|
Post by JustJohn or JJ on Dec 20, 2017 8:53:58 GMT -7
Poland judiciary reforms: EU takes disciplinary measures
The EU has launched unprecedented disciplinary measures against Poland, saying its planned judicial reforms threaten the rule of law. It said 13 new laws in two years have allowed the government to "interfere significantly" in the judiciary. Poland has been given three months to address the concerns. But the Polish conservative government called the decision "political". It has said the reforms are needed to curb inefficiency and corruption. The disciplinary measures, called Article 7, could lead to the suspension of Poland's voting rights at EU summits. But Hungary has said it would block such a move, known as the "nuclear option", that requires the approval of all member states. What is the EU saying? After almost two years monitoring the situation in Poland, the European Commission - the EU executive - said this was a matter of "common concern" for the bloc, and asked the government to: Not apply lower retirement age to current judges Remove the discretionary power of the president to prolong the mandate of Supreme Court judges Remove the new retirement regime for judges including the discretionary powers of the Minister of Justice Restore the independence and legitimacy of the Constitutional Tribunal The Commission's deputy head, First Vice-President Frans Timmermans, who has conducted talks with the Polish government led by the Law and Justice party (PiS), said there was "no other option" as the "entire structure was affected". "After two years of trying for dialogue, of course we are frustrated that we haven't achieved what we want to, so now we're encouraging the council and Parliament to support us," he said. All member states will now be asked to decide whether Poland is violating EU standards. Such a ruling needs the backing of 22 out of the 28 states. Any possible sanctions would only come at a later stage. But Mr Timmermans said that Article 7 could be revoked if Poland addressed the points within the three-month period. The system needs reforms, ordinary Poles say By Adam Easton, BBC News, Warsaw Poland's governing party says the judicial system needs deep reform because it is inefficient, slow and has never been "decommunised", in other words, communist-era judges and collaborators of that regime are still presiding over trials. It is perhaps ironic then, that the party's point man on judicial reform, the PiS MP Stanislaw Piotrowicz, is a former communist-era prosecutor. According to a recent opinion poll, 81% of Poles agree the court system needs reform. They were not asked whether they agreed with the party's solutions. The public's main grievances in order of importance were that trials drag on far too long, the proceedings themselves are too complicated and corrupt judges. PiS says its reforms would re-establish public trust in the judiciary. What is the Polish PM saying? On Twitter Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said the reform was deeply needed and that "Poland is as devoted to the rule of law as the rest of the EU". He added: "The dialogue between the Commission and Warsaw needs to be both open and honest. I believe that Poland's sovereignty and the idea of United Europe can be reconciled." Mr Morawiecki has said that the EU has taken a one-sided view and that his country is entitled to carry out reforms. The situation poses a potential diplomatic headache for British Prime Minister Theresa May who is due to meet Mr Morawiecki at a summit in Warsaw on Thursday.
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Dec 20, 2017 15:16:35 GMT -7
Frans Timmermans✔ @timmermanseu It is with a heavy heart that we have activated Article 7(1). But the facts leave us with no choice. We have no other option. This is not just about Poland, it is about the EU as a whole. We continue to hope that we can enter into a more fruitful dialogue.13:13 - 20 dec. 2017 Franciscus Cornelis Gerardus Maria "Frans" Timmermans (Dutch pronunciation: [frɑnˈsɪskʏs kɔrˈneːlɪs xeːˈrɑrdʏs frɑns ˈtɪmərˌmɑns]; born 6 May 1961) is a Dutch politician and diplomat who currently serves as first Vice-President of the European Commission and the European Commissioner for the portfolio of Better Regulation, Inter-Institutional Relations, Rule of Law and Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Juncker Commission from 1 November 2014.
Timmermans previously served in the Dutch Civil Service (1987–1998), as a member of the House of Representatives for the Labour Party (1998–2007; 2010–2012), as State secretary for Foreign Affairs charged with European Affairs (2007–2010) and as Minister of Foreign Affairs (2012–2014).
|
|
|
Post by karl on Dec 20, 2017 20:10:27 GMT -7
It stands to wonder of some questions in the manner of an out side power wishing to over power the internal decisions of a sovereign Democratic state. In this manner, there is no complaint from the free citizens of that respective state nor any evidence of abuse of the people freely residing in that respective state.
For as above, it appears this to be as evident, the Sovereign state that is Poland. Although in spite of the above, most do not agree with the currant internal policies of the currant PiS party, non the less, this party was freely voted in to power by the people of Poland. If the people now are abused and petitioning Brussels for relief then of course this would be a different matter, but up to the present, this has not been the case.
It would so appear by both actions and intent, it is the State of Brussels that is at fault.
The member States that comprise the EU, are not chatel or school children to be chastised by their teacher such as what appears to be case with Brussels. It would so appear, Brussels has been tossing stones at member states to a degree that it needs be to pull back its horns and settle down a bit. For membership in to the EU is not compulsory but in that stead, a voluntary decision of each respective state.
Karl
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Dec 21, 2017 2:21:19 GMT -7
You are right from the legal and democratic point of view, but from deals and agreements within the EU between memberstates Frans Timmermans and thus Brussels have a point too. Poland benefits greatly from EU structural funds, EU benefits and EU regulations and European legislation and cooperation. But it violates some of them agreements which were made by the democratic states within the EU.
But from the sovereign, autonomous, independent point of view from the democratic legitimation of a state you are right in your opinion in this case.
It is a difficult and complicated case. I know the Dutch Labour politican Frans Timmermans. He is a professional and not the type of guy who likes to mess with others internal affairs. He is a guy who works according to international treaties, negotiations, diplomatic values and standards and international and Europe law.
He knows that he is monitored critically by his own Dutch, and by the Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Slowaks, Romanians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Austrians, French, Italians, Spanish, Portuguese, Belgians, Germans, Danes, Luxemburg people and the British Brexit negotiators and international trade and political and military partners of Poland (in the bilateral sense after leaving the EU and the multilateral sense in the case of NATO membership -Poland and the UK are NATO partners).
Cheers, Pieter
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Dec 21, 2017 2:54:20 GMT -7
Karl, Polish elected government forced current supreme court to resign and introduced their own court that was doing what the government, especially Kaczynski, who is a lawyer, wanted. This is not exactly democratic. It stands to wonder of some questions in the manner of an out side power wishing to over power the internal decisions of a sovereign Democratic state. In this manner, there is no complaint from the free citizens of that respective state nor any evidence of abuse of the people freely residing in that respective state. For as above, it appears this to be as evident, the Sovereign state that is Poland. Although in spite of the above, most do not agree with the currant internal policies of the currant PiS party, non the less, this party was freely voted in to power by the people of Poland. If the people now are abused and petitioning Brussels for relief then of course this would be a different matter, but up to the present, this has not been the case. It would so appear by both actions and intent, it is the State of Brussels that is at fault. The member States that comprise the EU, are not chatel or school children to be chastised by their teacher such as what appears to be case with Brussels. It would so appear, Brussels has been tossing stones at member states to a degree that it needs be to pull back its horns and settle down a bit. For membership in to the EU is not compulsory but in that stead, a voluntary decision of each respective state. Karl
|
|
|
Post by karl on Dec 21, 2017 7:43:31 GMT -7
Pieter
Thank you for your very thoughtful reply with very good supporting foundation of back ground. For as you have indicated, I find no pleasure with the reply forwarded to the presentation. It is just that each individual democratic state in the EU must be treated as such and be free from the abuse of a central power such as in this case. For if Brussels is allowed to continue with such arbitrary actions it will continue to grow to the point of what was once just advice, to the state of enforced order.
Since the time of the war, each state has grown in prosperity only with the tools of democracy and freedom. Freedom is the manner of individual choice with out being forced by the will of others. This is the point I have been making.
We have a central power under the name of Brussels that is gradually encroaching upon us, with this, is a gradual power with the intent upon forcing its will over the will of other states, and this is an endangerment to our freedom of choice.
Personally, my self, I have no vested interest in the actions of The Polish Government in the matter of internal affairs, for this is some thing the Polish people must deal with. My primary objection is the manner of an out side power using its influence to overcome the will of a sovereign state as in this case, Poland. For if this is allowed to continue, then who will be next for what ever.
Karl
|
|
|
Post by karl on Dec 21, 2017 8:06:34 GMT -7
Jaga Thank you for your very informative reply, and, how well do I agree with you, for Mr. Kacznski is not exactly a popular figure in our part of Europe. The ground work of my reasoning is layed out with my reply to Pieter, if you will, please to go over it as a foundation of my reply to yours. As you know, I have no vested interest as to the actions of The Polish government, if of course it stays withen the Polish Government with out effect to member states. My complaint, is of Brussels using its influence to over come the will of a sovereign state, and in this case, Poland. How ever the Polish government conducts its internal affairs with out abuse of the people, is its own affair. In as with any member state in the EU. With this, how ever Brussels decision to distribute what ever funding for what ever reason, is the affair of Brussels. My primary prerequisite concern, is the protection of our freedom{s} with free will of decision. For this is what is at stake in this manner. For it is all to easy for a gradual loosen of our freedoms to a central power such as fore mentioned, Brussels, once this landslide begins as a trickle, it will gain authority to the event of military inforcement to over come the will of others. If there is such a concern of the abuse of power, then it must be brought in the form of a complaint to the International Court of Justice at the Hague. www.haguejusticeportal.net/index.php?id=305As forementioned, my self have no vested interest of the internal affairs of The Polish Government, simply that this be in the frame work of legality for the protection of all of us. My self was to think very deeply of a possible cause and effect in consideration of this post reply authored by my self as a non-Pol, but felt strongly enough to take that risk to express the concerns of a fellow European. Karl
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Dec 21, 2017 9:18:00 GMT -7
The Maastricht Treaty
The Maastricht Treaty ([maːˈstrɪxt]; formally, the Treaty on European Union or TEU) undertaken to integrate Europe was signed on 7 February 1992 by the members of the European Community in Maastricht, Netherlands. On 9–10 December 1991, the same city hosted the European Council which drafted the treaty. Upon its entry into force on 1 November 1993 during the Delors Commission, it created the three pillars structure of the European Union and led to the creation of the single European currency, the euro.
The treaty established the three pillars of the European Union—one supranational pillar created from three European Communities (which included the European Community (EC), the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community), the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) pillar, and the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) pillar. The first pillar was where the EU's supra-national institutions—the Commission, the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice—had the most power and influence. The other two pillars were essentially more intergovernmental in nature with decisions being made by committees composed of member states' politicians and officials.
Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters (PJCC) was the third of the three pillars of the European Union (EU). It was named Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) before 2003. The pillar existed between 1993 and 2009, when it was absorbed into a consolidated European Union structure and became the area of freedom, security and justice.
The pillar focused on co-operation in law enforcement and combating racism. It was based more around intergovernmental cooperation than the other pillars meaning there was little input from the European Commission, European Parliament and the Court of Justice. It was responsible for policies including the European Arrest Warrant.
History
It was created, on the foundations of the TREVI cooperation, as the Justice and Home Affairs pillar by the Maastricht treaty in order to advance cooperation in criminal and justice fields without member states sacrificing a great deal of sovereignty. Decisions were taken by consensus rather than majority (which was the case in the European Community areas) and the supranational institutions had little input.
The Treaty of Amsterdam transferred the areas of illegal immigration, visas, asylum, and judicial co-operation in civil matters to the integrated European Community. The term Justice and Home Affairs later covers these integrated fields as well as the intergovernmental third pillar. The pillar was renamed "Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters" to reflect its reduced scope.
Before the Maastricht Treaty, member states cooperated at the intergovernmental level in various sectors relating to free movement and personal security ("group of co-ordinators", CELAD, TREVI) as well as in customs co-operation (GAM) and judicial policy. With Maastricht, Justice and Home Affairs co-operation aimed at reinforcing actions taken by member states while allowing a more coherent approach of these actions, by offering new tools for coordinating actions.
The Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force in December 2009, abolished the entire pillar system. The PJC areas and those transferred from JHA to the Community were once more grouped together in creating an area of freedom, security and justice.
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Dec 21, 2017 9:23:04 GMT -7
I understand your reply and criticism of the Brussels power and the dangers of to much power in the hands of the EU at the cost of National sovereignity of the individual EU memberstates.
I am also a strong supporter of the national parlaiments and also believe that most power must be in the hands of the member states themselves and not in the hands of Brussels European bureaucrats and the European commission. But I am however a moderate Pro-EU supporter and see the benefits of the European system.
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Dec 21, 2017 9:33:40 GMT -7
Article 7 of the Treaty on European UnionArticle 7 of the Treaty on European Union is a provision of the Treaty on European Union which details the disciplinary process if a member state should breach article 2's statement of values. Article 2Article 2 states that: The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail. Article 7Article 7 details the process by which the European Council may find a member state in breach of Article 2 and may then suspend the rights of that member state, including its voting rights in the council. www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-1-common-provisions/7-article-7.html
|
|
|
Post by karl on Dec 21, 2017 15:28:17 GMT -7
Pieter
You have brought forth some very interesting prospects in the manner of article 2 and 7 of the EU treaty of which Poland is also a signature of such. It is of my understanding the argument is not of article 2 specifically with the follow up of article 7 as the clause of enforcement.
The argument of which is my understanding is: Warsaws failure to align the drafts withen the rules and standards of Judicial independence which in most instances is inline with the rule of law which as yet has not been established. But then, the question of," rule of law"? if to ask, who's rule of law as being referred to would be answered easily by the fact of the signature of the EU treaty by representatives of the Polish government at time of signing. For then of the signing of this legal document is a contract of obedience to the rules set forth by Brussels.
The above easily fits in to a good case within the confines of International Law. For this is where the folks at Brussels have made their mistake. For the case of disobedience falls easily in to the hands of The International Court of Justice. A handy initial charge against Warsaw would be: Violation of EU rules of Polish Judiciary Reforms. But of course this has not been done.
It is very understandable of the past and present actions of Mr. Kacznski, for to keep his skirts clean, he assigns such duties of action to another. For then if and when the hammer comes down, he is clean. This is a historic action of most past dictators to escape the noose of justice.
Personally, my self do not agree with the actions of PiS in this matter, professionally it is just another example of abuse by an individual who has elevated them selves in to a position of power. And who is at fault in this case, but the people that allowed this to occure. Now it is to others to clean up the mess, or simply let it die out in to the next election.
Karl
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Dec 22, 2017 7:00:44 GMT -7
Karl, Polish elected government forced current supreme court to resign and introduced their own court that was doing what the government, especially Kaczynski, who is a lawyer, wanted. This is not exactly democratic. It stands to wonder of some questions in the manner of an out side power wishing to over power the internal decisions of a sovereign Democratic state. In this manner, there is no complaint from the free citizens of that respective state nor any evidence of abuse of the people freely residing in that respective state. For as above, it appears this to be as evident, the Sovereign state that is Poland. Although in spite of the above, most do not agree with the currant internal policies of the currant PiS party, non the less, this party was freely voted in to power by the people of Poland. If the people now are abused and petitioning Brussels for relief then of course this would be a different matter, but up to the present, this has not been the case. It would so appear by both actions and intent, it is the State of Brussels that is at fault. The member States that comprise the EU, are not chatel or school children to be chastised by their teacher such as what appears to be case with Brussels. It would so appear, Brussels has been tossing stones at member states to a degree that it needs be to pull back its horns and settle down a bit. For membership in to the EU is not compulsory but in that stead, a voluntary decision of each respective state. Karl I aggree with you Jaga on this topic completely!
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Dec 22, 2017 7:19:27 GMT -7
Karl, It is up to the Polish opposition and to European allies of the Polish opposition to change to situation in Poland. The opposition must be better organised and learn from their own mistakes in the past, the mistakes of the PiS-LPR (Liga Polskich Rodzin) and Samoobrona coaliton government of 2005-2007, the mistakes of the Civic Platform (OP)-PSL coalition government (2007-2015) and the mistakes of the present PiS-Solidarna Polska-Polska Razem government. They also shouldn't make the same mistakes as the leftwing SLD led coalition of Milner with it Rywin affair ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rywin_affair ). In general the Polish political system, the Polish political parties and the Polish political establishment should be reformed, transformed and cleansed of corruption, nepotism, clientelism and fraud. The legal system, the Rechtsstaat, Trias Politica with it's Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances should be a-political, objective, neutral and fair. RechtsstaatRechtsstaat is a doctrine in continental European legal thinking, originating in German jurisprudence. It can be translated into English as " rule of law", alternatively " legal state", " state of law", " state of justice", " state of rights", or " state based on justice and integrity". A Rechtsstaat is a " constitutional state" in which the exercise of governmental power is constrained by the law, and is often tied to the Anglo-American concept of the rule of law, but differs from it in that it also emphasizes what is just (i.e., a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, or equity). Thus it is the opposite of Obrigkeitsstaat or Nichtrechtsstaat ( a state based on the arbitrary use of power), and of Unrechtsstaat ( a non-Rechtsstaat with the capacity to become one after a period of historical development). In a Rechtsstaat, the power of the state is limited in order to protect citizens from the arbitrary exercise of authority. The citizens share legally based civil liberties and can use the courts. A country cannot be a liberal democracy without being a Rechtsstaat. Principles of the RechtsstaatThe most important principles of the Rechtsstaat are: - The state is based on the supremacy of national constitution and guarantees the safety and constitutional rights of its citizens. - Civil society is an equal partner to the state - Separation of powers ( the trias politica principle), with the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of government limiting one another's power and providing for checks and balances- The judicature and the executive are bound by law (not acting against the law), and the legislature is bound by constitutional principles. - Both the legislature and democracy itself are bound by elementary constitutional rights and principles. - Transparency of state acts and the requirement of providing a reason for all state acts - Review of state decisions and state acts by independent organs, including an appeal process - Hierarchy of laws and the requirement of clarity and definiteness- Reliability of state actions, protection of past dispositions made in good faith against later state actions, prohibition of retroactivity - Principle of the proportionality of state actionCheers, pieter
|
|
|
Post by karl on Dec 22, 2017 12:36:00 GMT -7
===================================================================================================================== Rechtsstaat
Rechtsstaat is a doctrine in continental European legal thinking, originating in German jurisprudence. It can be translated into English as "rule of law", alternatively "legal state", "state of law", "state of justice", "state of rights", or "state based on justice and integrity".
A Rechtsstaat is a "constitutional state" in which the exercise of governmental power is constrained by the law, and is often tied to the Anglo-American concept of the rule of law, but differs from it in that it also emphasizes what is just (i.e., a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, or equity). Thus it is the opposite of Obrigkeitsstaat or Nichtrechtsstaat (a state based on the arbitrary use of power), and of Unrechtsstaat (a non-Rechtsstaat with the capacity to become one after a period of historical development).
"In a Rechtsstaat, the power of the state is limited in order to protect citizens from the arbitrary exercise of authority. The citizens share legally based civil liberties and can use the courts. A country cannot be a liberal democracy without being a Rechtsstaat.
Principles of the Rechtsstaat
The most important principles of the Rechtsstaat are:
- The state is based on the supremacy of national constitution and guarantees the safety and constitutional rights of its citizens. - Civil society is an equal partner to the state - Separation of powers (the trias politica principle), with the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of government limiting one another's power and providing for checks and balances - The judicature and the executive are bound by law (not acting against the law), and the legislature is bound by constitutional principles. - Both the legislature and democracy itself are bound by elementary constitutional rights and principles. - Transparency of state acts and the requirement of providing a reason for all state acts - Review of state decisions and state acts by independent organs, including an appeal process - Hierarchy of laws and the requirement of clarity and definiteness - Reliability of state actions, protection of past dispositions made in good faith against later state actions, prohibition of retroactivity - Principle of the proportionality of state action". ====================================================================================================================
Pieter
It was good of you to reply to my previous post. I realize my self have not been kind with this Polish subject of their government and of course was not expecting any reply in return, with this, my thanks are to you.
I was unable to place your exact quote and so to then click and transfer the above in that stead. For as you have most kindly provided is exactly my own person intrinsic beliefs. My mistake is expecting this to be closely followed by other states, and of course, am deeply disappointed in their reverse actions. This then is followed by anger not for my self, but for the people that must endure this type of abuse.
Perhaps it is that my heart and mind follows too close to the Dansk temperment and deeply ingrained sense of justice that at times such as this, to over ride the German part of my self. I should know better, for long time past whilst at the University studying, International Law was required. Such cases as faults that you have brought forward of the currant Polish Government was of course covered as with the faults of other forms of government which was known at the time covered for as civil forms in as well as military forms of government.
The good of the currant Polish Government should most likely demonstrate a new resurgence of nationalism amongst the Polish people, rather this is good, will only be to the people as to how they respond.
Karl
|
|