Available in Russian
Author: Valentina Chekharina
DOI: 10.21128/1812-7126-2023-4-56-75
Keywords: Polish Constitutional Tribunal; Judgment on the Treaty on European Union; judicial reform in Poland; conflict with EU institutions; The Constitution of Poland; rule of law
Since the end of 2015, Poland has been in a difficult situation with respect to the rule of law of the European Union (EU). Judicial reforms launched in 2017, strengthening the influence of the ruling Law and Justice party on the formation of the judiciary and on the system of disciplinary liability of judges, significantly aggravated the dispute between Poland and the bodies of the European Union. The Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of Poland, adopted on October 7, 2021, continued the conflict. The Tribunal found that the EU Court of Justice’s interpretation of Articles 1 and 19 of the Treaty on European Union in its decisions on independence of the judiciary is contrary to the Constitution of Poland. The Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal should be viewed in the context of growing tensions in relations between EU institutions and Polish public authorities, which view the EU intervention as a restriction of Polish national sovereignty and identity. Analysts have noted the unprecedented nature of the decision, in that it denies the rule of law of the EU and the principles of loyal cooperation and effective judicial protection. It is difficult to find an analogous decision by a constitutional court of another EU Member State. The problems raised in this decision are related to the specifics of EU Member States’ implementation of constitutional control in relation to EU legislation. The formal shortcomings of the Tribunal’s decision are seen in its departure from previous judicial practice, as well as in problems that arose from improper composition of the Tribunal. Supporters of the Government’s position, however, have argued that Poland complies with binding international law and that all obligations arising from EU law remain in force. The decision of the Constitutional Tribunal of October 7, 2021, aggravated Poland’s conflict with European institutions and led to new court decisions. The Court of Justice of the European Union in its decision of June 5, 2023, in a long-standing dispute with Poland, confirmed that, although the organization of justice in Member States falls within the competence of these States, in its implementation, Member States must comply with their obligations under the legislation of the European Union.
About the author: Valentina Chekharina – Candidate of Sciences in Law, Associate Professor, Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia.
Citation: Chekharina V. (2023) Postanovlenie Konstitutsionnogo tribunala Pol’shi o Dogovore o Evropeyskom Soyuze: obostrenie konflikta s institutami ES [The Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of Poland on the Treaty on the European Union: aggravation of Poland’s conflict with EU institutions]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 56–75. (In Russian).
References
Barcz J., Zawidzka-Łojek A. (eds.) (2018) Sądowe mechanizmy ochrony praworządności w Polsce w świetle najnowszego orzecznictwa Trybunału Sprawiedliwości UE, Warsaw: Elipsa. (In Polish).
Bárd P., Bodnar A. (2021) The End of an Era. The Polish Constitutional Court’s Judgment on the Primacy of EU Law and Its Effects on Mutual Trust. Available at: https://www.ceps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/PI2021-15_The-end-of-an-era_The-Polish-Constitutional-Courts-judgment-on-the-primacy-of-EU-law-and-its-effects-on-mutual-trust.pdf (accessed: 14.08.2023).
Bast J. (2014) Don’t Act Beyond Your Powers: The Perils and Pitfalls of the German Constitutional Court’s Ultra Vires Review. German Law Journal, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 167–181.
Biernat S. (2004) Prawo Unii Europejskiej a Konstytucja RP i prawo polskie – kilka refleksji. Państwo i Prawo, no. 11, pp. 18–27. (In Polish).
Biernat S., Łętowska E. (2021) This Was Not Just Another Ultra Vires Judgment! Commentary to the Statement of Retired Judges of the Constitutional Tribunal. Verfassungsblog, 27 October. Available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/this-was-not-just-another-ultra-vires-judgment/ (accessed: 14.08.2023).
Blankenagel A. (2022) Constitutions, Collective Identity and Constitutional Identity: Where Should We Be Heading? Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 43–75.
Bojarski L., Grajewski K., Kremer J., Ott G., Żurek W. (eds.) (2019) Konstytucja. Praworządność. Władza sądownicza. Aktualne problemy trzeciej władzy w Polsce, Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer. (In Polish).
Burdeau C. (2021) EU Court Tells Romania to Uphold Rule of Law. Courthouse News Service, 18 May. Available at: https://www.courthousenews.com/eu-court-tells-romania-to-uphold-rule-of-law/ (accessed: 14.08.2023).
Davies B. (2012) Pushing Back: What Happens When Member States Resist the European Court of Justice? A Multi-Modal Approach to the History of European Law. Contemporary European History, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 417–435.
Drinóczi T., Bień-Kacała A. (2018) Extra-Legal Particularities and Illiberal Constitutionalism – The Case of Hungary and Poland. Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 338–354.
Dzhambazova B., Bayer L. (2021) Bulgaria Sinks under Wave of Pre-Election Scandals. Politico, 15 June. Available at: https://www.politico.eu/article/bulgaria-sinks-under-pre-election-scandals-corruption-gerb-boyko-borissov/ (accessed: 14.08.2023).
Dzhambazova B., Bayer L. (2021) US Sanctions Top Bulgarians for Graft. EU Does Zilch. Politico, 2 June. Available at: https://www.politico.eu/article/us-sanctions-bulgaria-power-brokers-for-graft/ (accessed: 14.08.2023).
Franzius С. (2010) Europäisches Verfassungsrechtsdenken, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. (In German).
Fokin E.A., Cherenkova V.S. (2018) Sudebnaya reforma v Pol’she: analiticheskiy obzor zaklyucheniya, prinyatogo Venetsianskoy komissiey na 113-y plenarnoy sessii v otnoshenii Pol’shi [The judicial reform in Poland: analytical reviews of the opinion, adopted by the Venice Commission on the 113th Plenary Session]. Zhurnal zarubezhnogo zakonodatel’stva i sravnitel’nogo pravovedeniya, no. 2, pp. 124–130. (In Russian).
Garlicki L. (2016) Sądy a Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Przegląd Sądowy, no. 7–8, pp. 7–24. (In Polish).
Gliszczyńska-Grabias A., Sadurski W. (2023) Is It Polexit Yet? Comment on Case K3/21 of 7 October 2021 by the Constitutional Tribunal of Poland. European Constitutional Law Review, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 163–181.
Granat M. (2022) Constitutional Identity and Its Functions. Przegląd Prawa Konstytucyjnego, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 77–84.
Ispolinov A. (2017) Prioritet prava Evropeyskogo Soyuza i natsional’naya (konstitutsionnaya) identichnost’ v resheniyakh Suda ES i konstitutsionnykh sudov gosudarstv – chlenov ES [The priority of EU law and national (constitutional) identity in the decisions of the European Court of Justice and the constitutional courts of the EU member-states]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 47–68. (In Russian).
Kryszkiewicz М. (2017) TK sędzią we własnej sprawie. Sędziowie dublerzy ocenią przepisy, które były podstawą dopuszczenia ich do orzekania. Gazeta Prawna, 27 September. Available at: https://prawo.gazetaprawna.pl/artykuly/1073804,sedziowie-dublerzy-oceniaczy-moga-zasiadac-w-tk.html (accessed: 14.08.2023). (In Polish).
Kubacka A. (2022) Praworządność w świetle prawa wewnętrznego Unii Europejskiej a stan rządów prawa w Polsce w 2022 r. Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej, 17 August. Available at: https://ordoiuris.pl/wolnosci-obywatelskie/praworzadnosc-w-swietle-prawa-wewnetrznego-unii-europejskiej-stan-rzadow (accessed: 14.08.2023). (In Polish).
Kustra-Rogatka A. (2022) Kontekst jest wszystkim. O trudnej sztuce komparatystyki “europejskiego” orzecznictwa sądów konstytucyjnych. Przegląd Konstytucyjny, no. 3, pp. 45–73. (In Polish).
Kustra-Rogatka A. (2021) Kontrola konstytucyjności aktu prawa pierwotnego Unii Europejskiej w wyroku Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z 7.10.2021 r., K3/21. Europejski Przegląd Sądowy, vol. 194, no. 11, pp. 4–7. (In Polish).
Kustra-Rogatka A. (2023) The Hypocrisy of Authoritarian Populism in Poland: Between the Facade Rhetoric of Political Constitutionalism and the Actual Abuse of Apex Courts. European Constitutional Law Review, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 25–58.
Lenaerts К. (2023) Zgłębiając znaczenie wartości UE. Przemówienie Prezesa TSUE Koena Lenaertsa na III Kongresie Prawników Polskich 24 czerwca 2023 r. Available at: https://www.iustitia.pl/79-informacje/4719-przemowienie-prezzesa-tsue-koena-lenaaertsa-na-iii-kongresie-prawnikow-polskich#_ftn15 (accessed: 14.08.2023). (In Polish).
Makowski G. (2020) Laying the Groundwork for “Grand Corruption”: The Polish Government’s (Anti-)Corruption Activities in 2015–2019. Available at: https://www.batory.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Laying-the-groundwork-for-Grand-Corruption_ENG.pdf (accessed: 14.08.2023).
Medushevsky A. (2022) Konferentsiya o budushchem Evropy: vozmozhnye stsenarii gryadushchey evropeyskoy perestroyki [The Conference on the Future of Europe: possible scenarios of the forthcoming European Perestroika]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 14–42. (In Russian).
Nettesheim M. (2021) Exclusion from the EU is Possible as a Last Resort. Verfassungsblog, 3 November. Available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/exclusion-from-the-eu-is-possible-as-a-last-resort/ (accessed: 14.08.2023).
Pech L. (2021) Protecting Polish Judges from Political Control: A Brief Analysis of the ECJ’s Infringement Ruling in Case C-791/19 (Disciplinary Regime for Judges) and Order in Case C-204/21 R (Muzzle Law). Verfassungsblog, 20 July. Available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/protecting-polish-judges-from-political-control/ (accessed: 14.08.2023).
Potemkina O. (2022) Konferentsiya o budushchem Evropy: itogi i perspektivy [Conference on the future of Europe: results and perspectives]. Nauchno-analiticheskiy vestnik Instituta Evropy Rossiyskoy akademii nauk, no. 3, pp. 7–13. (In Russian).
Sitnicka D. (2021) Decyzja TK Przyłębskiej taka jak innych sądów w UE? Kraj po kraju szczegółowo wyjaśniamy różnice. Archiwum Osiatyńskiego, 15 October. Available at: https://archiwumosiatynskiego.pl/wpis-w-debacie/decyzja-tk-przylebskiej-taka-jak-innych-sadow-w-ue-kraj-po-kraju-szczegolowo-wyjasniamy-roznice/ (accessed: 14.08.2023). (In Polish).
Taborowski M. (2019) Mechanizmy ochrony praworządności państw członkowskich w prawie Unii Europejskiej. Studium przebudzenia systemu ponadnarodowego, Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer. (In Polish).
Vasilieva T. (2023) Sootnoshenie evropeyskoy i natsional’noy identichnosti v doktrine i praktike Suda ES [The correlation of European and national identity in the doctrine and practice of the Court of Justice of the EU]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 90–104. (In Russian).
Voßkuhle A. (2010) Multilevel Cooperation of the European Constitutional Courts: Der Europäische Verfassungsgerichtsverbund. European Constitutional Law Review, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 175–198.
Wendel M. (2011) Lisbon before the Courts: Comparative Perspectives. European Constitutional Law Review, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 96–137.
Woźnicki Ł., Ivanova E. (2019) Sąd Najwyższy: Izba Dyscyplinarna nie jest sądem, a KRS jest zależna od władzy. Wyborcza, 5 December. Available at: https://wyborcza.pl/7,75398,25481630,sad-najwyzszy-izba-dyscyplinarna-nie-jest-sadem.html (accessed: 14.08.2023). (In Polish).
Zirk-Sadowski M. (2012) Tożsamość konstytucyjna a prawo europejskie. Analizy natolińskie, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 1–34. Available at: https://docplayer.pl/6155070-Tozsamosc-konstytucyjna.html (accessed: 14.08.2023). (In Polish).