ECHR calls on Poland to address “systematic violations” caused by judicial reforms
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has unanimously ruled that the rights of Lech Wałęsa, Poland’s former president and Nobel Peace Prize winner, were violated due to the Polish government’s overhaul of the judiciary. In a landmark decision, the court’s judges also called on Poland to implement measures to address the “systematic violations” caused by these judicial reforms. The case, titled Wałęsa v. Poland, originated from a civil suit filed by Wałęsa against a former associate who had accused him of collaborating with the communist security services. The ruling has significant implications for Poland’s judicial system and the country’s relationship with the European Union.
The Controversial Judicial Reforms
The case of Wałęsa v. Poland centers around the controversial judicial reforms implemented by the Law and Justice (PiS) government in 2017. One of the key changes was the of an extraordinary appeal process that allowed the prosecutor general, who is also the justice minister, to challenge final court rulings. These appeals were heard by a newly created chamber of extraordinary review and public affairs within the Supreme Court. The ECHR has consistently criticized this chamber, stating that it is not an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The judges of this chamber were appointed by the National Council of the Judiciary, which had also been overhauled by the PiS government, resulting in political influence over the judiciary.
Violations of Lech Wałęsa’s Rights
The ECHR’s ruling in the Wałęsa v. Poland case found that the extraordinary appeal process violated Wałęsa’s right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court highlighted that entrusting the prosecutor general, a member of the executive branch, with the power to contest final judicial decisions undermined the principles of judicial independence and the separation of powers. The judges also noted that the state had abused the extraordinary appeal procedure for political purposes, given Wałęsa’s status as a prominent critic of the PiS government. Furthermore, the court found that Wałęsa’s right to respect for his private life had been violated.
Groundbreaking Pilot-Judgement Procedure
The ECHR’s ruling in the Wałęsa v. Poland case goes beyond addressing individual violations. The court utilized a “pilot-judgement procedure” to order Poland to take measures to address the systemic violations identified in this and previous cases. This aspect of the ruling is considered groundbreaking by legal experts, as it requires Poland to make legislative and other changes to ensure the establishment of an independent and impartial tribunal and uphold the principle of legal certainty.
Polish Government’s Response and Political Context
As with previous cases concerning Poland’s judicial reforms, the ECHR’s ruling was immediately rejected and condemned by Polish government figures. They argue that European institutions demonstrate double standards and bias against Eastern member states, accusing them of political opposition to Poland’s conservative government. Deputy Justice Minister Sebastian Kaleta claimed that the ECHR’s judgment was a non-binding opinion issued outside the scope of its competences. However, with the recent loss of its parliamentary majority, the PiS government is set to be replaced by a new governing coalition that has pledged to restore the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.
Conclusion: The ECHR’s ruling in the Wałęsa v. Poland case is a significant development in the ongoing controversy surrounding Poland’s judicial reforms. The court’s decision not only found violations of Lech Wałęsa’s rights but also called on Poland to address the systematic issues within its judicial system. This ruling has the potential to bring about systemic changes aimed at restoring the rule of law in Poland. As the country transitions to a new government, the implementation of these measures will be closely watched by both domestic and international observers.
Leave a Reply