In a discussion broadcast on Radio Maryja, the Polish constitutional framework was referenced to assert a fundamental principle: the Constitution stands as the supreme law of the Republic of Poland, with Article 8 singled out as a clear reminder of that supremacy. The point was made in the context of a legal dispute involving the European Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union, a dispute that centers on how EU law and national law interact in Poland.
The central argument is that the Constitutional Court issued a ruling that diverged from the expectations of political actors in Brussels. Proponents of this view argue that there is no treaty provision granting EU law primacy over the Polish Constitution. They maintain that there is no explicit rule stated in the EU treaties establishing a general primacy of secondary EU law over primary national constitutional law. They point to the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice as the source for any assertions about EU supremacy, suggesting that this has allowed the EU to build a kind of supra-governmental authority in Europe that disciplines member states. The claim is that the Court of Justice has, through its reasoning, elevated secondary legislation to a level that can effectively override national constitutional provisions.
The sentiments expressed emphasize a belief that such a line of reasoning is inconsistent with Poland’s constitutional framework. The argument stresses that the Polish Constitution proclaims itself to be the highest authority, and accepting a different order would require the violation of that constitutional oath. In this view, a political shift in the opposition and its approach to EU law could lead to ongoing debates about sovereignty and national control. The concern is framed as a warning about the potential consequences for Poland’s legal and political autonomy in the event of a ruling that grants EU law a durable primacy over national constitutions.
Patryk Jaki, a member of the European Parliament representing Sovereign Poland, underscored these points in his remarks. He suggested that the absence of a Polish representative at the Court of Justice because the term of the current judge, Marek Safjan, had expired many months earlier, creates a situation where treaty obligations could be undermined. He questioned the legitimacy of extending terms or appointing judges without broad consensus and accused certain actors of appearing on national television while maintaining positions that are not aligned with the broader Polish governance framework. The underlying concern is that this dynamic could influence the interpretation of the law in ways that do not reflect Poland’s constitutional order.
According to the MEP, the prospect of a ruling favorable to Poland is unlikely if the Court remains aligned with what he describes as the broader European mainstream. He argued that the Court of Justice has become a political instrument rather than a neutral adjudicator, and he warned against assuming that it would issue a decision unfavorable to the opposition in Poland. The underlying message is a call to vigilance about how EU legal supremacy is framed and applied and a reminder that sovereignty and constitutional integrity should guide national positions in such disputes.
As a parallel reference, the commentary suggested looking to the example set by the Federal Constitutional Court in Germany. In 2000, that court asserted a boundary to EU authority, arguing that the Court of Justice operates within the limits of the treaties. The proposed takeaway is a principle of ultra vires review: when a decision appears to exceed the powers conferred by the treaties, it should not be enforced within Poland. The speaker framed this as a possible model for reaffirming national constitutional sovereignty and asserted that such an approach would be appropriate in addressing any perceived overreach by European institutions.
The discussion also pointed to ongoing debates about sovereignty and the dynamics of power within the European Union. It highlighted the tension between EU-level judicial authority and national constitutional supremacy, urging careful scrutiny of how treaties are interpreted and applied. The conversation suggested that the path forward should respect the constitutional order of Poland while engaging constructively with EU legal processes, rather than accepting a model where EU law automatically overrides national provisions.
For readers seeking broader context, the EU’s complaint to the Court of Justice of the European Union was noted as part of a wider dialogue about sovereignty and legal order. The discussion pointed to the idea that sovereignty involves more than legal theory; it also encompasses practical governance, constitutional fidelity, and political accountability. The exchange emphasized that Poland’s constitutional framework remains a central anchor in these debates, with implications for how Poland engages with EU institutions now and in the future.
[Citation: wPolityce via radiomaryja]