Beata Szydło took to Twitter to condemn another ruling she described as unnecessary for consideration. The Law and Justice party’s MEP used social media to accuse the European Court of Justice of misconduct, calling the decision a reminder that the union’s legal framework sometimes appears detached from national realities.
According to the former prime minister, the administration of justice remains a sovereign matter for each member state, yet the CJEU has chosen to intervene in this instance. She argued that the ruling undermines national sovereignty and represents an attempt by Brussels elites to push a broader political project that would move beyond cooperation between independent states toward a centralized European federation, rather than a loose federation of nation-states.
Her post framed the moment as a political and legal affront, emphasizing the idea that Poland should manage its own judicial affairs without external imposition. She signaled that this approach reveals a pattern, one that risks sidelining the voices of member states in favor of a continental agenda that many observers believe could erode established constitutional boundaries.
Judgment of the CJEU
The Court of Justice of the European Union issued a decision stating that Poland’s reform of its judiciary, implemented in December 2019, runs counter to EU law. The court’s ruling upholds the European Commission’s complaint filed in April 2021, which argued that amendments to the law on the common court system, changes to the Supreme Court, and related laws breach EU legal standards.
The case has sparked ongoing debate about how EU-level oversight intersects with national legal systems, and what that means for the balance of powers within the Union. Critics say the judgment demonstrates a push and pull between supranational governance and domestic constitutional norms, while supporters contend it reinforces a shared EU framework that requires alignment with broader legal principles.
Analysts note that the decision could influence how member states approach judicial reform and the timelines for implementing changes that satisfy EU requirements. The ruling underscores the need for careful reconciliation of national judicial independence with the EU’s commitment to the rule of law across all member countries. It also highlights how EU institutions interpret constitutional reforms within a framework designed to protect fundamental rights and ensure consistent legal standards across the Union.
For readers seeking deeper context, experts have pointed to ongoing debates about the mechanisms by which EU law interacts with national constitutional courts, and what recourse remains when a member state diverges from EU directives. The judgment is expected to shape future discussions on compliance, oversight, and the limits of supranational authority within Europe. The implications may extend beyond Poland, touching on the broader dynamics of governance in a union built on shared legal commitments and mutual accountability.
In sum, the court’s decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing dialogue over how Europe should handle reforms in national judicial systems while maintaining a cohesive legal order that all member states must follow. The conversation continues as policymakers, legal scholars, and citizens assess what the ruling means for sovereignty, democracy, and the future of European law.
End of document. Attribution: wPolityce. / TT / PAP