Poland: Failing at Both Law and Justice
Poland: Failing at Both Law and Justice
by Melissa Hooper
July 16, 2018
Polandâs justice system is in âdisarrayâ for the second time in just over two years as a result of the policies of the countryâs Law and Justice-led government.
The history behind the recent attacks on the judiciary helps explain why the Polish government has continued to push forward, despite being called out by the European Union, international organizations, legal experts, former Solidarity leaders and even Mick Jagger. Law and Justice recently returned to power after having led the Polish government from 2005 to 2007, when they were abruptly voted out. A number of the policies they put forward in that first run at leadership were struck down by the courts, leading party chief Ja roslaw Kaczynski to conclude that in order to maintain power he needed to control, or at least hamstring, the judiciary.
Law and Justice espouses a paternalistic and religious form of populist nationalism. It contests the legitimacy of the liberal order under which Polandâs government was structured after the fall of communism, arguing that its members did not consent to these values. It claims a broad mandate to tear down liberal structures and âre-Christianizeâ Poland. A proposed constitution drafted by the party in 2010 not only contained provisions severely eroding the judiciaryâs ability to act as a check on executive and legislative power, but it also provided that individual rights could be curtailed by legislation if the government deemed this necessary âfor the common good.â
Their skepticism of liberal democracy, and of the EU, recall the approach of Fidesz, a right-wing populist political party in Hungary. Many recent Polish policies do seem to tr ack Hungarian developments, such as the government takeover of public media and its refusal to accept migrants, or fund certain types of NGOs. However, when it comes to the legal system, the Polish approach has gone much farther than Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has; the Polish version was much more of a top-to-bottom routing. And unlike in Hungary, it was done without even an attempt at legal cover.
Polandâs run at the judiciary, moreso than Hungaryâs, has resulted in cyclical scenes of chaos. The first round occurred in late 2015. Shortly after winning Polandâs parliamentary election, the new government kneecapped the court, which is charged with interpreting Polandâs Constitution and is known as the Constitutional Tribunal. It illegally seated new judges and imposed new laws that hampered the courtâs functioning by requiring, for example, that it only hear cases in the order in which they were filed. The seating of these new judges, and a number of the n ew laws, violated the Constitution. The Tribunal pointed this out. The government waved off the courtâs decisions that it disagreed with, and refused to publish them.
In the midst of the standoff, Polish courts faced confusion. Some decided to follow the new laws passed by the government, and ignore the opinions of the Constitutional Tribunal striking them down. Others sided with the constitutional court that the new policies were illegal and refused to follow the governmentâs new laws. As a result, for a time in 2015 and 2016, until the government completely disabled the Tribunal, constitutional law was in chaos in Poland.
Now weâre witnessing Court System Chaos Round Two. This time, the focus is on the Supreme Court â" the highest appellate court for the interpretation of âordinaryâ legislation (i.e. not pertaining to the Constitution). The problem began in January this year, when, after a lot of political wrangling and protests, the Law and Justice govern ment passed new laws governing the Court and the body that selects its judges. One new provision required all judges age 65 and over to make a formal request to the president to keep their jobs by July 3, 2018. Analysts noted that this law again contradicted the Polish Constitution, which states that a Supreme Court judge serves a 6-year term, giving no authority over removal to the president. While the new law ostensibly applied to 27 judges on July 3, only nine complied and made the request. Seven actually sent a notice to the president that they would remain on the bench in accordance with the Constitution, in defiance of the law. Nevertheless, President Andrzej Duda initially ordered 15 judges to âretire.â
The chaos ramped up on July 4, when the head of the Supreme Court, in solidarity with a number of other judges that had been âretiredâ by the president, showed up for work anyway. In a meeting with the president, head judge Malgorzata Gersdorf proposed herself t hat Judge JÃ³zef Iwulski take over her duties, should she be unable to carry them out. When Duda later stated that Gersdorf had retired and Iwulski taken her place, he was corrected by both judges.
Iwulski issued a statement trumpeting, âPresident Andrzej Duda neither appointed me, nor did he entrust any duties to me.â Finally, Gersdorf said she would take some vacation time to clear the air. Still unknown is what will happen when her âvacationâ is over. There is no clarity as to who will hear Supreme Court cases, or what will happen if others of the 15 âretiredâ judges show up for work in the future. Itâs likely they will be forcibly removed from the premises, which could result in a new round of protests â" the last round already garnered tens of thousands of people. And concerning Iwulski; he is himself 66 years old and must now make a request to Duda to remain. Could we see a series of judges cycle through until Duda finds one he likes? Is that the way a le gal system should work?
The laws passed in January on the functioning of the Supreme Court also create a new phenomenon called the extraordinary appeal â" likely to cause Court System Chaos Round Three. One law creates a new body made up of political appointees â" some of whom will be judges and some of whom will be lay persons with no legal experience whatsoever. This group will be empowered to re-hear and re-decide any court case that has been heard by civil, criminal or military courts since October 1997. This means that it could re-decide any Supreme Court decision handed down in the last 20 years. This body of political appointees also has the final say on matters related to elections. Never mind the fact that legal scholars and expert bodies of the EU have told the Polish government that this is a terrible, communist-sounding idea, the government is still gung-ho. Hearings to appoint the laypersons were held the last week of June.
The Law and Justice g overnment prioritizes loyalty above all, and fears (appropriately) that the courts will strike down their policies, which often violate the constitution in substance, and are passed using procedures that themselves violate the law. They argue that the purged judges are âcommunists,â when what they seem to mean is that the judges are not loyal to the party, or that they express the opinion that rule of law should prevail â" instead of politics. Sadly, this party-loyalty test doesnât just affect the judiciary, it has been applied throughout government ministries and to civil servants as well.
These laws are not normal. They are not, as the government claims, replications of laws found in other Western countries. They are unprecedented, and are doing serious damage to the legal system of Poland. Since November 2015, regular protests have erupted throughout the country, bringing tens or even hundreds of thousands of people into the streets. This happens not just in large c ities but even in Law and Justice strongholds throughout the country. The protests involve chants of âfree courts!â and âconstitution!â Corporate lawyers have even formed a new civil society group to defend judges that are disciplined or fired for illegal reasons.
So why does this matter? And if it matters what should be done?
While some would argue that Poland ruining its democracy is really just Polandâs problem, it isnât. In front of the world, or at least the West, Poland is attempting to rewrite the international standard for interference with rule of law and judicial independence that will be tolerated within the definition of a âdemocracy.â The more the EU â" and the U.S. â" fail to respond with clear consequences, the more we are likely to see these actions spread. Orban in Hungary has already seized on Polandâs strategy, and recently doubled back for a second restructuring of its own judiciary, via constitutional amendment. If the EU fails to obtain any corrective action through its Article 7 Rule of Law Mechanism, through infringement proceedings in the European Court of Justice, or through budgetary restructuring, we could see clearer emulation in places like Romania and Bulgaria, that already seem to be following suit.
The EU has taken far too long to respond. But it now is operating along several channels to slowly ramp up accountability. It shouldnât hold back. It should recognize that it is not only democracy in Poland that is at stake.
Disabling a functioning legal system could affect Polandâs ability to provide transparent and predictable rules governing society, which could in turn lead to instability. Citizens that perceive a lack of access to fair courts as a place to challenge injustice could take decisive action against the government, or take matters into their own hands. Instability in Poland is, again, not only a matter of concern for Poland, but for its neighbors and its friends.
Polandâs chaotic moves also matter for what they mean to its allies, including its NATO allies such as the United States. NATO has, particularly in the modern era, defined itself as a community of shared values that respect and value âdemocracy, rule of law, and human rights.â This language, originally appearing in the Warsaw Communique of 2016, was reaffirmed in the declaration signed on July 11 in Brussels, despite the displays of disunity that occurred at the summit itself. But if partners do not agree on what defines the democratic institutions they are fighting to protect, and what values govern these institutions, they are more likely to disagree when interpreting whether phenomena such as disinformation or other ill-defined actions constitute a threat.
The United States should see its relationship with Poland as its best opportunity to course-correct the slide toward authoritarian policies within the democratic world. It provides a better cha nce for a positive outcome than does the U.S. relationship with either Hungary or Turkey, because Poland will likely listen. When the U.S. Department of State repeatedly expressed concern about a recent anti-free-speech law passed by the Law and Justice government, the government amended the law. When three U.S. senators wrote a letter to Polandâs leaders, softly expressing âconcernâ about rule of law, arguments over the letter erupted between the Polish public and the government for months afterward. While Polandâs attitude in response to EU rebukes is one of defiance, it reacts with respect and decisive action when the U.S. takes a stand. So, the U.S. should, now, take a stand in favor of joined values and international security. As it should hold itself to these values, it should hold its close ally, Poland, to them as well. And it should call on its ally to recommit to these values by jettisoning policies of legal confusion and chaos.
Photo by Sean Gallup/Get ty Images: A man holds up his hand to people participating in a pro-democracy march holding a giant Polish flag on February 27, 2016 in Warsaw, Poland. Tens of thousands of people, many of whom had come from across Poland, marched through the city center to protest against the current government of the Law and Justice party (PiS), which has taken strident steps towards undermining democracy in Poland, including curtailing the power of the Constitutional Court and forcing out critical journalists in state-run media.Sign Up for the Early Edition Get Early Edition
The Trump-Bolton Misdirection on Russian Extradition: Plenty of Legal Options Exist to Gain Custody of Russian Suspects
by Steven Arrigg Koh
Six Big Takeaways from Muellerâs Indictment of Russian Intel Officers
by Andy Wright, Alex Whiting, Ryan Goodman and Kate Brannen
President Trumpâs Stain on B rett Kavanaugh and How to Remove Itâ"Setting the Record Straight Part Two
by Norman L. Eisen and Ryan Goodman
What Judge Kavanaughâs âOriginalismâ Means for the Country
by Christopher Sprigman
With Trump Talk of Crimea Deal, Will U.S. Bulwark Hold?
by Viola Gienger
Setting the Record Straight: Brett Kavanaughâs Views on Criminal Investigation of the President
by Bob Bauer and Ryan Goodman
Trump Adminâs Distorted Data Doesnât Prove Its Cruel Border Policy Deters Migration
by Harsha Panduranga
Trumpâs Militia Pardon is Another Blow to Federal Law Enforcement
by Barbara McQuade
Information Operations are a Cybersecurity Problem: Toward a New Strategic Paradigm to Combat Disinformation
by Jonathon Morgan and Renee DiResta
Turkey, NATOâs Odd Man Out?
by James F. Jeffrey
Squandered Opportunity?â"Despite New Agreement, South Sudanâs Civ il War Continues
by John Hursh
Unpacking DOJâs New Claim that DHS Can Legally Detain Migrant Children with Their Parents for Longer than Twenty Days
by Marty Lederman, Deborah Pearlstein and Ryan Goodman
Time for a Reckoning in Yemen
by Stephen J. Rapp
Studies: Mass Detention of Migrant Families is Unnecessary, Inefficient
by Eleanor Acer
Kennedyâs Replacement: Presidential Self-Interest and the Functions of the Confirmation Process
by Bob Bauer
Contrary to Popular Belief, the Court Did Not Hold that the Travel Ban is Lawfulâ"Anything But
by Marty Lederman
Child Separation in the Courts
by Deborah Pearlstein
The Radical Supreme Court Travel Ban Opinionâ"But why it might not apply to other immigrantsâ rights cases
by Adam Cox, Ryan Goodman and Cristina RodrÃguez
The Broad Reach of Carpenter v. United States
by Paul Ohm
The T rump Administration Must Extend Temporary Protected Status for Yemenis
by Barbara Bodine, Gerald Feierstein and Stephen A. Seche
Saudi Arabiaâs Misleading Email to Congress After Bombing of MSF Cholera Hospital
by Ryan Goodman
Detention of Migrant Families as âDeterrenceâ: Ethical Flaws and Empirical Doubts
by Adam Cox and Ryan Goodman
Where Family Separation Began: A Case in El Paso Shows Flores is the Solution, Not the Problem
by Katherine Hawkins
âZero Toleranceâ and the Detention of Children: Torture under International Law
by Meg Satterthwaite and Rebecca Riddell
In Saudi Arabia, Countering Terrorism Becomes Chimera for Rights Abuses
by Ben Emmerson QC and Fionnuala NÃ AolÃ¡in
Paul Manafort = Evidence of Collusion
by Ryan Goodman
The Complicated Truths of the DOJ IG Report
by Kate Brannen
Appeals Judges Turn the ICC on its Head with Bemba Decision
by Alex Whiting
The Department of Defenseâs Report on Civilian Casualties: A Step Forward in Transparency?
by Daniel R. Mahanty, Rahma A. Hussein and Alex Moorehead
The Technicolor Zone of Cyberspace, Part 2
by Colonel Gary Corn and Eric Jensen
Will Trump Administration Claim Congress Authorized Force against Iran?â"Analysis of Existing Statutory Authority and New Proposals
by Tess Bridgeman
OLCâs Formal (and Remarkably Broad) Defense of the April Syria Strikes
by Steve Vladeck
UPDATE: Mapping Statesâ Reactions to the Syria Strikes of April 2018
by Alonso Gurmendi Dunkelberg, Rebecca Ingber, Priya Pillai and Elvina PotheletView all Â»
- Rule of Law
About the Author(s)
Melissa HooperDirector of Human Rights and Civil Society program at Human Rights First; previously worked for nine years as a practicing lawyer in state and federal courts on death penalty cases. Send A Letter To The Editor
Read these related stories next:
China and the Rule of Law: A Cautionary Tale for the International Community
June 28, 2018 by Maj. Ronald T. P. Alcala, Lt. Col. Eugene (John) Gregory and Lt. Col. Shane Reeves
Why itâs Far Worse for Trump to Fire Ros enstein than to Fire Mueller
December 18, 2017 by Asha Rangappa
Former Prosecutor Renato Mariottiâs Tweet Threads on National Security (Nov. 3-10)
November 10, 2017 by Artin Afkhami
Norms Watch: Democracy, the Trump Administration, and Reactions to It (October 2017)
November 1, 2017 by Artin Afkhami
Norms Watch: Democracy, the Trump Administration, and Reactions to It (Aug 25-Sept 1)
September 1, 2017 by Hannah Ryan
Democracy in Peril in Poland
January 29, 2016 by Fionnuala NÃ AolÃ¡in and Adam TwardowskiSource: Google News Poland | Netizen 24 Poland