Considering inexorably increasing no of ECJ/ECtHR cases connected to #Poland's #RuleofLaw breakdown, have decided to attempt to emulate @rdanielkelemen's Brexit reality 🧵 & create 🧵 to chronologically lists all ECJ/ECtHR judgments (& most ECJ orders). Hope not to reach 1k... ⬇️
1/ 20 November 2017: ECJ (second) order in Case C-441/17 Commission v Poland (Białowieża Forest)
If you would like to know why I consider this ECJ order dealing with environmental law as key starting point of ECJ's 🇵🇱 related rule of law case law, see sieps.se/en/publication…
2/ 25 July 2018: ECJ judgment in Case C 216/18 LM (Deficiencies in the Polish system of justice)
13/ 29 June 2021: ECtHR judgment in the case of Broda and Bojara v. Poland (Premature and arbitrary removal of two vice-presidents of a Polish regional court)
21/ 8 November 2021: ECtHR judgment in the case of Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland (Lack of independence of 🇵🇱's NCJ & irregular appointments to 🇵🇱’s Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court)
22/ 16 November 2021: ECJ judgment in Joined Cases C-748/19 to C-754/19 Criminal proceedings against WB
(latest ruling as of today. Will continue adding to this 🧵 as plenty of pending ECJ & ECtHR cases remaining, with significant increasing no of ECtHR complaints to be expected)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As promised, a 🧵 below on this key/compelling ECtHR judgment, 1st pilot-judgment in relation to #Poland’s #ruleoflaw breakdown which ECtHR has rightly described as taking form of “interrelated systemic” RoL violations leading to “state of continued non-compliance” with ECHR!
1/ Let me start with more miscellaneous aspects: My insistence not to speak of “judicial reforms” to describe violations of the RoL seems to have gained ground with Court referring to “the so-called “reform of the judiciary” in 🇵🇱” (I knew by then this would be excellent ruling!)
2/ Persistent problem: ECtHR (but also ECJ) continues to include in its case law summaries an overview of decisions taken by irregular bodies masquerading as courts as established by ECtHR itself = absurd = ECtHR judgments need to distinguish lawful courts from unlawful bodies
Have finally been able to finish reading the 563 paragraphs of the ECtHR (First Section) judgment in the case of Judge Tuleya v Poland. A compelling judgment with ramifications going beyond case at hand 🧵
1/ To begin with, one may regret that Judge Tuleya did not benefit from Rule 39 which the ECtHR did not start relying upon to protect 🇵🇱 judges from arbitrary proceedings before PiS 🦘courts until 2022 & which 🇵🇱 authorities are also now openly violating
https://t.co/NQDhqURhRunotesfrompoland.com/2023/02/17/pol…
2/ Judgment will help build disciplinary/criminal cases against “disciplinary officers” who have repeatedly violated multiple rulings when harassing judges applying 🇵🇱 🇪🇺 requirements. See eg grotesque disciplinary investigation re use of Art 267 TFEU & refusal to obey ECJ orders
#Poland's #RuleofLaw breakdown: If correctly reported, this is quite the admission from @VeraJourova as it directly contradicts what Commission told MEPs last Jan and this would make VDL Commission complicit in violation i.a. of law-making Art 7(1) recommendation and milestone...
Releasing EU recovery funding on back of a set of cosmetic, in part unconstitutional, changes rushed in violation i.a. of EU's own lawmaking recovery milestone while ignoring continuing + *systemic* violation of ECJ (& ECtHR) #ruleoflaw rulings would be particularly irresponsible
Just finished reading the 389 paragraphs (a single afternoon wasn’t enough 😬). Overall, a careful/compelling ruling with some new aspects on organisation of national judiciaries, judicial independence & transversality of effective judicial protection requirements (🧵🔽)
1/ Background: This ECJ judgment concerns Poland’s ruling party’s #MuzzleLaw, a grossly unconstitutional and rushed piece of legislation which aimed to (and was used to) punish Polish judges for applying Polish and EU and ECHR #ruleoflaw requirements verfassungsblog.de/open-letter-to…
2/ Re admissibility, 🇵🇱 gov sought to rely on the (un)constitutional “rulings” of the discredited (un)constitutional tribunal (which is no longer a court) to deny ECJ jurisdiction. ECJ answer: a 1st year EU law lecture on basics of EU membership, esp re importance of #ruleoflaw
"Where a Member State adopts measures that undermine the independence of national courts, the EU judicial architecture is compromised and so is the #ruleoflaw within the EU"
Excellent speech by CJEU President Lenaerts on the RoL legal obligations which flow from EU Membership
With respect, however, the ECJ has delivered absurd/reality disconnected judgment in Noble Bank which means, in practice, that ECJ has stopped assessing whether referring court is composed of judges or irregularly appointed individuals & delegated this EU job to ECtHR in practice
ECJ LM test is similarly absurd (& violates effective judicial protection requirements IMO) in situation where e.g. Art 6(1) ECHR and Art 19(1) TEU have been interpreted as "unconstitutional" then second step as currently interpreted by ECJ = reality disconnected again @BardPetra
1/ Before getting into details of it, quick quiz Q: How many times is the rule of law mentioned in 239p-long annexes to Commision proposal for Council implementing decision detailing the Polish recovery and resilience plan?
2/ And the answer is... 0. 0 also for Comm proposal of 17p and 1 mention in Comm working doc of 75p = so 1 mention in 331 pages 👏