Articles for author: John Morijn

Restoring Polish Judicial Independence

Restoring the Polish rule of law without doing more damage to it is a vexing challenge. Building Back Better becomes even more complex when the current president – part of the autocratic Law and Justice (PiS) party, which lost the previous elections – refuses to sign off on any law. Yet few would have expected the Venice Commission (VC), of all institutions, to make things even more complicated. This contribution first tracks the state of play in Poland following the VC Opinions of October 2024 and December 2024. Given the central role of the VC’s thinking in Polish efforts to find a way out, it then goes on to critique the Opinions on legal and strategic grounds before proposing an alternative route.  

Polish Re-Democratisation as “Building Back Better”

Since the new Polish government took power, it has taken first steps to restore the rule of law. These have been quite different in nature, from the soft appeals to comply with the case law of the CJEU to more uncompromising and confrontational measures, like taking control of the public broadcasting TVP. It is clear that restoring a damaged liberal democracy requires a different mindset than fighting its demise. While the latter aims to strategically delay the anticipated undemocratic endeavours, the former must constructively rebuild. I call this ‘Building Back Better’, akin to the UN risk-reduction approach employed to avoid future disasters.

The Language of Power

Professor Tarunabh Khaitan’s ICON editorial on “scholactivism”, as well as his September 2021 Letten Prize lecture on "The Role of the Legal Scholar in the World" are unsettling. Although stepping aside and standing by may feel satisfactorily pure and avoids tensions as well as personal attacks in a post-truth world, it is not neutral – simply because any activity relating to constitutional law, active or passive, is inevitably a statement about politics and power. Instead, constitutional lawyers have a professional obligation to explicate in the public debate what forms the implicit basis of all conversation between them: the very relevance of the law to power and politics.

A Closing of Ranks

On 11 and 12 October the Court of Justice of the European Union sat in Full Court composition (a rarity) to hear Hungary’s and Poland’s challenge of the legality of the rule of law conditionality regulation. Its ruling will follow (hopefully shortly) the Advocate-General’s Opinion announced for 2 December 2021. It will most likely reconfirm that the Union legal order is based on clear and binding rule of law norms, and that these must, of legal necessity, apply across all EU policy fields, including the EU budget. It will be a judgment of great significance about the very nature and purpose of the EU.

The Plaintiff who turned into a Prosecutor

Readers of this blog are familiar with how the Polish government, led by the Law and Justice party (PiS) and the institutions it controls, is trying to silence Professor Wojciech Sadurski in a coordinated campaign of lawsuits (see here, here, here and here). On Friday 2 October 2020, he was again in court. This time for his third case: a criminal lawsuit brought by TVP, the public but de facto purely pro-government TV-station.

A Trial that Wasn’t, an Impact that Was

The handling of the Sadurski cases offers a pars pro toto picture of the dynamics, twists and (sub)plots in a slide to authoritarianism under our very eyes. It speaks for many other similar cases that do not benefit from equally intense coverage. It shows that what is at play in these politically motivated trials is a mixture of obfuscation, an attempt at a long-game strategy facilitated by unlimited resources (paid by the Polish taxpayer) and an expectation that international (scholarly and other) attention spans will break – and support will dwindle accordingly.