First, the good news. Despite the governing nationalist-conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party doing everything to monopolize Poland’s presidential election campaign, over 68 percent cast their ballots at the vote’s second and final round on July 12, 2020. A near-record high.
Moreover, it ended up being an extremely tight race. The incumbent, PiS’s candidate, President Andrzej Duda, barely snatched victory, winning 51.03 percent of the votes. His opponent, Rafał Trzaskowski, a latecomer to the campaign, won 48.97 percent.
Now, the bad news. The country, the EU’s sixth-largest economy, is deeply polarized between East and West, between younger and older generations, between cities and rural communities, and over the role of values and the country’s past. It’s hard to see Duda finding common ground with the millions of voters who opted for the pro-EU, liberal Trzaskowski.
It’s also hard to see Duda changing course from lambasting liberal values, from using antisemitism and anti-German slogans to consolidate his popularity, from undermining the independence of the judiciary, and from Poland’s current collision course with the EU.
Indeed, now more than ever, the EU has a big responsibility for the future of Poland’s democracy and the credibility of the bloc’s legal order.
The EU has three crises on its hands: the coronavirus pandemic, a massive economic downturn, and an attack on the core values that underpin the European project—the rule of law and respect for the EU’s treaties and rules.
The challenge is to tackle these crises in a coherent way. Solidarity and financial transfers must strengthen the values that connect Europeans, not undermine them. This is not what is happening at this moment.
Poland has benefited enormously from generous EU support in recent years. It stands to benefit more in the near future. In May, the European Commission proposed a recovery fund worth €750 billion to save the EU economies most affected by the coronavirus.
Out of this, €63.8 billion is to be allocated to Poland, more than half in the form of nonrefundable grants. It would be the third-largest tranche among EU countries after those to Italy and Spain. At the same time, the commission proposes to increase the EU’s next seven-year budget, running from 2021 to 2027, including more money for Poland through structural and agricultural funds.
The Polish government said the generous funding proposal, which is yet to be agreed by member states, was due to its tough stance during negotiations. Yet the proposal ignores the elephant in the room: an unprecedented crisis concerning Poland’s rule of law.
On October 10, 2019, the commission took Poland to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in Luxembourg, arguing that a new disciplinary regime for judges seriously undermines the independence of courts and violates the Treaty on European Union (TEU).
On April 8, 2020, the CJEU ruled: “Poland must immediately suspend the application of the national provisions on the powers of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court with regard to disciplinary cases concerning judges.” Poland was given until early May to inform the commission of how it would enforce the judgment.
But the Disciplinary Chamber rejected the CJEU’s judgment. Polish Deputy Justice Minister Sebastian Kaleta argued that the CJEU decision was “an usurpation violating Polish sovereignty” and “not, in fact, within the framework of the powers conferred on the EU, because the EU simply does not have the authority to assess the legality of constitutional bodies in a member state.”
The risk is real that the Polish government could be preparing to reject the decision of the CJEU on an issue of fundamental importance, thus cutting Poland off the European legal order. The effort to create a judiciary where every judge can be intimidated and controlled by the Polish minister of justice, who is also the chief prosecutor, continues unabated.
The EU needs to react, but it has few tools. What is required seems obvious: member states should insist that future financial solidarity is conditional on respect for the rule of law. Implementing all CJEU judgments related to the rule of law should be a non-negotiable precondition for receiving funding from the EU budget.
The founding principle of the EU is that its twenty-seven democracies decide voluntarily to share sovereignty based on the trust that they will all abide by some common standards. Having independent courts is one of these standards.
Article 2 of the TEU states that the EU is “founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.” Article 19 demands that member states “provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law.”
But what happens when one member state undermines the rule of law and democracy, violates articles 2 and 19, and ignores judgments on this from the CJEU? What happens is that the bond tying the twenty-seven members together dissolves—that is, the belief that all member states remain fully committed to the values of the treaties.
This belief is of existential importance. It needs to be defended in the whole EU’s vital self-interest. And such a member needs to be confronted with the tools the EU has: political arguments, court decisions, and funding.
Countries refusing to implement judgments of the CJEU relating to the basic rule of law should not receive EU money.
Once a member state government takes an à la carte approach to the rule of law, the basis for solidarity disappears. If some do not abide by the rules that bind all, why should others? Coronavirus recovery grants—and all future structural funds—should be open to every EU member committed to respecting the values of the European treaties. This should be self-evident, but it no longer is.
After more than a decade of talk about conditionality, it is time for member states to act. If solidarity is to survive, it must also extend to respecting the principles that bind all members.
Poland, like all EU members, should receive solidarity and support. But all the other members should also have certainty that Poland, or others in the future, will not undermine the principles that hold the EU together.
This is not happening; the damage Poland is inflicting on the EU is immeasurable. Does Duda really understand what is at stake?
Gerald Knaus is the founding chairman of the European Stability Initiative.
Comments(7)
It means a rejection of massive mafia interests linked to Vladimir Putin, which made tens of billions of dollars under DonaldTusk.
Care to elaborate?
If the role of the EU is to ossify inept judiciaries in EU countries and prevent judicial reforms, then the EU needs a lot of luck. Luck may be a major remaining argument that can make this international association work in longer term. Poland spends well above average % of GDP on judiciary. Even so, Poles as well as companies experience some of the longest waiting times to have cases heard and resolved. More so, judges caught committing crimes, even as obvious as stealing in a supermarket and being recorded on CCTV, are let go scot free by their colleagues, and continue as acting judges without much ado. This and many other facts, including the experience of victims of unfair treatment in courts, necessitate a reset of the judicial system in Poland. Without the reforms enforced by PiS, the Polish judiciary will continue to be a joke. The judges' moral standing is just too low to be allowed in a country where citizens want to live in a modern state. The judges had 30 years to wean themselves off the legacy of a judiciary where loyal adherence to lies produced by the communist government was more important than talent, and they made no meaningful changes over this time by themselves. The old way of running the judiciary is a proven failure, and opposition parties never really proposed an alternative reform. Meanwhile, about 80% of Poles consistently have a low approval for how Poland's courts work and a solid majority supports a need to reform the judiciary. As I mention at the beginning, the EU as a whole needs really a lot of luck to persuade Poles that it acts in their interests in any way, especially as it toys some financial punishments if "Poland doesn't obey" at the same time. It's is very similar to what former occupiers of Poland would have done. If any people in the EU bother to know some history, they will know that the EU rulings, and the rambling of Poland's opposition parties that support external interventions in domestic politics, will barely make any dent on public opinion.
Why should a state bend the back to obey Court’s judgment if that judgment is contested ? Like any justiciable,, the Polish state has the right to contest the application of law, constitutional law of that court. It is to that court to explain why it has the right to rule that decision.
The problem with the EU is the fact that the Germans are in the block. If the Germans were not parr of the EU it would have succeeded. The is a mistrust in voters of all the surrounding countries, who still remember the Second World War, or remember their family members complaining about them. The younger (40 to 50 year olds) generation also, hence, do not trust them because they believe that they want to be an economic empire, and never stopped wanting power since WWII. The left v's right politics is a red herring. The real problem for the EU is Germany. There will never be a consensus of population in the other EU countries that want them. This is the real reason for Brexit, and the recent result of the Polish election. If you will be honest with yourself, you will also acknowledge the truth of this fact.
1. Democratically elected polish government run on reforming judiciary 2. Reforms don't go beyod what is implemented in other countries 3. EU doesn't have jurisdiction over judiciary in member states
Poland is for the most part self sufficient. It does NOT need the EU. My bet? It leaves the EU.
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.