The strategies of judicial resistance employed by the Polish judiciary after 2015 are diverse and complementary. They respond to changing and intensifying the pressure of political power on the judiciary. They are a consequence of the judgments of the CJEU and the ECHR concerning the administration of justice in Poland.
The aggression against Ukraine is brazen, ruthless and shameless. Images of women and children at border crossings, shelters and subway stations filled with civilians evoke very strong emotions, almost crowding out everything else. And yet the ongoing aggression is defined by another adjective: "lawless". There is a link between lawlessness and violence, between brutality and disrespect for the law as such. This is why, even in times like these, we must continue talk about the Polish rule of law crisis if Poland wants to be a credible international actor.
The particular coming-out of the Tribunal, made in the judgment K 6/21 by admitting that the Constitutional Tribunal is not subject in general to the standards inherent in Article 6 EC, leads to the conclusion that the Polish Constitutional Tribunal and its judges need not be independent. Paradoxically, therefore, the judgment confirms (albeit by different reasoning) the disqualification of the Tribunal made in the Xero Flor judgment by ECtHR. And yet the Tribunal intended to remove the negative consequences for itself of the Xero Flor.
The so-called conditionality mechanism (in other words: "money for the rule of law") provides that breaches of the principle of the rule of law that threaten the EU’s financial interests may lead to suspension of funding. Poland and Hungary oppose this conditionality as they – with good reason – fear that they might be affected by it. What is required not to be subject to this mechanism, however, is quite straightforward and can be reasonably expected by an EU Member State.
Ewa Łętowska examines the Polish Constitutional Court's judgement on abortion and finds that it shows how far the country has moved towards religious and moral fundamentalism. The ruling creates a wobbly, unclear and hypocritical legal state.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters