European Court of Justice orders Poland to reinstate judges

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/doc ... 0159en.pdf

In short: the European Court of Justice, in proceedings between Poland and the European Commission, has implemented interim measures for Poland to comply with. Poland introduced a law which lowered the age maximum of the Supreme Court from 70 to 65, and would implement that law with immediate effect. Judges who wanted to stay on past the retirement limit of 65 would have to apply for an extension of their term with the President of Poland, who would then decide based on his own criteria. In effect, this means that compliant judges can be kept on for 5 years longer than their dissident counterparts, making the Supreme Court effectively controlled by the president of the Republic.

I a move that made her my immediate hero, the president of the Supreme Court Małgorzata Gersdorf refused to step down, and her deputy, appointed by Duda to replace Gersdorf, refused to take her place. She claimed that removing her was unlawful, as the Constitution of Poland gives her a term she has not yet completed. Since then, the Supreme Court has been at odds with the government. The European Commission (the day-to-day governing body of the EU) decided to implement a judicial procedure for non-compliance against Poland, since the EU has certain liberal-democratic requirements for its member states. As an interim measure, the European Court of Justice has suspended the new age limit, at least until they give a final ruling on the substance of the case.

In my view, this is good news. Poland is slowly becoming more and more authoritarian, and filling the Supreme Court with Duda's friends would not have made that any better. I am curious to see what the ECJ will decide in the end, because this is the first time that the ECJ decides on the requirements of a liberal democracy.

What do you think, oh NSG, keeper of the Swans?

[Trumptonium1]

Communist judges should have been jailed in 1989, not allowed to continue with their career, let alone into 2015. Especially if they at any point ordered a life sentence or capital punishment on anyone who protested for freedom. They should be the ones who should have been tried in a military court and rubber stamped with capital punishment for treason.

But, regardless, nobody cares what the ECJ says. As an added bonus, Poland is going to ask its own constitutional tribunal to rule on whether European law supersedes the Polish constitution in areas where the constitution and the EU conflict. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... n-campaign

The realistic and morally right answer is no. This is the death of EU law. Italy is also ignoring a ruling, and so is Hungary.

[The Commonwealth of Tennessee]

What I see here is good being done by the EU for once. They've done controversial things in the past, but it's clear this time that Poland pushed the needle too far. Good on the EU for maintaining it's member-states.

*Edit: Probably won't change anything, given how several states such as Italy, Hungary, and Poland included have ignored the EU in the past.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

If Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe in general want to keep flirting with authoritarianism then they should all be kicked out of the EU, and possibly even NATO.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Communist judges should have been jailed in 1989, not allowed to continue with their career, let alone into 2015. Especially if they at any point ordered a life sentence or capital punishment on anyone who protested for freedom. They should be the ones who should have been tried in a military court and rubber stamped with capital punishment for treason.

But, regardless, nobody cares what the ECJ says. As an added bonus, Poland is going to ask its own constitutional tribunal to rule on whether European law supersedes the Polish constitution in areas where the constitution and the EU conflict. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... n-campaign

The realistic and morally right answer is no. This is the death of EU law. Italy is also ignoring a ruling, and so is Hungary.

I could start explaining the intricacies of EU law, how the supremacy of EU law has been a fact since the seventies, how this has serious consequences for EU funds in Poland, and how countries already don't extradite suspects to Poland because of a lacking democratic order.

But, if we're both being honest, I would just be wasting my time with you, wouldn't I?

[Kowani]

Regardless of the EU ruling (Let’s face it, it won’t be obeyed anyway.), I think the judge is in the right here. Besides the rampant cronyism that would happen if the change to the constitution was obeyed, the fact of the matter is, she signed up for a set amount of time, and then they changed the rules. Y’know what that’s called? Asshattery.

[The Commonwealth of Tennessee]

If Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe in general want to keep flirting with authoritarianism then they should all be kicked out of the EU, and possibly even NATO.

Minus the fact Poland would kick and scream to stay within the grace of NATO, more specifically the USA.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Regardless of the EU ruling (Let’s face it, it won’t be obeyed anyway.), I think the judge is in the right here. Besides the rampant cronyism that would happen if the change to the constitution was obeyed, the fact of the matter is, she signed up for a set amount of time, and then they changed the rules. Y’know what that’s called? Asshattery.

I don't really get where people get the idea from that the EU has no way to enforce its rules. The EU can enforce the payment of fines by shutting down EU funds in certain countries. It's really easy. Besides that, the EU ruling will have far more effects, especially in cross-European cooperation. The Polish government may try not to conform to the EU ruling, but that will cost them dearly in terms of EU funding.

[Uxupox]

If Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe in general want to keep flirting with authoritarianism then they should all be kicked out of the EU, and possibly even NATO.

Why is that?

[Trumptonium1]

Communist judges should have been jailed in 1989, not allowed to continue with their career, let alone into 2015. Especially if they at any point ordered a life sentence or capital punishment on anyone who protested for freedom. They should be the ones who should have been tried in a military court and rubber stamped with capital punishment for treason.

But, regardless, nobody cares what the ECJ says. As an added bonus, Poland is going to ask its own constitutional tribunal to rule on whether European law supersedes the Polish constitution in areas where the constitution and the EU conflict. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... n-campaign

The realistic and morally right answer is no. This is the death of EU law. Italy is also ignoring a ruling, and so is Hungary.

I could start explaining the intricacies of EU law, how the supremacy of EU law has been a fact since the seventies, how this has serious consequences for EU funds in Poland, and how countries already don't extradite suspects to Poland because of a lacking democratic order.

But, if we're both being honest, I would just be wasting my time with you, wouldn't I?

Yes, because all of these are irrelevant. Except the last, which is fake news.

Any 'consequences' for EU funds in Poland can just be replaced with Poland taxing corporate dividends to the EU. That's a much larger pool of cash to follow, and till now they have been extremely generous. Not sure the French supermarkets and German banks will be happy but in reality who cares? EU loses more by cutting off funds, which are nothing more than compensation for loss of domestic industry. As far as I remember corporate dividends distributed to the EU amounts to around 30 billion USD a year, can easily be taxed at 51% and thus entirely replace the EU development funds and add 5bn on top.

As it remains, Poland is one of only six countries in the EU which does not tax dividend distribution. Simple arithmetic - Germany pays out 2bn euros a year in infrastructure development but Lidl and Bosch receive ~6bn in corporate dividends and use that to pay tax in Germany and pay German employees. I'm sure you can figure out the end game is a lose-lose. It's not a win-lose.

Actually I'm not sure if it's a lose-lose, the only thing Poland loses is potential investment from non-EU sources who will be worried Poland may tax their own corporate dividends in the future. At the end of the day they get more money than they lost so that's not a lose.

[Trumptonium1]

Regardless of the EU ruling (Let’s face it, it won’t be obeyed anyway.), I think the judge is in the right here. Besides the rampant cronyism that would happen if the change to the constitution was obeyed, the fact of the matter is, she signed up for a set amount of time, and then they changed the rules. Y’know what that’s called? Asshattery.

I don't really get where people get the idea from that the EU has no way to enforce its rules. The EU can enforce the payment of fines by shutting down EU funds in certain countries. It's really easy. Besides that, the EU ruling will have far more effects, especially in cross-European cooperation. The Polish government may try not to conform to the EU ruling, but that will cost them dearly in terms of EU funding.

So you really, genuienly, think that Poland will scream and cry over 0.4% of its GDP // 9% of its government budget no longer being sent to them for free when it's growing at 5.2% a year?

I'm sure that will change everything. Yup.

(bit less than 9%, since a large part of that is EU contributions, because the EU is efficient with admin so it wants everybody to contribute and then skims off an admin fee and then redistributes it back where it pleases. it's closer to 6% if we remove Polish EU contributions of 3.1 billion EUR -- oh! this is another expenditure that can be fully suspended.)

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

If Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe in general want to keep flirting with authoritarianism then they should all be kicked out of the EU, and possibly even NATO.

Why is that?

Having authoritarian leanings in an organization made primary of non-authoritarian liberal democracies makes them a liability and a potential threat, particularly when the purpose of the organization is to defend against a nation that mostly shares those authoritarian leanings (Russia).

[Uxupox]

Why is that?

Having authoritarian leanings in an organization made primary of non-authoritarian liberal democracies makes them a liability and a potential threat, particularly when the purpose of the organization is to defend against a nation that mostly shares those authoritarian leanings (Russia).

No it's not. The United States practices a degree of pragmatism unto where whom political leaning do not matter in the geopolitical approach. Heck France has told NATO plenty of times to back off both in the 50's and in the 70's in which they refused to host and follow any procedures in accordance with NATO military regulations. Portugal during it's "Estado Novo" (An Authoritarian fascist regime of sorts) was a founding member of NATO and so was Turkey during the 70's. Contrary to popular belief NATO is not based on the value of liberty, freedom or any sort of similarity to these values but on the pragmatic approach to defend one another against a possible external enemy who acts against the members countries interests.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

I don't really get where people get the idea from that the EU has no way to enforce its rules. The EU can enforce the payment of fines by shutting down EU funds in certain countries. It's really easy. Besides that, the EU ruling will have far more effects, especially in cross-European cooperation. The Polish government may try not to conform to the EU ruling, but that will cost them dearly in terms of EU funding.

So you really, genuienly, think that Poland will scream and cry over 0.4% of its GDP // 9% of its government budget no longer being sent to them for free when it's growing at 5.2% a year?

I'm sure that will change everything. Yup.

(bit less than 9%, since a large part of that is EU contributions, because the EU is efficient with admin so it wants everybody to contribute and then skims off an admin fee and then redistributes it back where it pleases. it's closer to 6% if we remove Polish EU contributions of 3.1 billion EUR)

Yeah, no, I think Poland will mind 1/10th to 1/20th of their government spending evaporating, especially since EU funds isn't just given to the government; it is invested in important industries that help the GDP of Poland grow, like tourism and public transportation. A large number of building projects in Poland are funded by the European Union, and the entire M2 metro line in Warsaw was largely funded by the European Union. Losing that won't immediately kill every Pole alive, but projects like that matter to a local economy.

[Trumptonium1]

So you really, genuienly, think that Poland will scream and cry over 0.4% of its GDP // 9% of its government budget no longer being sent to them for free when it's growing at 5.2% a year?

I'm sure that will change everything. Yup.

(bit less than 9%, since a large part of that is EU contributions, because the EU is efficient with admin so it wants everybody to contribute and then skims off an admin fee and then redistributes it back where it pleases. it's closer to 6% if we remove Polish EU contributions of 3.1 billion EUR)

Yeah, no, I think Poland will mind 1/10th to 1/20th of their government spending evaporating, especially since EU funds isn't just given to the government; it is invested in important industries that help the GDP of Poland grow, like tourism and public transportation. A large number of building projects in Poland are funded by the European Union, and the entire M2 metro line in Warsaw was largely funded by the European Union. Losing that won't immediately kill every Pole alive, but projects like that matter to a local economy.

As I stated above, can be replaced by simply taxing corporate dividends that EU companies operating in Poland send back to their home states. That pool of money is much bigger. Placing a 19% tax (the Polish corporate tax rate) on foreign dividends would produce circa 6.5bn, which together with suspension of EU contributions (3.1bn) would yield 9.6 billion of extra money to spend, which is more than what the EU currently spends in Poland.

Polish government revenues grow faster each year than EU contributions. As I said above, the economy is growing at 5.2% a year. Literally the most pointless time to argue over EU expenditure, since that is widely seen as disposable by now by both the government and the citzenry given the ongoing boom.

[Trumptonium1]

The overwhelming majority of people in Poland (and other post-communist countries) distrust their justice system. The changes to the judicial system are part of a democratic cry for change, and voters were waiting for this change for decades. The changes are as democratic as you can get.

Those who oppose these moves are the real enemies of democracy. They think a country shouldn't be ruled by the people, but by an oligarchy.



Others with a majority distrust in the legal system includes countries like Cyprus, Spain and Portugal, who had their own dictatorships wherein the legal system was never purged of sympathisers and of judges who sent people to death for chanting for freedom.

Incidentally, the only post-communist countries where the majority trust the justice system are Estonia (which started with zero judges and trained theirs in Finland, and initially trialed criminals in Finland) and Hungary, which purged their legal system of all communist sympathisers in 1991-1994. Coincidence?

[Valrifell]

Better ways to alleviate distrust in the judiciary than handing control of the highest court to one man.

[Frievolk]

I support the move, of course, but I doubt Poland will stand for it, neither will I think the EU has the guts to follow through its legislation with punitive action, either militarily or socio-diplomatically.

[Valrifell]

I support the move, of course, but I doubt Poland will stand for it, neither will I think the EU has the guts to follow through its legislation with punitive action, either militarily or socio-diplomatically.

I didn't expect them to get this far, honestly.

[Trumptonium1]

Better ways to alleviate distrust in the judiciary than handing control of the highest court to one man.

Utter fake news crap fed to you by Soros media. Your post would make more sense if it had my avatar to it's left.

The judicial appointment process in Poland used to be a panel of unelected judges appointed by the judicial bar called KRS. The new appointment process is

The KRS is composed of 25 members. Under the current law, these are the first president of the Supreme Court; the president of the Supreme Administrative Court; the justice minister, a member selected by the Polish president; four members selected by the Sejm lower house of parliament from among the house’s deputies; two members selected by the Senate, the upper house of parliament, from among senators; and 15 members selected by judges (two from the Supreme Court, two from appeals courts, two from administrative courts, eight from regional courts, and one from a military court).

The reform proposed by the ruling PiS party aims to change the way in which this last group of KRS members is selected.

Under the amended law regulating the council’s work, its members/judges will be selected by the Sejm. Under the original version of the law drafted by PiS, this was to happen with a simple majority of votes. But President Duda came up with an amendment to have KRS members/judges chosen by a three-fifth majority.

Shockingly undemocratic. The Parliament gets to select Supreme Court judges with a 60% vote - outrage! Where else does that happen?!

Let's compare the Polish nomination process to Germany...

The five most important judicial institutions in Germany are the Federal Court of Justice, the Federal Labour Court, the Federal Social Court, the Federal Fiscal Court, and the Federal Administrative Court. They are roughly equivalent to Poland’s Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court. Under the German constitution, candidates for judges on these courts are named by the federal minister of justice (equivalent to Poland’s Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro) and by a 32-member recruitment commission (of which 16 members are selected by the parliament and the other 16 by the justice ministers of the country’s individual states).

The same commission selects judges for the five courts. The appointments are subject to approval by the German federal government. Once such approval is granted, the country’s president formally appoints a judge.

All this goes to show that judges in Germany are selected by politicians.

What about France?

Judicial appointments in France are determined by the country’s High Council of the Judiciary. This is composed of 12 members, but given the specific features of the French system of government, the nation’s president has the majority of votes in the council. How so?

The president of France is himself part of the High Council of the Judiciary, and he also appoints three of its members. The other members are: the heads of the National Assembly and the Senate (both usually come from political parties allied with the head of state); the justice minister (usually politically close to the president); a prosecutor; a representative of the country’s constitutional court; and five judges. This inevitably means that the president -- a politician -- has the majority of votes in the High Council of the Judiciary.

A complete fucking joke of a system.

But what about Netherlands, home of Timmermans who began the whole process?

In Timmermans’ native Netherlands, judges are appointed by royal decree. This takes place at the request of the justice minister. Candidates are named by the country’s Council for the Judiciary, which is half composed of judges selected by members of the judicial community. If there are two candidates for one spot, the justice minister makes the final choice.

So basically a panel that is half-appointed by mutual judges and half-appointed by the government gets to agree on a candidate(s) and the executive gets to pick who gets the spot. Sounds dictatorial.

The Spanish system is close to the model urged by Poland’s ruling conservatives. In Spain, judges are selected by the General Council of the Judiciary, roughly the counterpart of Poland’s KRS. The council is headed by the president of the country’s Supreme Court, and its remaining 20 members are selected by the parliament by a three-fifths majority from among candidates recommended by the Electoral Commission operating out of the Supreme Court.

Poland is now part of the majority of democratic countries where the President has no role in selecting Supreme Court judges, and only appoints them when a supermajority of Parliament tells them to do so. When will France become as democratic as Poland?

[Valrifell]

The law doesn't deal with the appointment procedure. These states (as per OP) that once they hit a certain age they have to apply for an extension that can only be approved by the President. Also concerning is that the law is retroactive, so current judges are being forced out and replaced. The message is clear: kowtow to the Presidents whim or get out five years early. This can have... interesting effects.

Granted this doesn't seem like a problem for you since you agree with them anyway, but I just feel bad that you did all that arguing and snark for something we're not even really talking about.

[Trumptonium1]

The law doesn't deal with the appointment procedure. These states (as per OP) that once they hit a certain age they have to apply for an extension that can only be approved by the President. Also concerning is that the law is retroactive, so current judges are being forced out and replaced. The message is clear: kowtow to the Presidents whim or get out five years early. This can have... interesting effects.

Granted this doesn't seem like a problem for you since you agree with them anyway, but I just feel bad that you did all that arguing and snark for something we're not even really talking about.

Again, fed news by Sorosian media.

No such extension exists, retirement at 65 is mandatory. An extension is given to the President "in emergency." Several conservative judges are being told to retire.

No problem with laws being retroactive. People aged 64 don't get to complain that the pension age rises to 66 the day before their 65th birthday.

[Mardla]

I think the EU is only upset because the judges are Bolsheviks. If they were far right, the EU would see nothing wrong.

[Knask]

Again, fed news by Sorosian media.

You're spelling "jewish" in a weird way.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

The law doesn't deal with the appointment procedure. These states (as per OP) that once they hit a certain age they have to apply for an extension that can only be approved by the President. Also concerning is that the law is retroactive, so current judges are being forced out and replaced. The message is clear: kowtow to the Presidents whim or get out five years early. This can have... interesting effects.

Granted this doesn't seem like a problem for you since you agree with them anyway, but I just feel bad that you did all that arguing and snark for something we're not even really talking about.

Again, fed news by Sorosian media.

No such extension exists, retirement at 65 is mandatory. An extension is given to the President "in emergency." Several conservative judges are being told to retire.

No problem with laws being retroactive. People aged 64 don't get to complain that the pension age rises to 66 the day before their 65th birthday.

Are you really referring to a conspiracy theory like ‘Soros controlls all media’? Really? That is your big point?

Such Sorosian media as the Washington Post:

The new law lowers the retirement age of the Supreme Court from 70 to 65, forcing out about a third of its members. Judges can apply to Polish President Andrzej Duda to extend their terms, but Gersdorf, 65, refused to do so

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/eu ... 1f31662eea

Such a system is ripe for misuse, but I guess we’ll have to trust Duda that he won’t abuse that power. Trusting politicans blindly seems like the right thing to do.

Also, Gersdorf got her term from the constitution. This law is actively undermining the Polish constitution. Is that a problem? I mean, there is blindly following Sorosian media, and there is blindly defending everything the Polish government does ever, and I don’t know which one is worse.

Let’s just all forget that the Parliament in Poland is entirely controlled by PiS, alright? That little factoid might explain why having a parliament-appointed judiciary is such a bad idea.