Share this page!

Jakub Jaraczewski Profile picture
Twitter logo
31 Mar, 4 tweets, 1 min read
The European Commission takes Poland to CJEU over the "muzzle law" (silencing judges speaking on rule of law issues) and requests the CJEU to issue interim measures halting actions of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court and to annul all waiving of judicial immunity.
With multiple criminal cases underway where the immunity of judges was lifted, the timing of this measure is critical. Of course the question is, will the Polish government comply?
Full press release of the Commission, complete with some background info to help understand this complex legal scaffolding: ec.europa.eu/commission/pre…
This is a very uplifting (if late) development esp. after yesterday's expert roundtable on Polish judiciary/prosecutors where depressing messages and exhausted voices dominated the conversation.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Jakub Jaraczewski

Jakub Jaraczewski Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @J_Jaraczewski

Jakub Jaraczewski Profile picture
1 Apr
⚖️🇵🇱🇪🇺European Commission, CJEU, Poland and rule of law: not an April's Fools thread. Some questions regarding yesterday's rule of law day answered: (1/13)
1. What is the "muzzle law"?
It's a set of recent laws that are clearly aimed at silencing Polish judges on the rule of law. This pertains to both removing their ability to question the independence of other judges and to considering such notions as disciplinary offence. (2/13)
The "muzzle law" also requires Polish judges to disclose information on any civil society activities of theirs - from membership in judges' associations to local science fiction fan club. The Commission says that this violates both the right to private life and the GDPR. (3/13)
Read 13 tweets
Jakub Jaraczewski Profile picture
31 Mar
🇧🇪⚖️Wednesdays are increasingly becoming the rule of law days. Hot on the heels of the Commission taking action on Poland, a court in Brussels orders the Belgian government to immediately lift all covid-19 emergency measures or pay a fine for every day of delay in doing so. (1/6)
Reasons? Legality - the measures were introduced by means of decrees of the government, not via law enacted by the parliament. The government is to provide an accurate legal basis for the measures or ... face a not exactly excessive fine of 5k EUR daily, up to 200k EUR. (2/6)
But the real point here is - countries worldwide, including developed, lawful democracies, have resorted to limiting rights and freedoms via secondary legislation. Poland is another example of this practice, as most restrictions are imposed via governmental decrees. (3/6)
Read 6 tweets
Jakub Jaraczewski Profile picture
29 Mar
🇵🇱👩‍⚖️⚖️🇪🇺 The Prime Minister of Poland is requesting the Constitutional Tribunal to "once and for all establish that the Polish Constitution is superior to EU law". This is wrong on many levels. (1/7)
First of all, the relationship between national law and EU law has been the subject of several landmark decisions of CJEU in the past. This matter is more or less resolved on the EU side of the things and there's little ambiguity here. (2/7)
On the Polish end, this has been resolved, too. The Polish Constitution, sadly, does not have much in the way of tackling the issue, as unlike some other MS it lacks an "EU Chapter" that would detail how does EU law fit into the Polish legal system. (3/7)
Read 7 tweets
Jakub Jaraczewski Profile picture
2 Mar
🇵🇱⚖️🇪🇺Today's CJEU judgment regarding Poland, a FAQ:

Where did this case come from?

It’s a referral from the Polish Supreme Administrative Court. Which means that the CJEU was limited to answering judicial questions from the Polish court.
(1/6)
What is it about?

In a nutshell, it’s about judges who were almost appointed to the Polish Supreme Court, but a series of legislative amendments, changes to the National Council of Judiciary and decisions by the President left them ultimately shut out of the appointment.
(2/6)
What did the CJEU say?

In plain words: it’s quite possible that this legal and institutional scaffolding is contrary to EU law, and if you, the referring Polish court, were to find so, apply the principle of EU law primacy and disregard domestic norms that violate EU law.
(3/6)
Read 6 tweets
Jakub Jaraczewski Profile picture
22 Oct 20
🤰🇵🇱⚖️🧵Polish Constitutional Tribunal has ruled that #abortion due to defects of the foetus is unconstitutional. These days the global trend is to liberalise abortion laws, but it is 2020 so here we are with an effective ban on 98% of legal abortions in Poland. (1/6)
It is not the first time the Polish Constitutional Tribunal is doing a reverse Roe vs Wade. For a brief moment in mid-90s, abortion was allowed on social and personal grounds. This #law was struck down by the CT in 1997. (2/6)
The two remaining grounds for abortion are: a threat to the health of the woman or the pregnancy being a result of sexual assault/incest. Legal abortions on these grounds are exceedingly rare. (3/6)
Read 6 tweets
Jakub Jaraczewski Profile picture
20 Oct 20
🇵🇱⚖️🧵
So, what’s the deal with the Polish #ombudsman’s term and the Constitutional Tribunal ruling on that?
The Polish #NHRI, ombudsman, Commissioner for Civil Rights, a man of many talents, @Adbodnar, was appointed for a 5-year term according to the Polish #Constitution. (1/7)
The appointment of an ombudsman requires a vote in BOTH chambers of the Polish #parliament – the lower one, Sejm (controlled by the ruling party) and the upper one, Senat (controlled by the opposition). Currently, this means a deadlock on any contentious candidacy. (2/7)
What happens if both chambers of the parliament can’t agree? The #Constitution is silent on this, but according to the #law on the ombudsman, the incumbent stays in the office until the parliament decides. Which means that Adam Bodnar is now an on an “extended” term. (3/7)
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @J_Jaraczewski has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @J_Jaraczewski!

Read all threads by @J_Jaraczewski