ECHR calls for measures 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 as a result of the Polish government’s overhaul of the judiciary. The court’s decision also calls on Poland to implement measures to address the systematic violations caused by these judicial reforms. The case, titled Wałęsa v. Poland, stems from a civil suit Wałęsa filed over a decade ago against a former associate who accused him of collaborating with the communist security services.
The Controversial Extraordinary Appeal Process
Wałęsa partially won his case in 2011, but the decision was overturned nine years later due to the of a new process called the extraordinary appeal. This process, created by the Law and Justice (PiS) government in 2017, allows the prosecutor general, who is also the justice minister, to challenge final court rulings. These appeals are heard by the Supreme Court’s chamber of extraordinary review and public affairs, which was established as part of the PiS government’s judicial overhaul. The ECHR has consistently found that this chamber is not an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
Violations of Fair Hearing and Legal Certainty
The ECHR’s judges found that the extraordinary review process violates the principle of legal certainty guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights. They noted that entrusting the prosecutor general, a member of the executive branch with considerable authority over the courts, with the power to contest virtually any final judicial decision undermines judicial independence and separation of powers. The court stated that this risked turning extraordinary appeals into a political tool used by the executive. The judges also highlighted that the state authority had abused the extraordinary appeal procedure to further its own political opinions and motives.
Political Context and Violation of Private Life
The ECHR emphasized that Wałęsa’s case could not be separated from the political context of him being a prominent critic of the PiS government. They found that his right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated. Additionally, the court ruled that Wałęsa’s right to respect for his private life had also been violated. As a result, the Polish state has been ordered to pay him €30,000 in damages.
Groundbreaking Ruling and Call for Measures
The ECHR’s ruling goes beyond awarding damages to Wałęsa. Under the pilot-judgement procedure, the court ordered Poland to take appropriate legislative and other measures to comply with the requirements of an independent and impartial tribunal established by law and the principle of legal certainty. Legal experts have hailed this aspect of the ruling as groundbreaking, as it addresses the systemic violations identified in this and previous cases related to the PiS government’s judicial reforms.
Rejection and Condemnation by Polish Government
As with previous ECHR rulings on Poland’s judicial reforms, the verdict was immediately rejected and condemned by Polish government figures. They argue that European institutions show bias against eastern member states and political opposition to Poland’s conservative government. Deputy justice minister Sebastian Kaleta claimed that the ECHR had issued its ruling outside the scope of its competences and labeled it a non-binding opinion.
Conclusion: The ECHR’s ruling against the Polish government’s overhaul of the judiciary highlights the ongoing concerns regarding the erosion of judicial independence and the rule of law in the country. The court’s call for measures to address the systematic violations caused by these reforms emphasizes the need for Poland to restore compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. As Poland undergoes a transition of power with a new governing coalition promising to restore the rule of law, the ECHR’s ruling may serve as a legal weapon to bring about systemic changes and ensure the independence of the judiciary.
Leave a Reply