burasauthoritarian equilibriumPolish mediaRzeszówMichał WośMinistry of FinanceJacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitRoman GiertychWiktor JoachimkowskiborderprimacyEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej RutkiewiczMirosław Wróblewskiright to protestSławomir JęksaDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandTribunal of StateLeszek MazurCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActForum Współpracy Sędziówmedia taxGermanyMariusz Krasońinterim measuresautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingproteststhe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandadvertising taxmediabezwyboruArticle 2Forum shoppingEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian KaletaC-156/21C-157/21Marek PiertuszyńskiNational Prosecutor’s OfficeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiRome IIBrussels IJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióGazeta WyborczaPollitykaDisicplinary Chamber