Source: http://polandsite.proboards.com/thread/3937/government-control-over-judiciary-system
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 17:53:18+00:00

Document:
The brawl over the Tribunal has been going for several months now. Even European institutions decided to intervene.
The Vice President of the European Commission on Tuesday urged Poland’s government to implement rulings by the country’s Constitutional Tribunal as a start to finding a way out of the political deadlock gripping the country.
The governing Law and Justice party’s refusal to recognise a key decision by Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal has led to a political stalemate.
The European Commission in January launched an inquiry into whether Poland is upholding the principle of the rule of law and whether controversial legislation pushed through by the conservative Law and Justice government violates EU standards.
Timmermans said: “The European Commission is there to facilitate dialogue, to help where we can.” But he added that the results of talks were up to parties in Poland.
The Constitutional Tribunal on March 9 rejected a series of controversial changes to the way it functions introduced by the Law and Justice (PiS) party.
Critics say the changes were designed to paralyse the tribunal, amid PiS fears that the court would block key reforms pledged by the party in the run-up to its landslide election victory in October.
The court's ruling is only binding if officially published by Prime Minister Beata Szydło, which she has refused to do, claiming its decision is invalid.
On 11 March, human rights watchdog the Venice Commission, an arm of the Council of Europe, urged Law and Justice to respect the ruling by the Constitutional Tribunal.
Thorbjoern Jagland, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, said on Monday during a separate visit to Warsaw that Poland's Constitutional Tribunal is paralysed and urged the country’s parliament to find a way out of the crisis.
The European Parliament is expected next Wednesday to adopt a resolution on Poland, which is locked in a political row over the powers of its Constitutional Tribunal.
A draft document is still being hammered out in talks between the factions in the European Parliament.
The resolution is to call on the European Commission to undertake efforts to end the constitutional crisis gripping Poland, according to the PAP news agency.
Polish Radio reported that the draft resolution in its current form calls on the European Commission to make immediate efforts to ensure verdicts by Poland's Constitutional Tribunal are respected, in line with recommendations by the international Venice Commission.
“The resolution concerns the activities of the Polish government, but it is not aimed against Poland," the PAP news agency quoted a senior politician from the European People's Party (EPP) as saying.
"At the request of the parties [the resolution] has been narrowed down to [focus on] the findings of the Venice Commission,” the politician, who wanted to remain anonymous, added.
On 11 March, the Venice Commission, an influential international watchdog, urged the Polish government to respect a ruling by the country's Constitutional Tribunal.
The Polish Constitutional Tribunal on March 9 rejected a series of controversial changes to the way it functions introduced by the Law and Justice (PiS) party, which came to power in October.
Critics say the PiS-backed changes to the Constitutional Tribunal were designed paralyse the court's work.
Law and Justice says it came to power with a democratic mandate for sweeping change, and it would be unfair if the tribunal, with a majority of judges appointed by the previous parliament, blocked key reforms that PiS pledged in the run-up to its landslide election victory.
The European Commission has given Poland an ultimatum to resolve the conflict over the Constitutional Tribunal.
The executive body of the European Union, led by Jean-Claude Juncker, has given Poland until Monday to find a solution to the ongoing disagreements over the Constitutional Tribunal.
“If there is no significant progress by 23 May, then the First Vice-President [Frans Timmermans] has been empowered by the College of Commissioners to adopt the draft Rule of Law Opinion which the College discussed today,” the Commission wrote in a statement on Wednesday.
An ongoing conflict over the Tribunal began following the election of five new judges by the previous Civic Platform (PO)-controlled parliament shortly ahead of Poland's 25 October general election.
PiS said such a move by what turned out to be an outgoing government was premature and unfair.
After PiS swept to power, the new parliament revoked these judges and chose another five, who were promptly sworn in by President Andrzej Duda.
The Constitutional Tribunal later ruled that two of the five judges elected under PO had been elected unconstitutionally, though the other three elections were constitutional.
The European Commission’s Timmermans in April urged Poland’s government to implement rulings by the country’s Constitutional Tribunal as a start to finding a way out of the political deadlock gripping the country.
PiS vehemently denies any accusations of trying to bring courts and judges under its sole control. To no avail. It is obvious they are thinking of using "their" courts against the opposition and all those who object to PiS rule.
A United Nations envoy has said Poland's justice system is under attack.
Diego Garcia-Sayan. Photo: PAP/Paweł Supernak.Diego Garcia-Sayan. Photo: PAP/Paweł Supernak.
The independence of the judiciary and rule of law are threatened, according to Diego Garcia-Sayan, a United Nations special rapporteur, who came to Poland on Monday.
But Poland's Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski denied the allegations, saying that Garcia-Sayan was entitled to his opinions and Poland was entitled to disagree, and that if the separation of powers and the independence of the courts "are threatened ... then it means they still exist".
Waszczykowski added that Poland has responded to all international organisations' concerns.
Commenting on the government's planned reforms to Poland's judiciary, Garcia-Sayan said the changes appeared to be worse than the system they were supposed to fix, adding that they were an attack on the courts and that they undermined the separation of powers.
The UN's envoy pointed to Poland's Constitutional Tribunal as the “first victim” of sweeping changes under the conservative Law and Justice (PiS) government, which was elected in late 2015.
Garcia-Sayan also criticised the president's proposed changes the Supreme Court and the National Council of the Judiciary, a powerful judges' ethics council, which he said were being discussed “behind closed doors”.
The bills are being negotiated by the president and the leader of the ruling party, after President Andrzej Duda in summer vetoed two of three justice reform bills amid protests domestically and fierce criticism abroad.
But Waszczykowski said Garcia-Sayan was criticising reforms “which have not happened yet”.
While in Poland, Garcia-Sayan spoke with officials from Poland's justice and foreign ministries, the president's office, courts, and the human rights commissioner.
He is expected to give a full report on the situation in Poland to the UN's Human Rights Council in mid-2018.
The situation of the Rechtsstaat ("rule of law", "legal state", "state of law", "state of justice", "state of rights", or "state based on justice and integrity") in Poland is very worrisome.
Rechtsstaat is a doctrine in continental European legal thinking, originating in German jurisprudence. German writers usually place the theories of German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) at the beginning of their accounts of the movement toward the Rechtsstaat. The Rechtsstaat in the meaning of "constitutional state" was introduced in Kant's latest works after US and French constitutions were adopted in the late 18th century. Kant’s approach is based on the supremacy of a country’s written constitution. This supremacy must create guarantees for implementation of his central idea: a permanent peaceful life as a basic condition for the happiness of its people and their prosperity. Kant proposed that constitutionalism and constitutional government ought to be sufficient to guarantee this happiness.
I fear that Poland is moving into the direction of an Obrigkeitsstaat, Nichtrechtstaat or Unrechtsstaat. I fear a Poland that will be like the Russian Federation, Belarus, the present day Turkey of Erdogan or certain Southern-American states were certain political and economical classes or elites rule. If Prawo i Sprawiedliwość (the Law and Justice party of Jarosław Kaczyński) manages to purge the Polish ministries and departments of non PiS civil servants, and control the Public Prosecution Service, Courts, with PiS Judges, the Prosecutor, Prokuratura Krajowa (National Public Prosecutor's Office), the Supreme Court, the Police (Policja), City Guards (Straż Miejska), the Polish army and the Agencja Wywiadu.
It will not be a Sanacja regime or a National Democratic regime a la Roman Dmowski. But there will be elements of Józef Piłsudski's policies in the late twenties and thirties and Dmowski's National Democratic ideas. Maybe Kaczyński will secretly learn from or be influenced by Vladimir Putin's and Dmitry Medvedev's rule in Russia, and Viktor Orbán's rule in Hungary. The State interventionist and Centralisation policies of the Polish administration will move Poland away from Poland and take away some positive elements of Poland's EU membership since 2004. The EU will become more critical, tough and harsh to Poland. Poland will lose certain privilages and benefits of the EU, because the EU sees that the separation of powers (the Trias Politica) are endangered in Poland.
The most worrisome thing about the Prawo i Sprawiedliwość administration today is the fact that ministries, departments and PiS muncipalities are being purged of non-Government elements. Especially high ranking civil servants like secretary generals of departments, director generals (senior executive officers, often the chief executive officers), inspector-generals (the eyes and ears of ministers and state secretaries, and thus the eyes and ears of Jarosław Kaczyński), the generalny skarbnik, and the PiS people who control provinces, cities and towns.
I sincerly hope that there are still cities and towns which aren't in the hands of PiS. I wonder how the relationship of the Polish Roman-Catholic church and the government is today? And how the relationship of Poland is with the Vatican, with the liberal and progressive Argentinian pope? Do you have reactionary (fundamentalist, ultra-conservative, Orthodox Catholic), conservative and liberal wings in the Polish Roman-Catholic church. Do you still have a separation of chruch and state in Poland? How large is the influence of the Polish clergy on the government, on the Polish voters, on Polish political parties and politicians?
To prevent one branch from becoming supreme, protect the "opulent minority" from the majority, and to induce the branches to cooperate, government systems that employ a separation of powers need a way to balance each of the branches. Typically this was accomplished through a system of "checks and balances", the origin of which, like separation of powers itself, is specifically credited to Montesquieu. Checks and balances allow for a system-based regulation that allows one branch to limit another, such as the power of the United States Congress to alter the composition and jurisdiction of the federal courts. Both bipartite and tripartite governmental systems apply the principles of the separation of powers to allow for the branches represented by the separate powers to hold each other reciprocally responsible to the assertion of powers as apportioned by law. The following example of the separation of powers and their mutual checks and balances for the experience of the United States Constitution is presented as illustrative of the general principles applied in similar forms of government as well.
Checks and balances are applied primarily in constitutional governments. They are of fundamental importance in tripartite governments, which separate powers among legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Checks and balances, which modify the separation of powers, operate in many European and North-American democracies under parliamentary systems through exercise of a parliament’s prerogative to adopt a no-confidence vote in a government; the government, or cabinet, in turn, ordinarily may dissolve the parliament.
In Europe Democracy is the "rule of the majority". Democracy is a system of processing conflicts in which outcomes depend on what participants do, but no single force controls what occurs and its outcomes.
According to political scientist Larry Diamond, democracy consists of four key elements: (a) A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; (b) The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; (c) Protection of the human rights of all citizens, and (d) A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens. Important basic elements of a well functioning democracy are political freedom, free elections, legal equality (Equality before the law), Checks and balances, Trias Politica (Separation of powers) and there for the rule of law.
Yes, it seems PiS leader has a vision of making a new Poland. But he won`t succeed because the resistance against his ideas is too strong. 40% people support PiS but it is still too little to create the majority. One day, sooner or later, PiS will lose.
Anything is possible. But as for EU`s toughness, I don`t think so. After Brexit, the EU won`t risk another conflict with its member. We can already see that the pressure on Poland is getting softer and softer.
It is said that cities and bigger towns belong to the liberal anti PiS opposition because they are populated by educated intelligent people who don`t fall for cheap populist propaganda and actions. But the countryside and small towns which make majority in Poland support PiS for obvious reasons - social benefits and anti immigrant policy.
As for the Church, it is still controlled by hardline conservative bishops who support PiS and enjoy the situation when the state tries to fulfill the Church`s expectations (abortion etc). There are a few enlightened bishops who criticise PiS but they are not enough to exert any substantial influence. It is sad because one day it will turn against the Church- more and more people notice the unhealthy combination of politics and religion, especially young people.
Poland’s Supreme Court justices yesterday (16 January) denounced the right-wing government’s controversial judicial reforms as “unconstitutional”, adding their voice to a chorus of criticism at home and abroad.
The reforms introduced by the Law and Justice (PiS) party had already led the European Commission to launch unprecedented disciplinary proceedings against Warsaw over what it sees as systemic threats to the independence of the Polish judiciary.
Many of the new legal provisions “go against the standards of the Polish constitution, in addition to violating the principle of separation of powers, the independence of the courts and judges and the security of tenure of judges,” the Supreme Court said on its website.
The statement was adopted by the general assembly of the court’s justices. Sixty-nine of the judges endorsed the text, three voted against and three others abstained.
One of the new laws approved last month by President Andrzej Duda ends the mandates of nearly half the Supreme Court justices, including Chief Justice Malgorzata Gersdorf, who denounced the legislation as a “coup”.
Finally, PiS managed to make Poland a third world country. European courts doubt if Polish courts are able to run fair trials.
Senior Warsaw judges have described as a “nuclear bomb” the High Court’s refusal to extradite a Polish man over fears judicial reforms there have undermined the independence of courts and threaten the rule of law.
On Monday, Ms Justice Aileen Donnelly halted an extradition case involving Polish man Artur Celmer, sought in his homeland on drug-trafficking charges, to seek guidance from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg.
Justice Donnelly said “immense” legislative changes to Poland’s judicial system called into question the mutual trust that forms the basis of the European Arrest Warrant system.
As Poland “appears no longer to accept that there are common European values which must be respected”, Justice Donnelly said she would formulate a question next week seeking clarification from the Luxembourg court.
Andrzej Rzeplinski, until 2016 the president of the constitutional tribunal and leading critic of the government reforms, welcomed the High Court intervention.
Another ex-constitutional tribunal justice, who asked not to be named, described the High Court referral as a “nuclear bomb and a good day for the rule of law”.
The suspended extradition request brings Irish bilateral relations with Poland into uncharted waters. It may also open a second front in the European Commission’s stand-off with Poland’s national conservative Law and Justice party (PiS).
After securing an absolute majority in the October 2015 general election, PiS made contested appointments to the constitutional tribunal, Poland’s highest court, and changed its operating procedures. Other sweeping changes followed at the supreme court and regional courts, while new judicial appointments procedures give politicians greater influence.
The government says the reforms were crucial to streamline the legislative process by overhauling structures unchanged since the communist era. But critical former justices, led by Mr Rzeplinski, have accused the government of creating “corps of politically obedient judges”.
In addition, the Polish government has overhauled the civil service, the police, the ombudsman and public broadcaster TVP.
Justice Donnelly said the merger of Poland’s general prosecutor with the justice minister suggested the rule of law was “systemically damaged”, with political influence over the judicial system facing Mr Celmer on extradition.
Poland has rejected EU criticism of its reforms as an unwarranted interference in its sovereign affairs. Last week in Brussels, Polish prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki suggested EU reform critics had only “random, fragmentary and partial information”.
A spokesman for Poland’s justice ministry, contacted on Monday evening, was unable to comment on the High Court decision.
In December, the European Commission launched an unprecedented procedure against a “clear risk of a serious breach of the rule of law in Poland”.
It set a three-month deadline for Poland to address its concerns, which expires next Tuesday.
The EU seems determined not to close an eye to PiS "reform" of the judiciary system in Poland. If it continues its pressure, PiS will have a problem.
Vice President Frans Timmermans says without progress by June, the Commission would move to next phase of Article 7 procedure.
If Poland does not make enough progress in conforming with EU rule of law by the end of June, the European Commission will move to the next step of Article 7 enforcement proceedings, Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans warned on Monday.
In December, Brussels triggered Article 7 of the EU treaty over what it considered “systemic threats” to the independence of the Polish judiciary. That process could, in theory, lead to Warsaw losing its voting rights in the European Council — a sanction the EU has never used.
Timmermans acknowledged that Poland has made “some progress” in changing its controversial judiciary reforms, “but not enough to be able to say that the systemic threat to the rule of law would be removed,” he said.
“The full spectrum of possibilities is still on the table,” Timmermans told a press conference. “It could also be on the other side of the spectrum that we don’t advance at all anymore and we have to ask the Council to engage in the follow-up phase of Article 7.” That would involve a hearing before the Council, at which the Commission and Poland present their cases. Such a demand would be presented at the General Affairs Council meeting on June 21, he said.
Since Article 7 was triggered, Poland’s governing PiS party later proposed changes to its legislation aimed at making it more palatable to Brussels. The party’s leader, Jarosław Kaczyński, also said in a recent interview that he thought there was an “8o percent” chance that the dispute could be resolved.
A hearing in Brussels with Polish authorities would be part of the Article 7.1 procedure on preventive measures. Once the hearing is completed, national representatives will vote on whether to determine if there is a “clear risk of a breach” and move to the next phase of the Article 7 process — the “sanctions mechanism.” At least a four-fifths majority of member countries is needed for it to proceed.
Ekaterina Zaharieva, Bulgaria’s foreign minister, said that ministers on the General Affairs Council will return to the rule of law issue in June. “We hope that in June there will be more positive news coming from the commission and the Polish government,” she said.
The president of Poland’s supreme court fears she may be prevented from entering her place of work later this week, she told the Guardian, as a long-running standoff between the Polish government and the country’s judiciary threatens to reach a dramatic climax.
Earlier this year, the Polish parliament introduced a mandatory retirement age of 65 for supreme court judges, which would result in the instant dismissal of 27 of the 74 judges currently serving in the court. Because the new law envisages expanding the court to 120 judges, this would give the government the power to appoint almost two-thirds of supreme court judges from scratch.
The retirements are due to come into effect on Tuesday, but last week a general assembly of supreme court judges issued resolutions stating that the dismissals contravened constitutional guarantees of judicial independence and explicit provisions in the constitution guaranteeing the term of office of Małgorzata Gersdorf, the supreme court president. The resolutions stated that Gersdorf and all of the supreme court judges threatened with forcible retirement would continue to serve out their terms as normal.
Supreme court judges are expected to gather together before entering their court building on Wednesday morning, in a show of solidarity and defiance. It is unclear how the Polish government will react, but speculation is growing that the judges could be blocked from entering the building. A group of associations of Polish lawyers has called for protests in support of the judges in front of the supreme court on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Lech Wałęsa had asked Mick Jaegger to join the defence of Polish courts during Stones` concert in Warsaw. And he did, in a very clever way.
The new laws force all judges aged 65 or over - including the head of Poland’s Supreme Court, Malgorzata Gersdorf - to retire. They are part of a wide-ranging overhaul that the ruling conservative Law and Justice party (PiS) says is needed to rid Poland of its lingering communist legacy.
I would like to thank Sir Mick Jagger @mickjagger and the band of The Rolling Stones @rollingstones for he reminded himself for Poland, for our rule of law.
True Solidarity will always win.
Before going into detailed development of the situation, let me explain basic things about PiS judiciary "reform."
PiS are trying to remove old judges in crucial institutions and replace them with new ones. They claim the reform is necessary in order to improve the inefficient system. Yes, the system has been such for decades but PiS reforms won`t solve the problem because their primary goal is to nominate their own judges, who will follow the party line in major rulings in the future. It is already seen now as the reform is being introduced, PiS nominees who have taken over old seats don`t even hide they are going to do what PiS rulers order. Currently, they are intent on suppressing any independence and opposition among judges. Disobedient judges who dared to blow the whistle to European institutions are already interrogated by PiS-nominated disciplinary bodies.
The lawsuits and court proceedings had been already long before PiS got power in 2015, now they last even longer, so the reform is useless for ordinary citizens.
Cases in which PiS members are suspected of various offences (road accidents, corruption, financial scams) are hushed up by PiS nominated prosecutors. Instead, innocent people are brought to courts for sb else`s offences.
Yes, such things are happening here. Fortunately, most judges in local courts are still decent and sentences are just, despite PiS prosecutors` pressure. But if the reform goes on, then anything might happen in a few years` time.
It is sad that ordinary citizens don`t realise the danger but are happy to see how old elites are oppressed by PIS. The mob always loves looking at such games but don`t understand that new elites selected in such an atmosphere won`t be better, only worse. Then the man-in-the-street won`t be safe from state terrorism if rulers decide he or she is to blame.
It is commonly known that Jarosław Kaczyński is doing that to take full control over the judiciary system and in result one day be able to prosecute his political opponents for their alleged crimes, the major one is murdering his brother in an air crash. He has accused the opposition of it many times. He needs submissive courts to send Donald Tusk and the rest to prison. Then he will feel absolved of all the guilt which has been haunting him since 2010 - when he ordered his own brother to land at any cost in Russia, thus bringing death on him and other 95 people on board.
He also needs his own Supreme Court to rule one day that the elections were wrongly conducted and as such are invalid - this might happen if PiS see they lose the majority and power.
The head of the Polish supreme court, Małgorzata Gersdorf, has turned up for work in defiance of a retirement law that would force her to step down immediately. The ruling was pushed through by the country’s rightwing government, but was criticised by the EU for undermining judicial independence.
Holding a white rose and flanked by anti-government protesters, a composed Gersdorf entered the supreme court building after briefly addressing the crowd, which had gathered to express its support for the supreme court judges resisting government attempts to take control of Poland’s highest judicial body.
There had been speculation that Gersdorf would be prevented from entering the building, but in the end the only obstacle she had to navigate was a scrum of photographers, reporters and supporters.
In July last year, Poland’s ruling Law and Justice party (PiS) proposed legislation that would have instantly dismissed all supreme court judges other than those permitted to continue to serve by the minister of justice. The proposals sparked mass street protests, prompting the Polish president, Andrzej Duda, a former member of PiS, to veto the legislation. A few months later, Duda made his own proposals that envisaged lowering the supreme court retirement age from 70 to 65.
The legislation was passed by the Polish parliament in January, and came into force in April. The law gave supreme court judges over the age of 65 – approximately 40% of the total, and including the supreme court president, Gersdorf, who turned 65 on the day that parliamentary proceedings on the legislation began – three months to apply to President Duda for permission to continue their service. That three-month period expired on Tuesday.
Of the 27 judges affected, 16 made applications to the president to remain in post, while 11 judges, including Gersdorf, refused to submit applications on the grounds that the legislation contravened constitutional guarantees of judicial independence and explicit provisions in the constitution guaranteeing the six-year term of office of the supreme court president. The government already has control of the national council of the judiciary, the body that appoints judges.
On Tuesday, a defiant Gersdorf gave a speech to students at the university of Warsaw describing the law as “a purge of the supreme court, conducted under the guise of retirement reform”.
Her speech came on a day of confusion, as Duda’s administration and the supreme court offered conflicting accounts of the outcome of a meeting between Duda and Gersdorf on Tuesday. Gersdorf nominated supreme court judge Józef Iwulski, 66, as interim president of the court in the event that she was unable to carry out her duties. But after the meeting, a presidential aide suggested that Iwulski would be taking over from Gersdorf immediately, a suggestion that was rebuffed by a spokesperson for the supreme court. On Wednesday, Iwulski himself denied that he had taken over from Gersdorf.
The court that would normally be called upon to resolve constitutional disputes between state organs, Poland’s constitutional tribunal, was taken over by Poland’s ruling party at the end of 2016 after a similarly bitter struggle, and is no longer regarded by the supreme court as a legitimate legal actor. Speaking to the Guardian last week, Gersdorf described the tribunal in its present guise as a “facade”.
The government has accused the judges of involving themselves in politics, arguing that they should respect the will of the Polish parliament. “Just like every Pole, President Małgorzata Gersdorf is bound by the law, which she should follow,” said a spokesperson for the justice ministry earlier this week.
But critics say that to allow the government to use legislation to curtail constitutionally protected terms of office would have serious consequences that go beyond the judiciary.
According to Amnesty International, judges in Poland are “experiencing political pressure” in connection with the changes. Last month, the Guardian reported that judges involved in politically sensitive cases or who have expressed opposition to threats to judicial independence have been threatened with disciplinary proceedings and even criminal charges, and in many cases are subjected to allegations of corruption and hate campaigns orchestrated by leading PiS politicians.
On Monday, the EU launched legal action against Poland relating to the law, the latest salvo in a bitter battle over judicial changes critics have decried as unconstitutional. The government has refused to back down, insisting the changes are needed to tackle corruption and overhaul the judicial system. Poland has a month to respond to the commission’s formal announcement, and the dispute could end up in the European court of justice.
Speaking in the European parliament, the Polish prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, contended that changes to the retirement age of judges brought Poland into line with other European countries. He also argued that critics did not understand “central European realities” and that judicial changes were part of an effort “to throw off the post-communist yoke”.
Justices suspend a controversial law forcing judges into early retirement.
Poland’s Supreme Court on Thursday suspended the application of a law forcing the early retirement of older judges and turned to the European Court of Justice to rule on whether recent changes to the court’s functioning violate EU rules.
The move pulls the EU’s top court into the midst of an ongoing constitutional battle in Poland, where the ruling Law and Justice party has been accused of revamping the judicial system to bring it under tighter political control. The party says the steps are needed to cleanse the justice system of corruption and ties to the old communist regime.
One of the measures passed last month imposes a retirement age of 65 on Supreme Court justices, suspending about 40 percent of its judges including its president, Małgorzata Gersdorf.
Judges wanting to stay on past that age are supposed to ask permission from President Andrzej Duda, something most have refused to do, saying it weakens the independence of the judiciary.
Gersdorf has also refused to comply, arguing the measure violates the Polish constitution, which gives her a six-year term ending in 2020.
The court suspended the retirement age provisions and sent five questions to the ECJ on whether the retirement law is in line with the EU’s rules.
The decision means that steps to impose the new rules should be suspended “until the issues presented in the questions are resolved,” court spokesman Judge Michał Laskowski told reporters in Warsaw. That could take months.
The ECJ has already dealt with the growing disquiet about the state of Poland’s courts. In July it responded to a query from an Irish court on the independence of the Polish judicial system by saying foreign courts have to assess whether suspects face the risk of an unfair trial if they are extradited to Poland.
Thursday’s step further embroils the EU in Polish affairs.
In December, the European Commission launched so-called Article 7 proceedings against Poland over changes to the judicial system. The process could result in the country losing its voting rights as an EU member.
Isolation of Poland in Europe is going on. Thank you, PiS.
The European Network of Judiciary Councils (ENCJ) decided to suspend the membership of the Polish National Council of the Judiciary (KRS).
Eventually, PiS gave up under united pressure from the EU, Polish judges and pro democratic protesters and withdrew the anticonstitutional legislation about the Supreme Court. Experts unanimously claim PiS realised that the conflict might cost them the loss in European Parliament elections next year.
One battle has been won by pro democratic forces but the PiS war against the independent judiciary in Poland is still going on, so the pressure must`nt be suspended - one PiS minister just said they can still pass 15 more laws about the Supreme Court.
Poland's governing party has moved to reinstate Supreme Court justices whom it had forced into early retirement.
It follows last month's ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) which ordered that Poland suspend the application of its new law.
The government lowered the retirement age of judges earlier this year, forcing many to quit.
Critics said the law helped give the Law and Justice Party political control of the Supreme Court.
But the government argued that the reforms - which triggered mass street protests - were needed to make the court more efficient and remove judges appointed during the communist era.
The Law and Justice Party (PiS) has already appointed the majority of judges to the Constitutional Tribunal, which has the power to veto legislation, and also controls the body that nominates all judges in Poland.
On Wednesday, the PiS said it was reinstating the judges because it respected the rulings of the EU's top court.
"We are fulfilling our obligations," Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro told MPs.
The legislative amendment, which retains the lower retirement age for newly appointed Supreme Court judges, is now being fast-tracked through parliament.
The government says it wants to resolve its dispute with the European Commission over a whole package of changes it has made to Poland's courts over the past three years.
The Supreme Court law was introduced in July and since then more than 20 judges - about of third of the total - have been forced to retire. Following Wednesday's amendment they will be able to return to work.
Chief justice Malgorzata Gersdorf, who was 65, refused to stand down, arguing Poland's constitution guaranteed her the right to serve a six-year term. She branded the reforms a "purge".
The government says it wants to resolve the protracted dispute with the European Commission over the substantial changes it has made to Poland's courts over the past three years. It is a victory for the Supreme Court chief justice, Professor Malgorzata Gersdorf, her retired colleagues and the European Commission.
But it's not much of a defeat for the governing Law and Justice camp's judicial reforms. It has already managed the appointment of the majority of judges to the Constitutional Tribunal, which has the power to veto legislation. The justice minister, who also serves as the prosecutor general, now has the power to appoint and dismiss the deputies and heads of ordinary courts. And the governing camp also now controls the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ), the body that nominates all judges in Poland.
Plus, by reinstating the Supreme Court judges, the government will avoid the possibility of having to pay hefty daily fines for non-compliance with last month's ECJ ruling. In a few years time, those reinstated judges will retire. In the meantime, dozens of new judges for two new Supreme Court chambers created by Law and Justice will need to be appointed and they will be nominated by the newly politicised NCJ.
What did the EU say?
The European Commission - the EU's executive arm - argued that the reforms undermined the rule of law because they gave the governing party political control of the judiciary.
It referred the matter to the Luxembourg-based ECJ which in October ordered Poland to "immediately suspend" the application of its law.
The ECJ said its decision was an interim measure in response to the commission's request and a final ruling would be issued at a later date.
At the time, the head of the PiS, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, said the government would comply with the decision.
"We are members of the European Union and we will abide by European Union law," he said.
Poland's Law and Justice party has instituted unprecedented changes to the country's legal system, undermining rule of law and separation of powers. The brief details the changes that took place and addresses the dilemma that the EU faces.
Since Law and Justice came to power in Poland in 2015, it has waged a campaign to take control of the Polish judiciary in open defiance of the law, the constitution, and the courts. The changes to the judicial framework included among other amendments to laws on common courts, the National Council of the Judiciary, the Supreme Court; a refusal to publish and abide by Constitutional Tribunal rulings; and unconstitutional appointments to the Tribunal.
As of May 2018, Poland’s ruling party enjoys direct control over the Constitutional Tribunal and the National Council of the Judiciary (body that appoints Polish judges) and is set to take control of the Supreme Court. An ongoing European Commission sanctions process, the so-called Article 7 procedure, has achieved little so far. On the legal level, an Irish court decision on a European Arrest Warrant case and an upcoming European Court of Justice decision could be indicative of a Europe-wide backlash brewing over the reforms.
Whatever the outcome of these procedures, a situation in which Poland’s judicial arrangements are incompatible with the European Union’s democratic values and legal framework might be manageable in the immediate term, but it is not sustainable indefinitely.
Poland’s ruling Law and Justice party (PiS) is often described as a “conservative” party committed to upholding “traditional values.” Such labels miss the point: Law and Justice is first and foremost a political movement devoted to overturning Poland’s existing constitutional order and the democratic principles that underpin it.
PiS leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski has built his political career on the assertion that Poland’s democratic transition after 1989 led to a shadowy postcommunist “system” that controls Polish institutions, serves “postcommunist elites” at the expense of ordinary Poles, and is upheld by the country’s existing legal order. All of Poland’s woes, from the social to the economic, can be attributed to the activities of this so-called system.
Law and Justice claims to be the only legitimate representative of the people’s interests, on the basis that they are the only ones fighting this so-called system and the constitutional order that they argue preserves its dominance. Kaczynski has long criticized what he describes as legal “impossibilism,” the notion that it is impossible for a democratically elected Polish government to fulfill the “nation’s will” because of the checks and balances imposed on it by the Polish constitution.
"In a democracy, the sovereign is the people, their representative parliament and, in the Polish case, the elected president. If we are to have a democratic state of law, no state authority, including the Constitutional Tribunal, can disregard legislation."
Law and Justice’s campaign to capture Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal was the central component of its wider push to seize control of the judicial institutions of the post-1989 republic and emblematic of the methods deployed by Poland’s ruling party since it assumed office in November 2015.
The Tribunal is Poland’s highest constitutional court, the final arbiter on the constitutionality of domestic and international law, and on actions taken by state bodies. Described by Jaroslaw Kaczynski as “the bastion of everything in Poland that is bad,” the Tribunal had thwarted Law and Justice in the past by striking down a series of measures taken by the previous PiS-led government 10 years ago—including a law on Poland’s media regulator, a controversial “lustration” law, and a commission to investigate the banking sector. Therefore, it should have come as no surprise to anyone that the Tribunal was targeted upon the party’s return to power.
The ruling party’s strategy played out in three parts: First, to deny opposition-appointed judges from taking their place on the court. Second, to pass laws designed to paralyze the court and prevent it from functioning effectively. Third, to force through the appointment of judges loyal to the ruling party. All this was done in open defiance of the law, the constitution, and multiple rulings issued by the Tribunal itself.
The crisis began in late 2015 when President Duda refused to swear in five Tribunal judges appointed during the last sitting of the outgoing parliament (Sejm)—despite the fact that he had no legal authority to do so.
This was followed by a declaration in November 2015 by the new, PiS-controlled Sejm that all five appointments were void—again, a declaration the parliament had no authority to make. In response, the Tribunal issued a legally binding injunction ordering the Sejm not to appoint any new judges until it had assessed the situation. The new Sejm ignored the injunction, selecting five new judges on the night before the Tribunal’s ruling was due on December 3. Having been elected after sunset, four of the five were sworn in by Duda—again, in open defiance of the Tribunal—before dawn on the same night (the fifth was sworn in soon after). Incredibly, immediately after being sworn in the new judges were taken in governmental vehicles from the presidential palace to the Tribunal so as to participate in the December 3 ruling. At that point, the Tribunal’s president prevented them from doing so.
The Tribunal’s December 3 ruling was unanimous: three of the appointments made by the outgoing Sejm had been constitutional, but two had not. This was followed by a ruling on December 9 striking down a series of other amendments passed by the Sejm in November. Taken together, the two December rulings made explicit that there were only two vacancies on the Tribunal for the PiS-controlled Sejm to fill, rendering three of PiS’s five appointments invalid.
The government, however, refused to recognize the rulings as legitimate, ordering state printing presses not to print them so as to prevent them from taking legal effect (by December 2016, the government had refused to print 17 rulings issued by the Tribunal). Instead, the Sejm passed a so-called “Repair Act” on the Tribunal, consisting of a series of measures designed to prevent the court from functioning properly and to give the unconstitutionally appointed progovernment judges the power of veto over key decisions.
The stalemate continued as long as judges insisting on the primacy of the constitution (and hence the rulings of the Tribunal) over regular law-making constituted a majority on the court. Tribunal judges were put under intense pressure by ruling party politicians during this period, including public threats of prosecution.
With Rzepliński’s term due to run out in December 2016, however, the government was able to shift its attention towards engineering the outcome of the court’s ostensibly internal deliberations regarding Rzepliński’s successor.
This it did in three stages. First, the court’s three PiS-appointees all called in sick on the day that the nine other Tribunal judges gathered to vote for Rzepliński’s successor, with Duda refusing the nomination of Rzepliński’s deputy on the grounds that the meeting had been one vote short of being quorate. Second, parliament passed a law designating criteria for an ‘interim president’ to be appointed, designed so that Julia Przyłębska, a relatively junior PiS appointee, would get the role. Third, Przyłębska presided over a new vote consisting of just six judges, all appointed by PiS: the three judges that had been appointed legally, and the three “non-judges” whose appointments had consistently been ruled invalid. The six voted for Przyłębska , and she was promptly sworn in by President Duda (according to Duda’s logic, in other words, six judges was enough but nine was not).
One of Przylebska’s first actions as president was to send Rzepliński’s deputy on indefinite leave; with another judge resigning, this gave PiS-appointees—including the “non-judges,” who were now allowed to participate—a majority on the Tribunal. The rulings from 2016 that had been so bitterly opposed by the government disappeared from the Tribunal’s website.
Whereas for the government’s opponents Przyłębska continues to serve as a symbol of the Tribunal’s subjugation to the will of the ruling party, to supporters she embodied the first step towards Poland’s “liberation” from the existing constitutional order. This point was made explicit by Sieci, a magazine with close ties to Law and Justice, which made her its “Person of the Year” for 2017, arguing that “the election of Julia Przyłębska to the position of President of the Constitutional Tribunal marked the beginning of the rebuilding of the justice system in Poland.” At a gala ceremony, she was presented with the award—and a big bunch of flowers—by Kaczynski himself.
Observers also noted a miraculous change in the government’s attitude towards the Tribunal: having publicly threatened judges with prosecution for insisting on the primacy of a legally constituted Tribunal, since Przyłębska’s appointment Minister Ziobro has publicly threatened prosecution against judges who do not recognize the primacy of the now illegally constituted Tribunal.
Having taken control of the Constitutional Tribunal in December 2016, in January 2017 the government published its proposals for a radical restructuring of the Supreme Court and the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS). The timing of the proposals, in addition to the fact that they were drawn up without any public consultation, belies government claims that the proposals constituted a response to public demand, as opposed to the next logical step in a long-term plan to assume control of the judicial system as a whole.
The principal function of the KRS, which had been designed to give judges a majority so as to safeguard judicial independence, is to make judicial appointments; the Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal for all criminal and civil cases in Poland and is also charged with ruling on the validity of elections, as well as approving the annual financial reports of political parties and adjudicating upon disciplinary proceedings against judges.
The government also published a major proposal on the functioning of ordinary courts, which gave the minister of justice the power to dismiss and appoint court presidents, who enjoy substantial formal powers and informal influence over the allocation of individual cases.
The initial proposals on the KRS and Supreme Court were eventually passed in the Sejm but vetoed by President Duda in July 2017, in the face of mass protests and concerns and divisions within the ruling camp (the amendments to the law on the ordinary courts he signed).
The vetoes marked not a change of heart, but a tactical retreat. Duda and Kaczynski retired to negotiate behind closed doors; meanwhile, the government used public funds earmarked for promoting Poland abroad to wage a domestic propaganda campaign, describing judges as a “privileged caste” and drawing attention to high-profile miscarriages of justice and instances of judges caught drink-driving, shoplifting, and starting bar fights.
When the revised proposals were announced by President Duda in September 2017, they confirmed suspicions that they had been designed principally to reflect a reconfiguration of power between figures within the ruling camp, rather than to address substantive concerns over the assertion of control by the ruling party.
First, Duda’s proposals paved the way for PiS to assume control of the KRS by terminating the term of office of the existing members and giving the parliamentary majority the right to nominate a majority of their replacements. This means that the parliamentary majority now enjoys unmediated power of appointment to the body that appoints all Polish judges.
Second, the Supreme Court legislation forced all Supreme Court justices over the age of 65 to retire, unless their terms are extended with presidential approval. Combined with control of the KRS, this has given the government effective power of appointment to 40 percent of the Supreme Court.
Third, Duda introduced a mechanism of “extraordinary appeal,” whereby during the next three years almost any legally binding final judgment dating back to the introduction of the constitution in 1997 can be reopened, and heard again by Supreme Court judges appointed by the ruling party via its control of the KRS. “Lay judges”—members of the public appointed for renewable four-year terms by the (PiS-majority) Senate—will also sit in on cases in the new Extraordinary Chamber, which will also consider disciplinary charges brought against Polish judges and cases concerning Polish elections. The inclusion of lay members at such high levels is extremely rare, serving as a demonstration of the ruling party’s intention to supplement formal legal justice with its own understanding of “social justice” in certain cases.
The government claims that it is motivated by a desire to purge the Polish judicial system of the influence of former communists. But even allowing for the ruling party’s gross exaggeration of the presence and influence of former communist judges in the Polish judicial system(the average Polish judge is in their early 40s), this does not explain why the government should enjoy the power to oversee the appointment, promotion, discipline and financial incentives of all Polish judges, indefinitely. Gallingly for the government’s critics, the reforms were steered through the parliament’s justice committee by PiS MP Stanislaw Piotrowicz, a decorated former communist prosecutor who helped prepare indictments against dissidents arrested during the imposition of Martial Law.
Both Acts were passed by the Polish parliament and signed into law by Duda in December 2017.
In March 2018, the terms of the 15 judicial members of the KRS were terminated, and the Sejm appointed their replacements. The appointment process was boycotted by the overwhelming majority of Polish judges—out of approximately 10,000 only 18 consented to stand as candidates, while the names of those who had nominated them have been kept secret. The majority of appointees either had close links to the Ministry of Justice, or had been recently appointed by Minister Ziobro as court presidents shortly before (one of the appointees was the spouse of a recently appointed court president). The appointees also included two judges with records of poor performance that would normally have excluded them from the office, including one who had faced over 50 disciplinary charges; the identities of those who nominated the new appointees have not been made public.
With ruling party nominees in control of the KRS and set to take over the Supreme Court in July 2018, and the government protected by a tame Constitutional Tribunal, there will soon no longer exist an independent institution capable of checking how the government wields the power it has acquired. The destruction of the rule of law in Poland needs to be seen not as some worrying future prospect but a near fait accompli that the European Union, the international community, and above all, Polish society itself has failed to prevent.
If 2016 was spent taking control of the Constitutional Tribunal, and 2017 spent laying the foundations to take control of the KRS and the Supreme Court, in 2018 the challenge for Law and Justice has been to withstand pressure from the European authorities to reverse the reforms.
Although the Polish situation is frequently compared to that in Hungary, there is an important difference. In Hungary, a government with a constitutional majority is constructing an authoritarian order that may contravene democratic principles, but which is broadly within the parameters of Hungarian law. In Poland, a government without a constitutional majority has simply dismantled the existing constitutional order through a sustained attack on the law itself.
Up until now, Law and Justice’s strategy has been to humor the European Commission and fellow member states with expressions of willingness to engage in dialogue, or to make unconvincing offers of “compromise,” even as it establishes facts on the ground that will prove extremely difficult to reverse.
Instead, the government has floated so-called concessions that amount to little. For example, it has offered to consult the (new) KRS on the dismissal and appointment of court presidents. But since the KRS has already been filled with ruling party appointments, and 149 court presidents and vice presidents have already been replaced, such a move will not remedy the situation. Neither does an offer to “print” three disputed Constitutional Tribunal rulings, but only after passing a law declaring them to have no legal force. Additionally, a “concession” on the extraordinary appeal mechanism, proposed in the first week of May, will still allow the minister of justice/prosecutor general to reopen old cases with the new judges.
It appears unlikely, however, that the Article 7 procedure will result in concrete action against the Polish government, given the reticence of a number of EU members, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, to set a precedent by which an EU member is sanctioned by fellow member states for its internal judicial arrangements. More likely is that member states seen to be in breach of their rule of law commitments will be penalized in the upcoming EU budget process.
How effective the prospect of a reduction in EU funds may be remains to be seen. In March this year, however, a development in Ireland raised the possibility that the situation could be taken out of the hands of the Commission and the Member States altogether, when Irish High Court judge Aileen Donnelly refused to extradite a suspected drugs trafficker to Poland on the grounds that changes to the Polish judicial system had been “so immense” that Ireland’s high court had been forced to conclude that the rule of law in Poland had been “systematically damaged,” undermining the “mutual trust” that underpins the European Arrest Warrant process.
Justice Donnelly’s referral of the case to the European Court of Justice is especially important when seen in the context of a recent ruling by the ECJ concerning a pay dispute in Portugal that had ramifications for the independence of the Portuguese judiciary. In its ruling, the ECJ declared itself competent to evaluate the independence of national judges charged with applying and interpreting EU law, given their key role in upholding the EU’s system of legal protection. Taken together, the rulings raise the prospect of dramatic consequences were the ECJ to rule that the Polish judicial system was in contravention of European standards.
However things progress on either the political or the legal front, it is impossible to overstate the gravity of the present situation, and its potential consequences. The key point is that Poland’s present judicial arrangements are incompatible with the conditions of membership of the European Union. That situation might be manageable in the immediate term, but it is not sustainable indefinitely.
From the European perspective, Brussels is caught between the immediate risk of confrontation exacerbating existing political fissures across the continent, and the long-term risk of the European legal order disintegrating as more and more members, emboldened by Law and Justice’s example, see fit to violate the basic democratic standards and legal framework that holds the union together.
From the perspective of Law and Justice, it has succeeded in its leader’s central mission—to establish control of the Polish judiciary and release itself from the checks and balances that thwarted it in the past. Even if it wanted to retreat, the sheer breadth and depth of measures already taken in recent years means that only total capitulation and proactive measures to repeal legislation and reverse hundreds of decisions and appointments made over recent years could truly restore judicial independence and the rule of law. Given that the Polish authorities have not shown the slightest inclination to embark on such a process, the time may come when Polish citizens will be forced to choose whether their future still lies at the heart of Europe.
On 31 December 2018, the amended Supreme Court Act of 21 November was published in the official legislative gazette. By the same token, the bill drafted by MPs of Law and Justice (PiS) – considered their “surrender” in the fight over the Supreme Court – came into effect on 1 January.
The amended act formally restores to the bench those justices of the Court who had been forced to retire. Their terms of office, including those of the presidents of chambers and the First President of the Court, are considered as uninterrupted.
The legislation flew through the lower and upper houses of Parliament at the end of November, but President Andrzej Duda took his time in signing the legislation, doing so on the last possible day of 17 December. There was also a delay in publishing the Act, which took 14 days from the day of its signing.
The slow pace is quite surprising in light of the way previous changes to the judiciary and court system have been handled by the Sejm. Previous amendments to the Supreme Court Act – in April, May, and July – were implemented at breakneck speed.
This time, members of the ruling party were anxious to delay this blow to its image. The calendar came to their aid. The President’s signature came just before Christmas, and publication at the new year. Public opinion was occupied with other matters.
OKO.press also documented the statements of panicky PiS politicians who trained their fire on the “rotten” judiciary.
2018 will be remembered as the year of the battle over the Supreme Court. This makes us all the more proud of concessions won by defenders of the rule of law in Poland, after months of struggle and owing to support from Brussels. And what awaits them in 2019.
New retirement age – 65 – only for new judges. The new legislation keeps the lowered retirement age. However, the new provisions specify that this applies only to judges appointed after its entry into force. Judges appointed prior to that will retire according to the old rules, at the age of 70.
Dismissed judges return to work. The new Act returns justices of the Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court to the bench; under the previous law, they had been forced to retire. Their service on the bench will now be treated as uninterrupted.
The terms of office of the First President and presidents of the chambers of the Supreme Court are now treated as uninterrupted.
The authors of the legislation state in it that the version passed in December 2017 may violate the constitution. They invoke the applications for preliminary rulings filed by Polish courts with the Court of Justice of the European Union. The same ones whose legitimacy had been disputed multiple times by the ruling party.
Members of PiS also admitted that the decision to amend the Act was linked with criticism levelled at it by the European Commission, as well as in response to the 19 October injunction of the CJEU ordering Poland to suspend the law passed in December 2017.
This despite the fact that PiS politicians had previously questioned the role of the Commission as well as the authority of the Court of Justice.
While opponents of the PiS-led “reform” do have reason to cheer, we at OKO.press have already written that the new legislation was unnecessary. It arose almost in spite of the recommendations of the CJEU, expert opinions, and the Supreme Court itself.
The Court of Justice stated unequivocally that implementation of the provisions of the interim measure did not require changes in the law. Specialists in European Law warned that new legislation implemented before a final verdict by the CJEU would only deepen the chaos.
It discontinues all proceedings that were being conducted under the old rules. With this move, the authors “pulled the rug” from under the requests for preliminary rulings that Polish courts had filed with the CJEU. These included questions regarding the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS).
PiS still retains the capacity to influence the composition of the Supreme Court, such as through increasing the number of appointed justices. Jarosław Kaczyński’s party also continues to wield influence over other key institutions – the KRS and the Constitutional Tribunal. Politicisation of those bodies give the authorities the capacity to exert influence over the entire justice system.
What is the European Commission’s next move?
The new legislation meets some of the conditions of the European Commission, which sought to convince the government to reverse changes to the retirement age applicable to judges.
This is why the Commission had submitted a referral to the CJEU under Art. 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Court of Justice is to rule on whether the forced retirement of judges is a “failure to fulfil an obligation” by a Member State.
The Polish government is arguing that the new legislation removes the grounds for the Commission’s referral, and that it should be withdrawn from the Court of Justice.
At OKO.press we have written that the Commission does not, however, have to follow the government’s reasoning.
Indeed, the CJEU will be ruling on the law as of 14 September 2018 – prior to PiS conceding to the pressure of Brussels. In the opinion of dr Maciej Taborowski, the Commission has good reasons for not withdrawing the referral. A verdict issued by the CJEU regarding the old legislation would contribute to the development of EU law, and if the Court of Justice rules that the Treaty has been breached, this would serve to prevent future such improprieties across the entire EU.
Representatives of the European Commission have already declared they will continue to pursue the matter. The Court of Justice will rule on its referral under accelerated proceedings, and the verdict will likely be handed down in April 2019.
Apart from the Commission’s application, in the coming months the CJEU will review issues raised by Polish courts in applications for preliminary rulings.
The Supreme Court, Supreme Administrative Court, and common courts in such cities as Łódź, Gorzów Wielkopolski, and Warsaw have made referrals over issues such as the independence of the KRS and disciplinary proceedings.
The government has made numerous attempts to force these courts to withdraw their referrals by removing the grounds for which they had been made.
The President of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, Jan Majchrowski, even went so far as to inform the President of the Court of Justice that the referrals were “null and void.” In response, the CJEU reminded Majchrowski that only the court that filed an application has the right to withdraw it.
Prosecutor General Zbigniew Ziobro also attacked the courts for their referrals. He has applied for review by the Constitutional Tribunal of the procedure under which they are issued, which has been called “a step towards Polexit.” OKO.press has written in detail about Ziobro’s actions.
To date, no court has elected to withdraw its applications. In mid-December, the Court of Justice announced 19 March 2019 as the date for hearings on the referrals submitted by the Supreme Court on 30 August and 19 September.
The CJEU will decide on such issues as whether the KRS – politicised by the PiS-led “reforms” – is capable of effectively defending the independence of the judicial system.
Translated by Matthew La Fontaine.

References: CJEU 
 CJEU 
 CJEU 
 Art. 258
 CJEU 
 CJEU 
 CJEU 
 CJEU 
 CJEU