Thread by @ProfPech

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 (🧵🔽)

https://twitter.com/ProfPech/status/1665709564166131712

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

3/ Worth noting: No mention of pending infringement action re (un)constitutional tribunal, ECHR case law re 🇵🇱🦘 "constitutional tribunal" or even pending Art 7(1) TEU procedure here but arguably no need to do so as no EUMS court – let alone a 🦘 one – can ignore basics of EU law

4/ Re 🦘 "Disciplinary Chamber" (since replaced by another unconstitutional chamber pretending to be a court): ECJ mostly recalls its previous infringement judgment re 🇵🇱 + “Romanian I judges” preliminary ruling to state obvious: judicial immunity cannot be waived by 🦘 bodies

5/ Re new disciplinary offences for judges: ECJ again has to state obvious = EUMS cannot use vague, over-broad legislative provisions to bully national judges into *not* applying EU rule of law requirements such as established by law and judicial independence requirements

6/ Worth noting: ECJ essentially held muzzle law to amount to *deliberate violation of its AK judgment* + *deliberate attempt to undermine pending ECJ PR requests* + 🇵🇱 judges can review independence (or lack thereof) of neo-KRS + ECJ recalls SCt has already held neo-KRS = 🦘body

7/ Re prohibition to review PiS irregularly appointed “judges”: ECJ again stresses broad, vague nature of relevant provisions and repeats itself re aim and effects of muzzle law = prevent/punish judges for applying EU law/ECJ rulings. Shame it took 3 yrs & 1/2 to get judgment...

8/ Worth noting: IMO, ECJ here contradicts its own 🇵🇱EAW case law with ECJ stressing here illusory/defective remedies (e.g. re recusal of neo-KRS irregularly appointed “judge”) when ECJ told national (executing) cts to surrender on basis of same remedies…
verfassungsblog.de/avoiding-the-e…

9/ Re 🦘 “extraordinary chamber”: This is arguably the most interesting/innovative part of judgment with ECJ (as suggested by Comm) outlining why judicial independence are “horizontal” issues and effective judicially must be “transversally” guaranteed in all fields of EU law

10/ Worth noting: Contrary to AG, ECJ found violation when new exclusive but limited jurisdiction re review of “established by law” requirement is given to new court (let alone a 🦘 court like here) whereas this is a transversal requirement which must be reviewed by all courts

11/ Worth noting too: No mention of ECHR case law on neo-KRS/chamber but seemingly due to poor Comm work by which did not properly raise issues procedurally speaking = ECJ could not review grossly irregular/unlawful appointment/composition of 🦘 chamber. Real missed opportunity

12/ Re judges’ data/privacy fundamental rights: Final part of judgment again rich/compelling with Court doubting 🇵🇱 gov’s good faith in several paras and finding several violations of EU Charter/GDPR with reference to general/specific context in 🇵🇱, previous legal framework, etc

13/ Worth noting: TBOMK, first time the ECJ refers to risks of undue stigmatisation of judges due to the (disproportionate) placing of (sensitive) private information online by a government. Crucial and welcome aspect