European judges sue Council over Polish recovery plan
Lawsuit filed Sunday argues that the Council disregarded high court judgments in approving Warsaw’s plan.
Four organizations representing European judges filed a lawsuit Sunday against the Council of the EU over its decision to greenlight Poland’s recovery plan despite ongoing rule-of-law concerns.
The judges’ groups argue that the Council approved Warsaw’s Recovery and Resilience Plan in a way that disregards judgments from the Court of Justice of the EU and harms both Polish judges and the European judiciary system.
In June, the Council signed off on a plan that could allow Poland to access billions in coronavirus recovery funds if it meets a set of “milestones,” including reforming a controversial disciplinary regime for judges. And while Warsaw has yet to receive funds under the plan, the blueprint itself is now being challenged.
The four organizations suing the Council — the European Association of Judges, the Association of European Administrative Judges, Judges for Judges and MEDEL, an association representing European judges and prosecutors — said that the plan’s targets are problematic.
“These milestones fall short of what is required to ensure effective protection of the independence of judges and the judiciary and disregard the judgments of the CJEU on the matter,” the groups wrote in a statement.
The Court of Justice, the organizations note, “has ruled that the Polish judges affected by unlawful disciplinary procedures should be reinstated at once, without delay or a procedure, while the third milestone would introduce a procedure of more than a year with an uncertain outcome.”
The lawsuit’s aim is in part to prevent Poland from accessing funds until it complies with court rulings.
“The reason for asking the annulment of the EU Council’s decision is to make explicit the principle that judgments of the CJEU on the subject of the independence of judiciaries should be enforced without delay and in full,” the judges said. The “Council decision violates this principle, because there is no full — i.e. unconditional — enforcement of CJEU judgments,” they added.
The Good Lobby Profs, an academic-led initiative which provided support for the legal action, said in its own statement that the European Commission and the Council of the EU have both breached their duties when it comes to the Polish plan. The Commission and the Council have a duty, the group said, “not to treat judgments of the Court of Justice as bargaining chips and adjustment variables for reasons of political convenience.”
The judges’ groups argue that the Council approved Warsaw’s Recovery and Resilience Plan in a way that disregards judgments from the Court of Justice of the EU and harms both Polish judges and the European judiciary system.
In June, the Council signed off on a plan that could allow Poland to access billions in coronavirus recovery funds if it meets a set of “milestones,” including reforming a controversial disciplinary regime for judges. And while Warsaw has yet to receive funds under the plan, the blueprint itself is now being challenged.
The four organizations suing the Council — the European Association of Judges, the Association of European Administrative Judges, Judges for Judges and MEDEL, an association representing European judges and prosecutors — said that the plan’s targets are problematic.
“These milestones fall short of what is required to ensure effective protection of the independence of judges and the judiciary and disregard the judgments of the CJEU on the matter,” the groups wrote in a statement.
The Court of Justice, the organizations note, “has ruled that the Polish judges affected by unlawful disciplinary procedures should be reinstated at once, without delay or a procedure, while the third milestone would introduce a procedure of more than a year with an uncertain outcome.”
The lawsuit’s aim is in part to prevent Poland from accessing funds until it complies with court rulings.
“The reason for asking the annulment of the EU Council’s decision is to make explicit the principle that judgments of the CJEU on the subject of the independence of judiciaries should be enforced without delay and in full,” the judges said. The “Council decision violates this principle, because there is no full — i.e. unconditional — enforcement of CJEU judgments,” they added.
The Good Lobby Profs, an academic-led initiative which provided support for the legal action, said in its own statement that the European Commission and the Council of the EU have both breached their duties when it comes to the Polish plan. The Commission and the Council have a duty, the group said, “not to treat judgments of the Court of Justice as bargaining chips and adjustment variables for reasons of political convenience.”
AI Disclaimer: An advanced artificial intelligence (AI) system generated the content of this page on its own. This innovative technology conducts extensive research from a variety of reliable sources, performs rigorous fact-checking and verification, cleans up and balances biased or manipulated content, and presents a minimal factual summary that is just enough yet essential for you to function as an informed and educated citizen. Please keep in mind, however, that this system is an evolving technology, and as a result, the article may contain accidental inaccuracies or errors. We urge you to help us improve our site by reporting any inaccuracies you find using the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of this page. Your helpful feedback helps us improve our system and deliver more precise content. When you find an article of interest here, please look for the full and extensive coverage of this topic in traditional news sources, as they are written by professional journalists that we try to support, not replace. We appreciate your understanding and assistance.
