survivalsetr.blogg.se

• #Vox media law fires hundreds writers how to#

The reforms of the Constitutional Tribunal were an early demonstration of the PiS party’s approach to the rule of law, and a troubling indication of its proclivity to evade checks on the party’s power. Ultimately, the PiS officials simply refused to publish the court’s opinion. In effect, the legislation was designed to evade judicial review.

13Īs such, the party argued that the Tribunal was required to follow the procedural rules of the act to overturn the act itself. 12 However, the ruling party maintained that the act was effective immediately. 11 They pointed out that, among other problems, the act contradicted the simple majority voting requirement mandated by Poland’s constitution. In response, incumbent judges on the Constitutional Tribunal released an opinion questioning the constitutionality of the act. 9 The act increased the number of judges needed for the court to hear a case, and mandated a two-thirds supermajority voting requirement for the court to decide an issue. Not long after its transition to power, the PiS-controlled Sejm (lower house of parliament) refused to recognize Tribunal judges appointed by the outgoing regime, 7 and instead replaced the previously appointed judges with their own “midnight appointees.” 8 Then, in December 2015, the Sejm passed an act imposing new procedural rules on the Tribunal. The changes to Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal, the court vested with the power of judicial review, 6 are just one example. It has imposed procedural rules that paralyze courts, packed courts with PiS-friendly appointees, and, in some cases, refused to follow or publish official opinions.

Since 2015, the “Law and Justice” party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, or PiS) has targeted Poland’s judicial branch with laws designed to mitigate the ability of the courts to act as a check against legislative and executive power. The so-called “muzzle” law on judicial discipline fits into a political process that spans several years. How did we get here? The collapse of Judicial Independence in Poland The paper proceeds in three parts: First, it contextualizes Poland’s new law against the country’s broader judicial revisions second, it examines the tension created by these actions with the EU and third, it considers whether there are lessons to be learned from the Polish experience in seeking to understand and protect judicial independence in a country like the United States. Here we examine the impact of Poland’s latest law on judicial discipline, as well as the implications of Poland’s challenges to judicial independence generally.

#Vox media law fires hundreds writers how to#

The EU is therefore faced with the challenge of how to respond to Poland’s apparent intransigence. Indeed, the Law and Justice party’s most recent enactment suggests that it is determined to continue with its agenda. The Polish leadership has consistently failed to heed these warnings. EU bodies have warned the party that its judicial reforms contravene principles of judicial independence and could threaten the country’s membership in the Union.

In doing so, the party has drawn the attention of the European Union (“EU”). Since its return to power in 2015, Poland’s “Law and Justice” party has frequently targeted the independence of the judiciary. Put into context, the new law is merely the latest addition to a succession of judicial changes. Since Poland’s disciplinary chamber was founded in 2017, over a thousand judges have been targeted. 4 Although the law extends the government’s disciplinary powers, disciplinary proceedings against judges are nothing new in Poland. 3 The law allows the Polish government to fire judges, or cut their salaries, for speaking out against legislation aimed at the judiciary, or for questioning the legitimacy of new judicial appointees.

1 The new law, popularly referred to as a “muzzle” law, 2 empowers a disciplinary chamber to bring proceedings against judges for questioning the ruling party’s platform. In late 2019, the Polish Sejm approved yet another law aimed at cabining the structure and function of the judiciary.