BRUSSELS: Poland faced questions from its European Union partners Tuesday over an overhaul of its judicial system that is seen as a violation of Western democratic standards, while also taking the opportunity to explain its reasons for the contested changes.
The EU’s European Commission launched a rule of law procedure against the Polish government over an alleged erosion of judicial independence in the country. Technically, the procedure could result in Poland losing its EU voting rights, but that’s unlikely as ally member Hungary appeared ready to veto such action.
“The rule of law is one of the backbones of European cooperation, and there are a number of laws in Poland that raise questions,” Dutch Foreign Minister Stef Blok said before foreign ministers from EU countries convened a hearing in Luxembourg on the situation in Poland.
The overhaul of the Polish justice system began after the populist Law and Justice party came to power in 2015. The party says it is trying to reform a corrupt justice system that it claims is overseen by an unaccountable clique of judges.
The changes include giving the executive and legislative branches greater control over the judiciary, which opponents say could weaken the democratic system of checks and balances.
Speaking in Warsaw, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said he “deplored” the fact that the EU’s so-called Article 7 procedure wasn’t closed after Poland showed “good will and readiness for compromise” by making some amendments to its judicial laws this year at the urging of the European Commission.
Morawiecki also defended the new judicial laws, saying they are needed to reform a branch of government power that was never properly democratized after communism ended in Poland.
“Our partners don’t understand what the post-communist reality looks like,” Morawiecki told a news conference. “The justice system had a problem with self-cleansing.”
Critics, however, see a power grab. Some have argued that nearly 30 years after the fall of communism, there are no longer a significant number of communist-era judges still on the bench.
As part of the overhaul, a new Supreme Court law that takes effect on July 3 could lead to the forced resignation of nearly 40 percent of current judges. Any wishing to stay could do so only if the president agrees.
The new laws also created a new “extraordinary appeal” chamber within the Supreme Court which could reopen cases from the previous 20 years on appeal from the prosecutor general, who is also the justice minister, or the ombudsman.
“The possibility that verdicts can be actually brought into doubt for a period of 20 years is quite unique,” Dutch minister Blok said.
Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn also expressed concern about changes to the judges’ terms.
“If there are judges who are named for a certain period, you can’t say during that time that now there are limits,” he told reporters. “We are not here to judge Poland or criticize Poland. We’re here to say that in Europe, the independence of the judiciary is sacred, so everything has to be done to protect it.”
