Heroes of our Time
The Polish Supreme Court is still standing. But now the PiS government wants to complete the job.
Articles for tag: judicial independence, Oberster Gerichtshof Polens
This Was Not Just Another Ultra Vires Judgment!
A few days ago, 27 retired judges of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal have issued a statement concerning the judgment K 3/21 of 7 October 2021. We are both among its signatories. With this article, we hope to contribute to the clarification of the false statements contained in that judgment, its oral explanations and statements of representatives of political authorities, regarding the difficult matters of coexistence of Polish law and European Union law.
The Disciplinary Chamber May Go – but the Rotten System will Stay
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.
How Not to Deal with Poland’s Fake Judges‹ Requests for a Preliminary Ruling
In his Opinion of 8 July 2021 in Case C-132/20 Getin Noble Bank, AG Bobek advised the Court of Justice to find admissible a national request for a preliminary ruling originating from an individual who was appointed to Poland’s Supreme Court on the back of manifest and grave irregularities. In this specific case, contrary to the position of AG Bobek, we submit that the ECJ must find the request inadmissible as the referring individual cannot be considered a tribunal established by law.
Strasbourg and San José Close Ranks
At the end of 2020, for the first time in its more than 40 years of jurisprudential history, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights declared the arbitrary dismissals of two public prosecutors to be unconventional. Not only judges but also prosecutors are increasingly subject to threats to their independence, both in Latin America and Europe, as well as in other regions. This article addresses the question of whether the same judicial guarantees apply to public prosecutors and attorneys as to judges and looks at how the Inter-American Court sought inspiration from the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights.
A Failed State in the Making
On 4 May 2021, the Senate house in Zimbabwe approved the Constitutional Amendment No.2, 2019 with a two-thirds majority. The bill is now on its way to the executive for signature and incorporation into the constitution. However, the bill features three concerning clauses linked to judicial independence and the prosecutor general's appointment. The future of democracy and the rule of law looks gloomy for Zimbabwe.
Jeopardizing Judicial Dialogue is Contrary to EU Law
On 15 April 2021, AG Pikamäe delivered his opinion in the IS case, originating from a Hungarian criminal proceeding against a Swedish national. The national judge referred three questions for preliminary reference to the CJEU, one regarding the suspect’s right to translation and two regarding the general status of judicial independence in Hungary. As a reaction, the Hungarian Prosecutor General initiated a so-called “appeal in the interests of the law” and the Hungarian Supreme Court held the reference to be unlawful.
Negationism’s ›Day in Court‹
Twice in less than a week’s time, the number of COVID-19 related deaths in Brazil per day raised above the mark of 4,000 cases. On 8 April 2021, the number of deaths reached its peak while Bolsonarism suffered two major defeats in the Federal Supreme Court. Bolsonarists lost both their claim to keep religious services during the pandemic and their attempt to block the opening of a parliamentary enquiry to hold Bolsonaro accountable for his executive underreach. Nonetheless, these defeats provided an opportunity to keep Bolsonaro’s antiestablishment and resentful rhetoric alive.
Schiffeversenken in Zagreb
Das kroatische Verfassungsgericht hat den Dauerstreit zwischen Premierminister Andrej Plenković (HDZ) und Präsident Zoran Milanović (SDP) um die Besetzung des Präsidenten des höchsten Gerichtshofes nicht klären können. Es geht dabei um die Frage, ob die einfachgesetzlichen Regelungen zur Wahl des Präsidenten des höchsten Gerichts im Einklang mit der Verfassung stehen. Letzte Woche entschied sich das kroatische Verfassungsgericht mit klarer Mehrheit dagegen, das Gesetz weiter zu prüfen. Mittlerweile sind fast alle zentralen Staatsorgane und Institutionen in den Streit verwickelt, der vor allem über die Verfahrensregeln ausgetragen wird. Der Konflikt droht die Verfassungsordnung Kroatiens ernsthaft zu beschädigen.
The Rule of Law in Georgia
On March 1, Charles Michel, President of the European Council, visited Tbilisi to witness Georgia’s rapid descent into authoritarian rule, after an opposition politician was detained under questionable circumstances. The EU institutions’ experience of handling rule of law crises at home should inform its neighbourhood policy. Somewhat paradoxically, in this respect, the EU has greater leverage in its neighbourhood countries, like Georgia, than it has towards its internal problem states.
