Rule of Law: European Commission refers Poland to the European Court of Justice and asks for interim measures

The European Commission decided to refer Poland to the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the law on the judiciary of 20 December 2019, which entered into force on 14 February 2020. The Commission also decided to ask the Court of Justice to order interim measures until it has issued a final judgment in the case.

The Commission considers that the Polish law on the judiciary undermines the independence of Polish judges and is incompatible with the primacy of EU law. Moreover, the law prevents Polish courts, including by using disciplinary proceedings, from directly applying certain provisions of EU law protecting judicial independence, and from putting references for preliminary rulings on such questions to the Court of Justice.

In addition, the Commission considers that Poland violates EU law by allowing the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court – the independence of which is not guaranteed – to take decisions which have a direct impact on judges and the way they exercise their function. These matters include cases of the lifting of immunity of judges with a view to bringing criminal proceedings against them or detain them, and the consequent temporary suspension from office and the reduction of their salary. The mere prospect for judges of having to face proceedings before a body whose independence is not guaranteed creates a ‘chilling effect' for judges and can affect their own independence. The Commission considers that this seriously undermines judicial independence and the obligation to ensure effective legal protection, and thus the EU legal order as a whole.

Besides referring the case to the Court of Justice, the Commission also decided today to ask the Court of Justice to order interim measures so as to prevent the aggravation of serious and irreparable harm inflicted to judicial independence and the EU legal order.

In its request for interim measures, the Commission will ask the Court of Justice in particular to:

  • suspend the provisions empowering the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court to decide on requests for the lifting of judicial immunity, as well as on matters of employment, social security and retirement of Supreme Court judges,
  • suspend the effects of decisions already taken by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court on the lifting of judicial immunity, and
  • suspend the provisions preventing Polish judges from directly applying certain provisions of EU law protecting judicial independence, and from putting references for preliminary rulings on such questions to the Court of Justice as well as the provisions qualifying action taken by judges in that respect as disciplinary offences.

More details on the referral to Court

First, the Commission notes that the law on the judiciary prevents Polish courts from assessing, in the context of cases pending before them, the requirements of judicial independence and from requesting a preliminary ruling. This is incompatible with the principle of primacy of EU law, the functioning of the preliminary ruling mechanism and Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union read in connection with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which establish a right to an effective remedy before an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law.

Second, the Commission notes that the law grants the new Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court the sole competence to rule on issues regarding judicial independence. This prevents Polish courts from assessing the requirements of judicial independence and from requesting preliminary rulings from the Court of Justice. The law is incompatible with the principle of primacy of EU law, the functioning of the preliminary ruling mechanism as well as with the requirements of judicial independence set out in Article 19(1) TEU.

Third, the Commission notes that the law broadens the notion of disciplinary offence by allowing the assessment by Polish courts of the requirements of judicial independence, and thus the content of judicial decisions, to be qualified as a disciplinary offence. As a result, the disciplinary regime can be used as a system of political control of the content of judicial decisions. The law is incompatible with the requirements of judicial independence set out in Article 19(1) TEU and the functioning of the preliminary ruling mechanism.

Fourth, the Commission considers that Poland violates EU law by allowing the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court – the independence of which is not guaranteed – to take decisions which have a direct impact on judges and the way they exercise their function. These decisions include the lifting of immunity of judges with a view to bringing criminal proceedings against them or to detain them, as well as the consequent temporary suspension from office and the reduction of their salary. The Disciplinary Chamber is also deciding on matters related to labour law, social security and the retirement of Supreme Court judges. By giving the Disciplinary Chamber powers that directly affect the status of judges and the exercise of their judicial activities, the Polish legislation jeopardises the ability of the respective courts to adjudicate in full independence and therefore to provide an effective remedy, as required by Article 19(1) TEU.

Fifth, the Commission notes that the law imposes a disproportionate obligation on judges to provide information for the purposes of publication about specific non-professional activities. This is incompatible with the right to respect for private life and the right to the protection of personal data as guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the General Data Protection Regulation.

Background

The rule of law is one of the fundamental values of the European Union. It is enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union. It is also essential for the functioning of the EU as a whole, for example, with regard to the Internal Market, cooperation in the area of Justice and Home Affairs, and to ensure that national judges who are also 'EU judges' can fulfil their role in the application of EU law and can properly interact with the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The European Commission, together with other institutions and the Member States, is responsible under the Treaties for guaranteeing the rule of law as a fundamental value of our Union and making sure that EU law, values and principles are respected.

On 20 December 2017, the Commission triggered the Article 7(1) TEU procedure for the first time for Poland. There were already several debates (26 May and 16 October 2018) and three hearings on the Rule of Law in Poland amongst Member States in the General Affairs Council (26 June, 18 September and 11 December 2018).

The Commission has also frequently made use of its tools as guardian of the treaties to address rule of law issues in Poland. On 29 July 2017, the Commission launched an infringement procedure on the Polish Law on Ordinary Courts, on the grounds of its provisions requiring early retirement and their impact on the independence of the judiciary. The Commission referred this case to the Court on 20 December 2017. On 5 November 2019, the CJEU issued a final judgement in the case, confirming in full the position of the Commission. In addition, on 2 July 2018, the Commission launched an infringement procedure on the Polish Law on the Supreme Court, on the grounds of its provisions requiring early retirement and their impact on the independence of the Supreme Court. On 24 September 2018, the Commission referred the case to the CJEU.  On 17 December 2018, the CJEU issued a final order imposing interim measures to stop the implementation of the Polish law on the Supreme Court and reinstate the judges forced to retire. On 24 June 2019, the CJEU issued a final judgement in the case, confirming in full the position of the Commission. Both infringement proceedings led the Polish authorities to remove the contested provisions.

On 3 April 2019, the Commission launched an infringement procedure on the grounds that the disciplinary regime undermines the judicial independence of Polish judges and does not ensure the necessary guarantees to protect judges from political control, as required by the CJEU. On 10 October 2019, the Commission referred this case to the CJEU. On 14 January 2020, the Commission decided to ask the CJEU to impose interim measures on Poland, ordering it to suspend the functioning of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court. On 8 April 2020, the CJEU ruled that Poland must immediately suspend the application of the national provisions on the powers of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court with regard to disciplinary cases concerning judges, confirming in full the position of the Commission. This order applies until the Court renders its final judgment in the infringement procedure.  

A new law of 20 December 2019 amending a series of legislative acts governing the functioning of the justice system in Poland, entered into force on 14 February 2020. On 29 April 2020, the Commission sent a Letter of Formal Notice to Poland regarding this new law on the judiciary. On 30 October, the European Commission, since Poland's reply is not satisfactory, continued with the infringement process by sending a Reasoned Opinion on this matter. Poland replied on 30 December 2020.

In the context of this infringement procedure launched on 29 April 2020, the Commission sent Poland an additional letter of formal notice adopted on 3 December 2020, taking issue with the continued functioning of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court as regards other cases concerning judges.  On 27 January 2021, in view of a non-satisfactory reply of Poland to the additional letter of formal notice, the Commission adopted an additional Reasoned Opinion. Poland replied on 26 February 2021. (europa.eu/photo pixabay)

Comments

Post a Comment

Editorial

Editorial
George Kazoleas, Lawyer

Top Stories

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Image
The European Ombudsman inquiry into the Commission’s handling of a request for text messages between its President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company is a wake-up call for all EU institutions about ensuring accountability in an era of instant messaging. One year after the initial request by a journalist, the Commission has still not clarified whether messages reported to concern major vaccine procurement deals exist and whether the public is entitled to see them. The Ombudsman had asked the Commission, in a finding of maladministration in January, to conduct a more thorough search for the text messages. The Commission’s recent response failed to say whether it had looked directly and correctly for the text messages and if not, why not. While the response recognised that work-related text messages can be EU documents, it reiterated that the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to register text messages. The Ombudsman has closed  the inquiry  and upheld...
Read more

Daily Mail publisher wins case against ‘success fees’ paid to lawyers (ECtHR)

Image
Obligation on publisher of the Daily Mail to pay substantial “success fees" in defamation and breach of privacy cases was excessive. The case Associated Newspapers Limited v. the United Kingdom (application no. 37398/21) concerned the fact that Associated Newspapers Limited the publisher of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday had been obliged to pay extensive costs incurred by claimants who had successfully sued it in privacy and/or defamation proceedings following articles it had published in print or online in 2017 and 2019.  Since one of the claimants had entered into a conditional fee arrangement (CFA) with his legal representative, and both had taken out “after-the-event” (ATE) insurance, Associated Newspapers Limited had been liable not only for their base costs, but also for fee uplifts including the “success fee” in the CFA and for their ATE insurance premiums.  In Chamber judgment (12.11.2024) in the case, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that t...
Read more

ECtHR elects a new Vice-President of the Court and two new Section Presidents

Image
The European Court of Human Rights has elected on 23.9.2024 a new Vice-President of the Court – Judge Ivana Jelić (elected in respect of Montenegro). She will take up her duties on 1 November 2024.  The Court has also elected at the same date two new Section Presidents – Judges Lado Chanturia (elected in respect of Georgia) and Ioannis Ktistakis (elected in respect of Greece). They will also take up their duties on 1 November 2024. Ivana Jelić was born on 17 March 1975 in Podgorica, Montenegro and was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 12 July 2018. Lado Chanturia was born on 14 April 1963 in Tsalenjikha, Georgia, was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 8 January 2018 and is Vice-President of Section since 18 May 2023. Ioannis Ktistakis was born on 3 January 1971 in Thebes, Greece and was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 8 March 2021. (source/photo: echr.coe.int) Read more here
Read more

Intellectual property: the figurative sign consisting of the phrase ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ in Russian and English cannot be registered as an EU trade mark

Image
In its Judgment in Case T-82/24 (Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine v EUIPO) (RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F**K YOURSELF) the General Court ruled that the figurative sign consisting of the phrase ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ in Russian and English cannot be registered as an EU trade mark. That phrase, which has become a symbol of Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression, is not perceived as an indication of a commercial origin.  The Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine (Kyiv, Ukraine) requests the General Court of the European Union to annul the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 st December 2023, which refused registration of the following figurative sign as an EU trade mark: ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ That mark is a war cry uttered by the Ukrainian border guard on Snake Island on 24th February 2022, the first day of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. Registration was sou...
Read more

The banks Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse participated in a cartel in the sector for suprasovereign bonds, sovereign bonds and public agency bonds denominated in US dollars

Image
According to the Judgment of the General Court in Cases T-386/21 (Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission) and T-406/21 (UBS Group and Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) v Commission), the banks Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse participated in a cartel in the sector for suprasovereign bonds, sovereign bonds and public agency bonds denominated in US dollars (‘SSA Bonds’).  The General Court of the European Union confirms the Commission’s finding of an infringement and maintains the amount of the fines imposed in 2021. In 2018, the European Commission initiated proceedings for infringement of the competition rules involving Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse (now UBS Group [1] ).  In 2021, the Commission found that those banks had entered into an agreement on the secondary market for suprasovereign, sovereign and agency bonds denominated in dollars (SSA bonds). According to the Commission, traders employed by ...
Read more

European Ombudsman asks Commission to publish details of its handling of senior staff move to law firm

Image
The European Ombudsman has asked the European Commission to publish details about how it has handled the planned move by a former director in its competition department to the Brussels office of a US corporate law firm as a partner. Any restrictions that have been placed on the activities of the former director to mitigate potential conflicts of interest should be made public without delay, said the Ombudsman. She noted that public information about the move came from the law firm and gives the impression that the Commission has allowed a senior official to work for a company that anticipates major benefits from their inside knowledge.  The Ombudsman also noted that the Commission declined to give details about the individual’s professional experience despite the fact that the law firm itself has put out a press release detailing it. The Ombudsman has previously criticised a tendency in the EU administration to underestimate the potential negative effects of staff moves to th...
Read more

A national court is not required to apply a decision of its constitutional court that infringes EU law (ECJ)

Image
In its Judgment of 26.9.2024 in Case C-792/22 (Energotehnica) the Court of Justice ruled as regards the right to an effective remedy that a national court is not required to apply a decision of its constitutional court that infringes EU law. In such a case, the national court may not be penalised.  Following the death of an electrician by electrocution during a maintenance operation, an administrative procedure was initiated against his employer. At the same time, criminal proceedings for negligence and manslaughter were initiated against the supervisor. The victim’s next of kin also became civil parties to the criminal proceedings.  The administrative court hearing the dispute concluded that the present case did not involve an ‘accident at work’. It annulled the administrative penalties imposed on the employer. According to national legislation, as interpreted by the Romanian Constitutional Court, that administrative decision prevents the criminal court from reconsidering whe...
Read more