News

By the Act of 8 December 2017 on the Supreme Court, prepared by the President of the Republic of Poland Andrzej Duda, the Law and Justice party made radical changes in the system of the disciplinary liability of judges. As a result of this change, important powers have been transferred to the Minister of Justice and the Prosecutor General, who may influence the conduct of disciplinary proceedings against judges, both directly and through the disciplinary ombudsmen whom he chooses. This applies especially to Piotr Schab and his deputies: Michał Lasota and Przemysław Radzik. Such a system creates the danger that it will be used in order to intimidation of judges.

The knock-on effects of the deteriorating situation in Poland became notably visible when an Irish High Court judge decided to delay the extradition of a man to Poland over concerns about the rule of law there pending a preliminary reference request sent to the ECJ.

Deglomeration should not be confused with decentralisation. Poland needs decentralisation, which consists in transferring decisions to a lower level of administration, closer to the citizens. Unfortunately, deglomeration does not change the influence of citizens on the decisions taken, but is only a facade action that redistributes prestige from Warsaw to small towns. 

On 21 November, public opinion in Poland and the EU was surprised by the ruling Law and Justice’s (PiS) proposal “backtracking on controversial reforms it made to lower the retirement age of Supreme Court judges”. The amendment was issued in the morning and it went through the whole legislative process in the lower house of parliament for less than 3.5 hours. President of Poland, Andrzej Duda, waited until 17 December and finally signed the new law which is the 7th amendment to the act on the Supreme Court since its enactment in late 2017.

On 13 January 2016, exactly three years ago today, the Commission activated the so-called rule of law framework for the very first time with respect to Poland. This was justified by First Vice-President Timmermans primarily with regard to the situation of the Constitutional Tribunal and the fact that some of its key binding rulings were not being respected.

There can be no definitive answer. Still, the rule of law and the institutions that sustain it – whether courts, elections, or independent public agencies – have proven to be a source of greater resistance than many populist leaders expected, and more resilient, perhaps, than democratic forces dared to hope.

Contrary to the statements of some commentators, it was interventionism and not liberalism that led to a situation in which people took to the streets. Unfortunately, the protesters put forward proposals to reduce taxes and increase spending, i.e. at the same time reduce and increase the role of the state. This is a simple way to deepen the stagnation of the French economy. This, in turn, will potentially lead to further protests and further populist demands.