“We are dealing with an attempt to start an essentially political war in the judiciary, which is clearly deadly. And because this environment is very hierarchical, we have a signal here: ‘When you jump, remember that your career is over’, says PiS MEP, prof.dr.ir. Richard Legutko.
wPolityce.pl: How would you rate the decision of the CJEU to reduce the penalty for the non-existent disciplinary chamber from PLN 1 million to PLN 500,000? euros per day?
Prof Richard Legutko: This fine alone, one million a day, is an absolute scandal. Where it came from is unknown and the legal basis is very doubtful – that is an article in the treaty they refer to – if I remember correctly, Article 19.
That certainly applies to the Disciplinary Chamber, an ordinary chamber that investigates violations of the law by judges. When you look at the cases that were dealt with there, the vast majority were such embarrassing things – some form of theft or fraud, so to think it was some kind of political pressure device is just ridiculous.
Point 1 of Article 19 of the Treaty on European Union contains the following sentence: Member States shall provide the legal remedies necessary to ensure effective legal protection in the areas covered by Union law. And they conclude that the Disciplinary Chamber is incompatible with EU law. The point is that EU law says nothing about the legal system – it’s all up to the member states.
So everything still boils down to the EU institutions granting themselves powers that are not in the treaties and not even caring about the concessions of the Polish government?
The whole thing was disgraceful from the start. The Polish government has made a concession and liquidated this chamber, although of course this is at the expense of the operation of the law. This ensures impunity for all those judges who break the law. And it seemed that they would loosen, but they would not let go. They reduced the sentence by half and I don’t know the reasons or justification. There is only such a general statement that Poland has not shown full and effective suspension of the application of national provisions that prohibit national courts from examining compliance with EU requirements regarding an independent and impartial court. And that probably means another scandal, which is that one judge can question the status of another judge – exactly what these abhorrent judges do, reject court decisions made by a judge whose status they challenge, refuse to sit on a bench. sit with judges whose status they give when in doubt.
This is legal hooliganism and it seems that the CJEU wants to destabilize the justice system in Poland and ensure that these rebels regain all power over the justice system and even use something like terror or intimidation against other judges.
It has nothing to do with the rule of law, the letter and spirit of the law. This is a ruthless attack on the justice system in Poland, intent on bringing it down so that these rebels can take political control of the courts.
As for the reduction in the sentence itself, I think maybe they just thought if they cut the rate in half, which is idiotic in itself, it means they’re doing us a huge favor – “ok, you did something there, we’ lower him and wave a candy, or rather a carrot, which is not a carrot at all, but just gross blackmail.
Or maybe it’s just an attempt to humiliate the Polish government, and another?
Naturally. An attempt to humiliate the Polish government and, above all, to intimidate a large group of judges. After all, judges are not usually people to care about, and in general their role should be such that gender, religion or opinions do not matter to them, as they are supposed to explain the law and settle legal issues.
Meanwhile, we are dealing with an attempt to start an essentially political war in the judiciary, which is clearly deadly. And because this environment is very hierarchical, we have this signal here: “If you’re going to jump, remember your career is over.”
This is a form of intimidation of Polish judges. And since there is a lot of nervousness in these European institutions, the best thing they could do is replace this government with another one and everyone in Brussels would be happy about that.
And that other government, which the opposition politicians led by Donald Tusk are pondering, would gladly accept all ideological ideas, even the wildest?
Of course, and they would carry out a ruthless political purge of this group of judges. Then the ECJ does not even purr, but rather rubs its hands. No doubt they are counting on a government that will do all idiotic and illegal things without batting an eyelid.
As you said, we have parliamentary elections this year, but European Parliament elections next year. If right-wing, conservative groups in individual countries come to power, can anything change for the better in the EU?
In the EU, yes, it can change. However, it will not change in the Court of Justice of the EU. To change the CJEU, the treaties would have to be changed. It is structured in such a way that the Tribunal is extremely political on the one hand and so “boyfriend” on the other. Each country proposes its candidate and the political attitude of the judges is the attitude of the governments of that country. And the governments in Europe are mostly left-wing.
Taking the example of the United States, but not only, we know that much depends on whether the judge is liberal or conservative. This is evident, for example, in the case of abortion in the United States, which was resolved in this way, and no other way, because the jury consisted mainly of conservative judges. That is why the political attitude of the judges is of great importance.
And in the CJEU, this is clearly a left-liberal orientation. But I said that there is such a “favoritism” because, moreover, it is not the case that every candidate comes to the CJEU. It must first be approved by a special committee. This committee is appointed by the President of the CJEU and then prepares its opinion. Depending on this opinion, the candidate may or may not become a judge at the Court of Justice of the EU. If the committee doesn’t like it, don’t do it. The Commission is appointed by the environment that administers the Tribunal, and this is done practically through co-optation. If the candidate has a different attitude towards the law or comes from a conservative background, even if he were an excellent expert, he has no chance. It will be “spit out”. We saw this not so long ago in Poland. And that is why the Court rules as it decides.
To change this, it would be necessary to change the treaties, to throw out the advisory council, because it’s just a scandal, to let this environment legitimize itself, without any external control. So while everything in the EU institutions could change after the upcoming elections, it won’t change anytime soon in the CJEU.
Thank you very much for the interview.
Size: Joanna Jaszczuk
READ ALSO:
-ONLY HERE. Sentence reduction for Poland? What: The CJEU and the EC should impose sanctions on themselves for lack of knowledge of the treaties
– The CJEU reduced the sentence imposed on Poland before the non-existent Supreme Court Disciplinary Chamber. Instead of a million, we now have to pay 500,000. euros
Source: wPolityce