Zajadło: The PiS state lies beyond the cultural border of Europe: seven cardinal sins.


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


Jerzy Zajadło writes: The situation is exceptionally grave – Law and Justice has aimed almost its entire arsenal at the justice system, but now has unsheathed one more weapon: administrative review of the substance of judicial verdicts. Professor and philosopher of law Jerzy Zajadło discusses the general context of the Polish Parliament’s refusal to carry out a verdict of the Supreme Administrative Court.

Law and Justice repeats like a mantra before various European Union bodies the argument that the judicial nomination system they have created as well as the new model of the National Council of the Judiciary are similar to those functioning in many European states, and thus the entirety of proceedings before the Court of is nothing more than a discriminatory campaign of political harassment aimed at Poland.


A few facts emerging in recent days demonstrate, however, that the PiS-developed institutions are something entirely new, because they are immersed in the specific political and legal “culture” of the Law and Justice party, which Europe finds incomprehensible.


    Example 1 – when asked whether it is possible that lists of support for candidates to the National Council of the Judiciary are comprised mainly of signatures of the other candidates, the spokesman for the Ministry of Justice answers with disarming honesty: “So what?”


    Example 2 – A Secretary of State in the Ministry of Justice, getting tongue-tied in a web of legal nonsense, declares it absolutely normal that a judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court may be subject to administrative review by the Personal Data Protection Office.


    Example 3 – a member of the National Council of the Judiciary admits triumphally that he signed his own name in support of his candidacy, something he considers entirely normal.


Further than ever before – PiS introducing review of substantive judgements


I think that many Poles remain unaware of the decision taken by the President of the Personal Data Protection Office that essentially suspends the verdict of the Supreme Administrative Court, and if they are aware, the majority of them who are not trained in the law have no real grasp of its deep systemic implications.


In turn, those lawyers lending their support to the “good change” will continue to unashamedly spout their legal nonsense.


Meanwhile, the situation is one of exceptional gravity – Law and Justice has aimed almost its entire arsenal at the justice system, but now has unsheathed one more weapon: administrative review of the substance of judicial verdicts.


This represents not only the quintessence of the ignorant and anti-constitutional cynicism that characterizes the ruling party, but it is also a departure from a certain political and legal culture that establishes the roles of the legislative, the executive and the judiciary.


Philosophers long ago observed a certain phenomenon – some notions are difficult to define positively (philosophia positiva) but are far easier to define negatively (philosophia negativa).


In the philosophy of law, a typical example is the notion of justice – we do not definitively know what justice is, but we do know what appears to us in a specific case to be an injustice.


If we apply this conclusion in an attempt at characterizing the state created by PiS, we are faced with a similar situation – it is difficult for us to provide a concrete definition of what this hybrid is, but it is far easier for us to say what it is not.


What the PiS state is not


First of all, despite all appearances, it is not a democratic state.


While Law and Justice consistently invokes democratic legitimacy stemming from the election in 2015, the manner in which the party wields power has turned their electoral majority into a caricature of democracy.


It would be problematic to claim that the manner in which the two chambers of the Polish Parliament function is a model of representative democracy. In fact, just the opposite – there are numerous examples of how the legislative process has nothing in common with democratic procedures for enacting law and has been transformed into a total farce.


Second of all, it displays absolutely no pretence of being governed by the rule of law.


This is, of course, not because there is no law at all, but rather because the law is treated instrumentally and applied selectively to serve the interests of one party rather than those of the state.


There is a wealth of examples demonstrating that the real law-making decisions are not made within the framework of constitutionally defined state structures, but rather in an extra-constitutional nexus of political power.


This is also where the ultimate decisions are taken regarding the real content of some acts involving the application and interpretation of law.


Third of all, if we consider equality before the law to be a fundamental component of justice, then this state is not a just one.


This is merely a simple consequence of the instrumental and selective approach to law that we have already discussed. It began with a questionable act of clemency by the president, followed by an avalanche of cases in which supporters were relieved of responsibility, while political opponents were prosecuted.


This is coupled with the privileged position of the institutional Church, in direct contradiction to the idea of the secular state, marginalisation of the opposition in violation of the principles of democracy, and discrimination against minority groups in violation of fundamental human rights.


Fourth of all, it is not a state based on the tripartite separation of powers.


Not only because power has been concentrated in the executive, while parliament has been reduced to a façade and the judiciary is subjected to constant attempts at political subjugation in order to negate its independence, but also because the constitutional structure of the state apparatus remains in the continual shadow of the final decisions being taken by the nexus of political power.


Fifth of all, it is not an honest state.


While a number of desirable social programmes have been initiated, their mechanism does not allow us to say definitively to what extent they are in fact a component of a drive for social justice, and to what extent they constitute a populist propaganda manoeuvre designed to ensure future success at the poles.


Behind this façade, there are certain events that call into question the honesty of the authorities – such as the scandalous distribution of state funds among their supporters, aggressive and deceitful propaganda of public media, concealing from public opinion facts that are inconvenient for the authorities.


Sixth of all, it is not a pro-European state.


From the very beginning of the party’s time in power following the election in 2015, Law and Justice has been steering the Polish state on a collision course with the European Union under the guise of protection national interests. This is accompanied by undermining the fundamental European axiology and the pretence of dialogue with European Union bodies, exposing us to potential negative economic, political and legal consequences.


Seventh of all – and most importantly – it is no longer a state based on its constitution.


PiS does not hide its disdain for the Polish Constitution of 1997, and has made breaches of its provisions along with undermining of the axiology it expresses a permanent feature of the party’s rule.


By reducing the Constitutional Tribunal to the status of a puppet institution, PiS has essentially neutered the Constitution of its oversight functions.


Turning the constitutional order upside down


There are more examples, but let us borrow from the religious rhetoric so readily employed by PiS and limit ourselves to those seven cardinal sins.


Since Law and Justice’s seizure of power after the 2015 election, we have observed a series of both random and planned incidents crossing what had seemed in every case to be the final line, and which, taken together, have contributed to the negative image of the state under the rule of Law and Justice.


The situation involving a verdict of the Supreme Administrative Court being subjected to review by a component of the executive may seem on the surface to be merely yet another episode, an instrumental trick of the law allowing for the ruling party to ignore a troublesome decision by an independent court.


But if we take a closer look, it reveals itself to be in its essence something more – perhaps a preview of how the entire constitutional order will be turned upside down.


I refer not only to the Polish political order set out by the provisions of the 1997 constitution, but in a more general sense the European constitutional culture that has emerged and developed over centuries.


While this tradition’s sources are located mainly in the age of the Enlightenment, its roots can be found much deeper. After all, it was over 2000 years ago that Cicero said:


“The magistrates are the ministers for the laws, the judges their interpreters, the rest of us are servants of the law, that we all may be free.”


Jerzy Zajadło – professor, philosopher of law, head of the Chair of Theory and Philosophy of the State and Law, Faculty of Law, University of Gdańsk, recipient of the Edward J. Wende award (2017), member of the Programme Board of the Osiatyński Archive.


[translated by Matthew La Fontaine]


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



August 8, 2019


Supreme CourtConstitutional TribunalDisciplinary ChamberPolandjudgesdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of Justice of the EUjudicial independenceEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaCourt of JusticeEuropean Court of Human RightsMinister of JusticeIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemAdam Bodnarmuzzle lawJarosław KaczyńskiNational Recovery PlanCJEUMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human Rightsneo-judgesCourt of Justice of the European UniondemocracyPrzemysław RadzikWaldemar ŻurekNational Council for Judiciarypresidential electionselectionselections 2023disciplinary commissionercriminal lawJulia PrzyłębskaPiotr SchabKamil Zaradkiewiczmedia freedomharassmentpreliminary rulingsHungarySupreme Administrative Courtelections 2020K 3/21Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickajudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme CourtŁukasz PiebiakprosecutorsPresidentRecovery FundBeata MorawiecPaweł JuszczyszynProsecutor GeneralMichał Lasotafreedom of expressionMaciej NawackiEuropean Arrest WarrantSejmprosecutionCOVID-19Regional Court in KrakówCriminal ChamberNational ProsecutorConstitutionPrime MinisterMinistry of JusticecourtsMałgorzata GersdorfMarek SafjanEU budgetdisciplinary liability for judgesMaciej FerekOSCEWojciech HermelińskiExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberIustitiacriminal proceedingsWłodzimierz WróbelVenice Commissionconditionality mechanismAleksander StepkowskiTHEMISLabour and Social Security ChamberStanisław BiernatPiScommission on Russian influenceStanisław PiotrowiczPresident of the Republic of PolandNCJimmunityconditionalityAnna DalkowskaJustice FundcorruptionLaw and JusticeNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europefreedom of assemblyKrystian MarkiewiczreformsReczkowicz and Others v. PolandKrzysztof Parchimowiczacting first president of the Supreme Court2017policeSenateAndrzej Zollmedia independenceSLAPPdefamationStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationLGBTJustice Defence Committee – KOSEwa ŁętowskaDidier ReyndersFreedom HouseAmsterdam District CourtMay 10 2020 electionsXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandOrdo IurisPresident of PolandAndrzej StępkaBroda and Bojara v PolandSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramPiotr GąciarekJarosław WyrembakPM Mateusz MorawieckiArticle 7Next Generation EUConstitutional Tribunal PresidentUrsula von der LeyenLex DudaTVPmediaLex Super OmniaProfessional Liability ChamberreformJarosław DudziczK 7/21National Reconstruction PlansuspensionparliamentChamber of Professional LiabilityEAWArticle 6 ECHRP 7/20Supreme Court PresidentLech GarlickiMichał WawrykiewiczabortionPiotr PrusinowskiNational Electoral Commissionelectoral codeJanusz NiemcewiczTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaStanisław RymarMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaKazimierz DziałochaBogdan ŚwięczkowskiNetherlandsAndrzej MączyńskiMarek MazurkiewiczvetoStefan JaworskiMirosław GranatOLAFBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaViktor OrbanJózef IwulskiMaciej MiteraSLAPPsjudcial independenceWojciech ŁączkowskiAdam JamrózPATFoxFerdynand RymarzKonrad WytrykowskiRafał Puchalskismear campaignmilestonesKrakówMarzanna Piekarska-Drążekstate of emergencyUkraineelectoral processBelaruscourt presidentsAdam SynakiewiczXero Flor v. PolandAstradsson v Icelandright to fair trialEdyta BarańskaJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraCentral Anti-Corruption BureauJakub IwaniecsurveillancePegasusDariusz DrajewiczJoanna Misztal-KoneckaCivil ChamberK 6/21Wojciech MaczugaSzymon Szynkowski vel SękDariusz ZawistowskiOKO.presselections integrityelections fairnessMarek ZubikBohdan ZdziennickiMirosław WyrzykowskiSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczPiotr TulejaJerzy StępieńAndrzej RzeplińskitransparencyMariusz KamińskiMaciej Taborowskiinsulting religious feelingsPaweł Filipekpublic mediaMariusz MuszyńskiKrystyna PawłowiczlexTuskcourt changesMarek PietruszyńskiMichał LaskowskiSupreme Audit Officeabuse of state resourcesLaw on the NCJEuropean ParliamentJarosław GowincoronavirusRussiaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczFree Courts11 January March in WarsawCCBEPiebiak gatehuman rightsrecommendationC-791/19Human Rights CommissionerMarcin WarchołLGBT ideology free zonesreportEuropean Association of JudgesPiotr Pszczółkowskiretirement agedecommunizationGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgesintimidation of dissentersdemocratic backslidingpublic opinion pollZiobroEU law primacyMarian BanaśThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europecriminal codeBelgiumlex NGOEwa Wrzosekcivil societytransferAdam Tomczyńskimedia pluralismBohdan Bieniek#RecoveryFilesFrans TimmermansLIBE Committeerepairing the rule of lawUS Department of StateMarcin KrajewskiKarolina Miklaszewska2018NGOFull-Scale Election Observation MissionODIHRNations in TransitStanisław ZabłockiPetros TovmasyanJerzy KwaśniewskiPiotr MazurekGrzegorz PudaNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeWiesław KozielewiczChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakCouncil of the EURafał LisakMichał DworczykWojciech Sadurskidefamatory statementsRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtC-619/18Rights and Values Programmejudgepress releaseAntykastalex WoślegislationCourt of Appeal in KrakówPutinismKaczyńskiPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderekct on the Protection of the PopulatioWorld Justice Project awardStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiEmilia SzmydtTomasz SzmydtE-mail scandalAndrzej SkowronKasta/AntykastaKatarzyna Chmuraadvocate generalGrzegorz FurmankiewiczMarek JaskulskiEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaSwieczkowskiDworczyk leaksMałgorzata FroncHater ScandalAleksandra RutkowskaGeneral Court of the EUArkadiusz RadwanLech WałęsaWałęsa v. Polandright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawpilot-judgmentDonald Tusk governmentRafał WojciechowskiDobrochna Bach-Goleckalex RaczkowskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActdisinformationCT Presidentfundamental rightsNational Broadcasting Councilelection fairnessequal treatmentcivil lawMarcin MatczakDariusz KornelukNational School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (KSSiP)codification commissiondelegationsWatchdog PolskaDariusz BarskiLasotapopulismState TribunalRadosław BaszukAction PlanJustice MinistryVěra JourováDonald Tuskjustice system reformAnti-SLAPP Directiveinsultgag lawsuitsstrategic investmentinvestmentlustrationJakub KwiecińskidiscriminationAct on the Supreme Courtelectoral commissionsEuropean Court of HuKrzysztof RączkaPoznańTomasz Koszewskitest of independenceSebastian MazurekElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikJoanna Scheuring-WielgusoppositionThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentAdam Gendźwiłłtransitional justiceDariusz DończykKoan LenaertsKarol WeitzZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaCourt of Appeal in WarsawOsiatyński'a ArchiveEUUS State DepartmentAssessment Actenvironmentextraordinary commissionWhite PaperKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiREuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFJustyna WydrzyńskaAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszJoanna KnobelCrimes of espionageJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiMarek Piertuszyńskihate speechhate crimesmedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandPrzemysław CzarnekJacek CzaputowiczMarcin RomanowskiElżbieta KarskaPrzemysła Radzikmedia lawRafał TrzaskowskiSobczyńska and Others v PolandTelex.huJelenForum shoppingFirst President of the Suprme CourtEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian KaletaOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeC-156/21C-157/21foreign agents lawArticle 2Rome IIJózsef SzájerChamber of Extraordinary VerificationKlubrádióequalityGazeta WyborczaLGBT free zonesPollitykaBrussels Ilegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekAK judgmentautocratizationMultiannual Financial FrameworkOpenbaar MinisterieRegional Court in Amsterdamabortion rulingArticle 10 ECHRprotestsinterim measuresLeszek MazurIrena MajcherAmsterdamLMmutual trustthe Regional Court in Warsawpublic broadcasterUnited NationsForum Współpracy Sędziówthe NetherlandsDenmarkact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsNorwegian fundsNorwayKraśnikOmbudsmanKarlsruheAusl 301 AR 104/19SwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońC-487/19GermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUIrelandMarek AstLSOright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman Giertychtrans-Atlantic valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinancelawyersMirosław Wróblewskirepressive actborderprimacyEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej RutkiewiczAct of 20 December 2019Amnesty InternationalJacek SasinEvgeni TanchevKochenovPechPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryFreedom in the WorldECJErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitFrackowiakDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandRzeszówKoen LenaertsharrassmentOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeinfringment actionHudocPKWKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr BurasLeon KieresIpsosEU valuesNational Prosecutor’s OfficeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOlsztyn courtPrzemysła CzarnekEducation MinisterENCJauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258postal voteTVNjournalistslexTVNEwa MaciejewskaGerard BirgfellerPolish mediaAlina CzubieniakSimpson judgmentpostal vote billclientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officeresolution of 23 January 2020Polish National FoundationLux VeritatisMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykIsrael