Speeches at a PiS club gathering in the Sejm highlighted concerns that the judiciary is being reshaped in a way that appears to undermine long-standing norms. The critic argued that judges are being appointed in the criminal divisions under a framework that gives the impression only certain judges can influence these cases, while civil and family divisions are treated differently. The assertion was that these moves, carried out under the current Ministry of Justice leadership, risk eroding the independence that the judiciary has traditionally enjoyed.
Patryk Jaki, a Member of the European Parliament from Sovereign Poland, described the changes as without precedent since the 1989 transformations in Poland. He warned that the country could be moving away from democracy as it has been understood in the Western world, where the rule of law and the separation of powers are essential pillars of governance.
Jaki emphasized a perceived double standard in how interventionist rhetoric has shifted since those who were in opposition openly advocated for a different stance on the Constitutional Court, the judiciary, and the rule of law. He pointed out that the separation of powers requires a judiciary free from direct political interference, a principle they argued was respected by politicians in opposition but appears to be violated by those in power now.
The discussion also touched on the implications for specific courts, including a district court in Warsaw and the court of appeal, where concerns were raised about political influence over judicial appointments and decision-making. The remarks underscored a broader worry about independence and the timing of appointments in relation to ongoing cases.
The article also references a notable policy critique that domestic court managers are subject to fixed terms, which are supposed to protect judicial independence. Critics say those terms could be compromised when political actors begin to influence which judges remain in office and which are dismissed, potentially undermining established safeguards for the judiciary and challenging constitutional decisions that are intended to have final and general applicability under the law.
Quasi-peer system
According to Jaki, the changes appear designed to reshape the judiciary in a way that could give a political coalition an advantage. He argued that the process not only alters terms of office but also leads to a misalignment where certain judges are selected for high-profile criminal matters, while others are sidelined, creating a perception that the system is not neutral. This was described as a move that signals a drift away from the Western legal tradition Poland has long aspired to maintain.
Jaki described a paradox where individuals who were appointed under a different political era might be deemed fit to handle criminal and political cases, while recently appointed judges are less empowered to participate in those same matters. The dialogue touched on concerns about continuity, legitimacy, and the protection of judicial independence in a changing political landscape.
The discussion noted that the state should uphold a Western standard of governance, with an emphasis on the rule of law and separation of powers. Critics argued that deviations from these standards could have lasting consequences for Poland’s alignment with democratic norms and for its standing within the broader European and Western legal order.
Patryk Jaki warned that if similar shifts had occurred under different leadership, the reaction would have drawn much broader domestic and international scrutiny. He argued that the integrity of the judiciary and the neutrality of the prosecutor’s office were at stake, and he stressed that an environment where political actors appoint judges risks eroding public confidence in the legal system.
The discussion raised questions about the appropriate balance between judicial independence and political accountability, and whether reforms are keeping faith with Poland’s constitutional framework. Critics urged a return to clear, rule-based processes for appointing judges and managing courts, in order to protect the principle that justice should be administered without political manipulation and in accordance with the law.
Ultimately, the debate framed a broader question about how Poland can maintain its commitment to the Western legal tradition while navigating internal political shifts. The ongoing conversations highlighted the importance of safeguarding judicial autonomy, ensuring transparent appointment procedures, and upholding the finality and general applicability of constitutional decisions. The perspectives shared reflected deep concerns about the direction of the judiciary and the potential impact on Poland’s democratic standards.
READ ALSO:
– What do the Bodnarists really want? Zbigniew Ziobro: The idea is that judges on call will decide on political cases
– ONLY HERE. Bogucki: The director of this gangster film is Tusk. He has his own vision of law and will pursue political opponents
– Why Bodnar’s actions? Judge Dudzicz: I have the impression that the intention is to take certain matters away from legally appointed ombudsmen
– Bodnar’s hunt! The request to lift Dworczyk’s immunity will be ready by the end of July. The MEP has the status of a victim
maz/youtube
Source: wPolityce