Dialogue with European institutions remains substantive and yields measurable outcomes, said EU Minister Szymon Szynkowski vel Sęk, reflecting on the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) decision to ease Poland’s sanction. The ruling moves the penalty from an initial daily sum of one million euros to five hundred thousand euros, effective from October 27, 2021. The case centers on a dispute between Poland and the European Commission over reforms to the judiciary and the implications for EU law on judicial independence.
The minister noted that the CJEU acknowledged Poland’s progress in implementing provisional measures and that the penalties were significantly reduced. He stressed that while differences persist on certain elements, open channels of dialogue with Brussels are productive and clearly beneficial. The ongoing discussion between Warsaw and EU institutions is expected to continue in the interest of ensuring compliance with European standards while respecting national legal reforms.
These remarks were shared with a news agency on a recent Friday, reflecting an ongoing process rather than a completed settlement. The European Commission had previously brought the case before the CJEU in 2021, alleging that adjustments to the Polish judiciary contradicted EU requirements on judicial independence and impartiality. The Commission argued that national courts must be able to assess compliance with EU standards without interference, and that the changes in Poland could compromise this critical function.
During the proceedings, the CJEU decision instructed Poland to pay a daily penalty of one million euros. On March 10, 2023, Poland sought annulment or, alternatively, amendment of that order, arguing that the country had fully met its provisional obligations through its legislative reforms. In light of measures taken, including the abolition of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, the CJEU ultimately decided to reduce the amount of the ongoing penalty payment.
Conclusions of the CJEU
The vice-president of the Court clarified that Poland, at the time of provisional measures, did not demonstrate a full and effective suspension of provisions restricting national courts from examining compliance with EU directives concerning an independent and impartial tribunal. This included the mechanisms for challenging disciplinary actions against judges and the proper conduct of investigations into judicial independence.
Poland was noted to have implemented provisions that enable investigations into alleged shortcomings in judicial independence and court impartiality. At the same time, the court highlighted that Poland had withdrawn the Disciplinary Chamber’s powers to rule on judge status and that the Chamber had been abolished, aligning with the broader objective of restoring lawful and independent adjudication processes.
The decision also indicates a continued emphasis on ensuring that mechanisms for evaluating judicial independence remain accessible and effective. While a formal suspension of certain national provisions was not fully demonstrated, the court recognized steps taken by Poland to address concerns, including the removal of the Disciplinary Chamber and related reforms in line with EU expectations.
As the case unfolds, observers note the broader implications for Poland’s legal framework and its relationship with EU rule-of-law standards. The CJEU’s ruling demonstrates how corrective actions, even if controversial or contested within national contexts, can influence EU-level enforcement while leaving room for ongoing dialogue and adjustment by the member state involved. The focus remains on upholding judicial independence as a cornerstone of European Union governance, with Poland actively engaging in the process to align with EU directives and expectations.
Poland’s experience underscores a broader pattern across EU member states where national reforms and EU oversight intersect. The dialogue between Warsaw and EU institutions continues to shape the interpretation and application of EU law in national judicial systems, reinforcing the idea that adherence to shared standards is an evolving, collaborative process. The recalibrated penalty stands as a reminder of the balance between enforcement and constructive reform within the EU legal framework.