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 CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandZbigniew ZiobrojudgesCourt of Justice of the EUrule of lawEuropean CommissionNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceMałgorzata ManowskaEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaCourt of JusticeIgor TuleyaEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary systemMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiWaldemar Żurekmuzzle lawKamil ZaradkiewiczNational Recovery Plandemocracypresidential electionsdisciplinary commissionerPiotr SchabPrzemysław RadzikjudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme CourtAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsSupreme Administrative CourtK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020neo-judgeselectionsBeata MorawiecJulia PrzyłębskaprosecutorsŁukasz PiebiakNational Council for JudiciaryMichał LasotaEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiPrime MinisterPresidentmedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawCOVID-19Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaMałgorzata GersdorfSejmharassmentPaweł JuszczyszynEU budgetfreedom of expressiondisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiStanisław PiotrowiczMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPresident of the Republic of PolandMaciej FerekimmunityAnna DalkowskaNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamberconditionality mechanismconditionalityWłodzimierz WróbelCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeRegional Court in KrakówprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisK 7/21May 10 2020 electionsLex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanProfessional Liability ChamberPresident of PolandLGBTXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. Polandparliamentmedia independenceIustitiaJarosław DudziczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczArticle 6 ECHRTHEMISEAWUrsula von der LeyenChamber of Professional LiabilityTVPmediaelections 2023Labour and Social Security Chamber2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaPiotr GąciarekcorruptionRecovery FundP 7/20Justice FundPiSC-791/19National Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Piotr PszczółkowskiJoanna Misztal-KoneckaPegasusMariusz KamińskisurveillanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikorasuspensionJarosław GowinLGBT ideology free zonesUkraineKrystian MarkiewiczKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecSenateZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczDariusz DrajewiczRafał PuchalskidefamationcourtsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsConstitutional Tribunal PresidentMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekEwa WrzosekEU law primacyLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej Miterademocratic backslidingPiotr PrusinowskiViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetoabortionJózef 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.pressZiobroDariusz ZawistowskiMichał Laskowskiintimidation of dissentersMarek PietruszyńskitransferKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiPiebiak gatehuman rightsEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiMarian BanaśSupreme Audit OfficeAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyKrakówcoronavirusXero Flor v. PolandEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej Rutkiewiczresolution of 23 January 2020Mirosław WróblewskiCivil ChamberLeon Kieresright to protestSławomir JęksaPKWWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman Giertychinfringment actionEU valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinanceENCJJacek 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 AstChamber 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 PopulatiolegislationRafał Trzaskowskilex Wośmedia lawRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtPrzemysła RadzikAntykastaStanisław 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 ECHRmilestonesRegional Court in Amsterdamrepairing the rule of lawOpenbaar 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 presidentsLMODIHRIrelandFull-Scale Election Observation MissionNGOIrena MajcherWojciech MaczugaAmsterdamKarolina MiklaszewskaRafał LisakMałgorzata FroncJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiSebastian Mazurekthe Regional Court in WarsawElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikSzymon Szynkowski vel SękUnited NationsJoanna Scheuring-Wielgusinsulting religious feelingsLeszek Mazuroppositionelectoral codeAdam Gendźwiłłpopulisminterim measuresDariusz Dończykautocratizationtest of independenceMultiannual Financial FrameworkTomasz Koszewskipublic mediaJakub Kwiecińskiabortion rulingdiscriminationequal treatmentAct on the Supreme Courtprotestselectoral commissionsfundamental rightsthe NetherlandsEuropean Court of HuDenmarkKrzysztof RączkaSwedenPoznańFinlandKoan LenaertsMariusz KrasońKarol WeitzCT PresidentKaspryszyn v PolandGermanyNCR&DCelmerNCBiRC354/20 PPUThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentC412/20 PPUEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFAusl 301 AR 104/19Justyna WydrzyńskaKarlsruheAgnieszka Brygidyr-Doroszact 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 generaltransparencyEuropean Economic and Social Committeepress releaseSebastian KaletaRights and Values ProgrammeC-156/21C-157/21C-619/18Marek Piertuszyńskidefamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardNational Prosecutor’s OfficeWojciech 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 WawrzykharrassmentAlina CzubieniakTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediapostal voteRzeszówborderpostal vote billprimacy