no independence
The European Court of Justice has once again sided with the European Commission, confirming that a 2019 Polish judicial reform undermines the core principles of the European Union’s legal order. The decision underscores the EU’s commitment to an independent judiciary and signals that Poland must align its laws with the union’s standards. This outcome reflects a long-running process in which Brussels has repeatedly pushed back against measures that could compromise judicial independence and the fair application of EU law.
According to the Commission, the disciplinary chamber of the Polish Supreme Court was granted authority over matters that affect the status of judges, yet its independence and impartiality were not safeguarded. Moreover, the reform restricts national courts from examining compliance with EU requirements and makes such verification a disciplinary offense. The policy also obliges judges to disclose information about involvement with associations or foundations and past political affiliations, and it requires the public posting of this data. Critics argue that these provisions infringe on privacy and the protection of personal data, undermining basic rights that the EU seeks to protect for everyone in member states.
This sequence of concerns began to accumulate in 2021 when the European judges raised questions about the reform. Following a process of non-compliance verification, the Vice-President of the Court previously imposed a daily fine of one million euros, a figure that was later adjusted as the case progressed. By the most recent ruling, the financial penalties were reduced, reflecting a belief that Warsaw was moving in a constructive direction even as the Court continued its review. The decision highlights that the sanctions energy and the gradual adjustments were part of a broader effort to secure compliance with EU requirements while respecting national circumstances.
no independence
The latest ruling aligns with the assessment that the disciplinary chamber did not meet the necessary standards of independence and impartiality. It notes that judges empowered to enforce EU law risk deciding on issues related to the structure and duties of the chamber, which could erode their perceived neutrality. This finding emphasizes that the mechanisms designed to protect the rule of law must operate without real or perceived conflicts of interest.
The Court also found that the Polish legislative measures diverged from guarantees that ensure access to an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. It concluded that placing the power to verify essential elements of judicial protection in the hands of a single national body contradicts the Union’s legal framework. This part of the ruling reinforces the need for checks and balances that align with EU standards of due process and fair scrutiny.
Additionally, the European Court addressed provisions requiring judges to disclose membership in associations, non-profit foundations, or political parties and to publish such information online. The Court stated that forcing public disclosure of past affiliations infringes on fundamental rights, including the protection of personal data and the right to private life. The ruling emphasized that online publication can expose judges to undue scrutiny and stigma from litigants and the broader public, which could compromise the perception of impartiality in judicial proceedings.
In its conclusion, the Court argued that the motive behind publishing such data online does not justify the intrusion into judges’ private lives. This stance reinforces the principle that personal data should be handled with care and that the public interest in judicial impartiality must be balanced against individuals’ privacy. The decision frames these protections as essential to maintaining trust in the judiciary as a neutral arbiter of disputes and a guardian of EU rights for all residents of member countries. The ruling stands as a reminder that EU institutions will continue to monitor and guide reforms that touch the heart of judicial independence across member states.