The Poland’s Constitutional Court rejected the principle of the supremacy of EU law over national legislation and noted that some EU articles were not compatible.
“The Treaty on the EU is constitutional in the Polish legal system… and, like any part of the Polish legal system, it must abide by the constitution,” Judge Bartlomiej Sochanski said on Thursday. This rejection of a fundamental principle of the EU is expected to escalate the conflict between Warsaw and Brussels.
The European Commission, the executive body of the Union, said the decision aroused “serious concerns.” “EU law, including constitutional provisions, is superior to national law,” the European Commission said in a written statement.
“All decisions of the European Court of Justice are binding on the institutions of all member states, including national courts,” and the Commission warned that “the Union will not hesitate to use its powers arising from the treaties to ensure the uniform application of its law and to preserve its integrity”.
Poland’s ruling nationalist Law and Justice Party government is in tension with the EU on various issues, from judicial independence to freedom of the press and LGBTI+ rights.
Brussels Accuses the Government of Undermining Judicial Independence.
The government says the judicial reform aims to make the courts more effective and free them from the last vestiges of the influence of the Communist era.
It is recorded that for the first time in the history of the 27-member EU bloc, the leader of a member country has questioned the Union’s agreements in the Constitutional Court.
The amendments were criticized by the European Commission and many international legal institutions, as they were introduced to undermine judicial independence and increase political control over the courts.
Poland’s Constitutional Court is now dominated by judges, some of whom are former party members, sympathetic to the ruling Law and Justice Party.
Inside the country, some say the Constitutional Court is used to punish judges who criticize the government’s changes in the judicial system.