Hercules or Sisyphus? On the legacy of statutory lawlessness in post-autocratic Poland
A constitutional responsibility.
A constitutional responsibility.
Eine verfassungsrechtliche Verantwortung.
Poland’s upcoming parliamentary elections will be the country’s most important vote since the historic elections of 1989. Indeed, the momentous character of the elections might be the only thing upon which the governing PiS (Law and Justice) party and the opposition might agree. If the elections in October were fair, PiS’ defeat might be plausible though by no means certain. Yet, the preceding sentence identifies a condition we already know will not occur. In this analysis, I map the multiple ways in which the system has been rigged in favour of the incumbents. While I will only describe the most striking aspects of this unfairness, they all form parts of a system and thus should not be looked at in isolation. Kaczyński is a shrewd politician. There’s a method to his (apparent) madness. For the opposition to win is thus a Herculean task. Herculeses do appear in politics – but not that often.
On 29 May, President Duda has peremptorily signed this law into force which sets up a new body: a commission to track Russian influence on Polish public officials and other public figures which may have resulted in the undermining of Polish security. This monster of a law has so many defects, pathological features and outright conflicts with the rule of law, even at its very basis, that it is hard to know where to start.
The three quasi-judges in the Constitutional Tribunal and their participation in its adjudication are like a spoonful of tar in a barrel of honey: they contaminate the whole of the Tribunal. That is why the whole of the Constitutional Tribunal should be replaced in the event of a electoral victory of the democratic opposition in 2023.
The worst thing about the European Commission’s decision of 1 June 2022 to approve Poland’s EUR 36 billion national recovery plan, despite this country’s very meek (to put it mildly) assurances about improvements to its rule-of-law situation, is not even its substance, bad though that is. Worse still is the sequencing.
In a recent and shocking judgment of the first instance, a criminal court in Warsaw has found the Polish journalist Ewa Siedlecka guilty of criminal libel (defamation) for commenting on the organized campaign of hatred against independent Polish judges. This account deeply resonates with my own personal experience. Toutes proportions gardeés, I should add, since Ms Siedlecka has done immeasurably more for the rule of law in Poland than I did, and has run much higher risks – and incurred higher personal costs.
The notorious Disciplinary Chamber of the Polish Supreme Court, unlawful under EU standards according to the European Court of Justice, will be abolished. The Disciplinary Chamber is perhaps the most abhorrent part of the system, but it is not the entire system. Systemic and ongoing persecution and harassment of independent judges may easily continue, and most probably will. No one should be duped by such a pars-pro-toto solution because, unless and until a broader change is introduced, it will remain a purely PR exercise, meant to reassure Brussels that the Recovery money should now be disbursed to Poland.
EU-Mitgliedstaaten, die ihre Justiz unterjochen, verletzen EU-Recht: das hat der EuGH in Luxemburg mit seinem gestrigen Urteil zum polnischen Nationalen Justizrat kraftvoll deutlich gemacht. Die PiS-Regierung in Polen darf nicht einfach den Rechtsbehelf gegen Entscheidungen des von ihr kontrollierten Justizrat mit einem gesetzgeberischen Federstrich abschaffen. Der Kanal zwischen unabhängigen polnischen Gerichten und dem EuGH muss offen bleiben – und gleichzeitig versucht die PiS verzweifelt, diesen Kanal zuzustopfen. Wer wird das Rennen gewinnen? Darüber diskutiert Max Steinbeis heute mit dem Verfassungsrechtsprofessor WOJCIECH SADURSKI von der Universität Sydney.
Dear President von der Leyen, in your recent State of the Union address, you rightly emphasized that “breaches of the rule of law cannot be tolerated.” We are sorry to say we are seeing ample evidence to the contrary.