Articles for tag: EuGHEuropäischer HaftbefehlPolandRechtsstaatlichkeit

Everything must remain the same for everything can change

The European Arrest Warrant mechanism has been one of the fiercest manifestations of the rule of law crisis in Poland. Four years have passed since the EU Court of Justice instructed executing courts to carry out a two-step test, to decide on the execution of EAWs issued by a Member State affected by systemic deficiencies to the independence of its judicial system. Four years later, the Polish government has only dug itself deeper into its authoritarian trench. With its recent rulings, the Court has significantly broadened the criteria and factors on which the executing courts can rely, when assessing the risk of a breach of Article 47(2) CFR in the issuing State.

Hungary, Poland and the »Community of Fate«

In February 2022, the ECJ delivered a ruling in cases brought by Hungary and Poland against the European Parliament and Council. Not only did the ruling uphold the regime of conditionality for the protection of the EU budget; it also entered into the domain of European constitutional identity. Instead of undermining the European commitment to the rule of law, Poland and Hungary may have inadvertently consolidated the place of rule of law in the heart of EU identity.

Drifting Case-law on Judicial Independence

In a preliminary ruling of 29 March 2022, in case C-132/20 Getin Noble Bank, the CJEU answered questions on judicial independence of judges appointed under an undemocratic regime and of judges appointed before 2018 in an allegedly flawed process. Taking a highly formalistic approach, the Court seeks to preserve judicial dialogue between itself and the national judges – at the expense of the rule of law and judicial independence.

Schengen Restored

On 26 April 2022, the Court of Justice of the EU rendered a ruling in joined cases C-368/20 and C-369/20 stating that Member States of the European Union can re-introduce border controls within the Schengen Zone only under strict conditions. The Court has stepped up as a guardian of the Treaties protecting free movement of people without controls at the internal borders of the EU. At the same time, it has left room for the European and national executives to exercise their function and fill in the blanks.

The Court of Justice of the EU goes (almost) public

While the broadcasting of the delivery does not add much value (the texts are generally made available online at the time of their live reading in Luxembourg) to its declared goal of facilitating “the public’s access to its judicial activity”, that of the public hearings appears a major game-changer in the Court’s stance vis-à-vis the public-at-large. And that despite the many precautions accompanying the introduction of such a major rehaul of the Court’s publicity policy regarding its hearings,

Keeping the Past and the Present Apart

The mere fact that a judge was appointed for the first time under undemocratic conditions does not automatically determine that the court in which that judge adjudicates lacks the necessary independence under EU law. The CJEU has answered to this effect a question of Mr. Kamil Zaradkiewicz, appointed to Poland's Supreme Court in 2018 on recommendation of the new government-controlled National Council of Judiciary and thus lacking independence himself. Importantly, the CJEU emphasized that the referring court did not submit any evidence that may rise legitimate and serious doubts, in the minds of individuals, over independence and impartiality of the particular judge. With this decision, the Court refused to be drawn into the inner-Polish dispute about decommunization, and reinforced its jurisprudence on judicial independence standards in the EU.

Claiming »We are out but I am in« post-Brexit

It is not often that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is presented with a case in which the law is so crystal clear, and so overwhelmingly contrary to the applicant’s claims, as in Préfet du Gers. The central question of the case is weather British nationals retain their EU citizenship and EU citizenship rights after Brexit. Given how straightforward the Treaties and the case-law are on this matter, it is unsurprising that AG Collins answered this question in the negative in a well-argued and straightforward Opinion.

Not looking up

It now seems that after the ruling is before the ruling. The Commission is intent on continuing with its wait-and-see approach, a situation which Hungarian MEP Katalin Cseh compared to the Netflix movie “Don’t look up”, in which the President of the United States decides to ignore the huge comet approaching the earth. While in the movie the comet finally destroys the planet, the European Parliament, however, is determined not to let it come to that. It has made clear that it will not tolerate this policy of looking the other way and has taken up arms.

Constitutional Identity in and on EU Terms

The EU protects national constitutional identities and does not protect national unconstitutional identities. This is the message the Court of Justice of the EU has sent with its decision of 16 of February 2022, in the cases initiated by Hungary and Poland about the rule-of-law conditionality mechanism, in which it ominously referred to the constitutional identity of the EU. Constitutional identity, according to the CJEU, is a key concept of public law and a fundamental pillar of the EU, so Member States constitutional identities may not be manipulated in such a way that turns into a violation of the constitutional identity of the EU.