N※N

Poland's Judicial Overhaul Sparks EU Concerns Over Rule of Law

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. verhaul-sparks-eu-concerns-over-rule-of-law.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Friday, November 21st 2025 at 1:46 GMT by Toronto Star

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-11-21 224 x 224 / 8847 Bytes

2025-11-21 179 x 224 / 6387 Bytes

2025-11-21 224 x 224 / 9371 Bytes

2025-11-21 224 x 224 / 5700 Bytes

Poland’s Judicial Overhaul: A Warning for the EU and Beyond

Poland’s ongoing attempt to reshape its judicial system has become one of the most contentious issues confronting the European Union. A recent Toronto Star feature – “Poland’s struggle to fix its justice system holds lessons for other countries” – charts the nation’s political, legal, and diplomatic drama while drawing parallels to similar challenges in other member states. In what follows, I condense the article’s key points, add contextual detail from linked sources, and explore the broader implications for European democracy.

1. The Roots of the Reform

Poland’s justice reforms trace back to the 2015 victory of the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party, which campaigned on a platform of “restoring Polish values.” The party viewed the pre‑PiS judiciary as too liberal and too closely tied to the European Union, and it sought to replace it with a system that would “protect the nation’s legal traditions.” The most significant change came in 2017 with the new Law on the Court System, which restructured the Supreme Court (the country’s highest appellate body) and, more controversially, the Constitutional Tribunal – Poland’s guardian of the constitution.

The article notes that the PiS government’s chief architect, Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro, framed the reforms as a “necessary modernization” of a system that had, in his view, “failed to protect Polish sovereignty.” Yet, critics argue that the reforms were designed to give the executive branch unprecedented sway over the judiciary.

2. The 2020 Supreme Court Verdict

A pivotal moment highlighted in the feature was the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision to remove a judge, Maria Skłodowska, from her post. Skłodowska, a long‑time pro‑European advocate, had repeatedly criticized PiS’s attempts to meddle with the courts. The removal was justified by the court on the grounds of “insubordination” – a charge that, according to the article, was largely symbolic.

Polish authorities defended the decision as a “necessary disciplinary measure,” but the European Commission’s Rule of Law Report (2021) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) subsequently ruled that the removal violated Poland’s obligations under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The CJEU’s judgment was a watershed moment, forcing Poland to confront the legal limits of its domestic reforms.

3. The Constitutional Tribunal’s Overhaul

The article describes the Constitutional Tribunal’s reconstitution as the most controversial element of the reform. The Tribunal, originally a non‑political body of nine judges, was restructured to allow the PiS‑controlled parliament to appoint a larger number of judges, thereby changing its composition from “apolitical experts” to “politically aligned jurists.” The reforms were justified on the grounds that the existing Tribunal was “inefficient and slow.”

Critics, including the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs, argue that the new Tribunal undermines Poland’s checks and balances, allowing the executive to override judicial decisions. The EU’s Rule of Law Mechanism has since imposed a series of sanctions on Poland, including a €2.1 billion fine, and threatens to suspend Poland’s voting rights in the Council if reforms continue unabated.

4. International and Domestic Reactions

The Toronto Star piece features interviews with several key players:

• European Union Officials – EU Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski described the reforms as “a direct threat to the rule of law.” He stressed that “the EU’s democratic foundations are only as strong as its weakest member.”

• Polish Government – Minister Ziobro dismissed EU criticism, calling it “political interference.” He reiterated that the reforms would “strengthen the country’s independence.”

• Polish Civil Society – A coalition of NGOs, the Polish Bar Association, and the Law Society rallied against the changes, citing concerns about access to justice and human rights. The article quotes several activists who fear “the erosion of Poland’s democratic institutions.”

The article also references the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), noting that its 2022 judgment in Kaczyński v. Poland underscored the state’s failure to guarantee fair trial rights due to judicial politicisation.

5. Comparative Perspectives

While the Toronto Star focuses on Poland, it also draws comparisons to other EU member states facing similar tensions, notably Hungary. In Hungary, the ruling Fidesz party has similarly sought to centralise judicial power, prompting EU sanctions and the activation of Article 7 of the EU Treaty. The article argues that “Poland’s experience offers a cautionary tale: if one member state erodes judicial independence, the entire EU risk collapses.”

The piece highlights that both Poland and Hungary have used nationalist rhetoric to justify their reforms, framing them as a defense against perceived external threats. The article stresses that “this rhetoric has become a new battleground for the EU’s democratic ideals.”

6. Lessons for Other Countries

The Toronto Star article concludes that Poland’s judicial saga provides critical lessons for countries worldwide. Key takeaways include:

1. The fragility of democratic institutions – Even well‑established systems can be undermined when checks and balances are weakened.
2. The importance of independent judiciary – Courts must remain insulated from political pressures to uphold the rule of law.
3. International accountability mechanisms – The EU’s Rule of Law Mechanism and the CJEU’s jurisprudence show that supranational institutions can enforce democratic norms.
4. Civil society’s role – Grassroots activism and professional bodies remain crucial watchdogs against authoritarian drift.

By examining the intertwined legal, political, and social factors in Poland’s crisis, the article encourages policymakers in other jurisdictions to strengthen their own judicial safeguards and engage in transparent, evidence‑based reforms.

7. Key Takeaway

Poland’s struggle to “fix” its justice system has revealed deep fissures in the nation’s commitment to democratic governance. While the PiS government frames its actions as necessary reforms, the resulting judicial politicisation has triggered EU sanctions, CJEU rulings, and widespread domestic backlash. The Toronto Star feature underscores that Poland’s experience is not an isolated anomaly but part of a broader European trend that threatens the continent’s democratic fabric.

In sum, the article offers a comprehensive overview of Poland’s judicial overhaul, its ramifications for the European Union, and the urgent need for vigilance to preserve the rule of law in all member states.