Judicial Resistance: missing part of judicial independence? The case of Poland and beyond

Lukasz Bojarski

doi:10.35295/osls.iisl.1893

Egileak

Lukasz Bojarski University of Oslo https://orcid.org/0009-0004-8100-9812

##plugins.pubIds.doi.readerDisplayName##:

https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1893

Gako-hitzak:

Judicial resistance, judicial independence, judicial activism, judicial disobedience, Polish rule of law crisis

Laburpena

This article critically examines the concept of "judicial resistance" in Poland between 2015-2023, drawing insights from both Polish and international legal frameworks, jurisprudence, empirical research and literature. The study aims to define and differentiate judicial resistance from other judicial attitudes, interrogate its legal character, and explore whether there exists judges’ right or duty towards such resistance. The article posits a definition for judicial resistance, emphasizing actions—both collective and individual, in-court and out-of-court—taken by judges to counter political endeavors that infringe upon judicial independence and violate the law. A pivotal criterion proposed is that the breach of judicial independence must be illegitimate as per national standards and validated as such. To support this, the article references formal assessments from both national and international bodies. The findings indicate a potential necessity for a broader conceptualization of judicial resistance, suggesting it as a possible safeguard against future erosions of the rule of law.

##plugins.generic.usageStats.downloads##

##plugins.generic.usageStats.noStats##

Metrics

Views 204
Downloads:
First_Online_Bojarski_OSLS (English) 89

##submission.authorBiography##

##submission.authorWithAffiliation##

Lukasz Bojarski most of his professional life worked for Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and legal Think Tanks on judiciary, judiciary communication strategy and interaction with CSOs, selection of judges, trial observation, legal profession, human rights, non-discrimination, access to justice, clinical education. In 2010-2015 Lukasz was a member of the Polish National Council for the Judiciary. Lukasz has 30 years of experience in research, consultancy, advocacy, and training in over 20 countries including Balkans, Central Asia, Caucasus, CEE and CIS countries. Lukasz worked as an expert for Council of Europe, European Commission, OSCE/ODIHR, Polish and foreign universities and foundations. In 2019-2023 Lukasz was a doctoral research fellow at the University of Oslo (UiO), Law Faculty, within the project ‘Judges under Stress (JUS) – the Breaking Point of Judicial Institutions’ financed by FRIPRO-funding from the Research Council of Norway and the UiO. This article is based on the part of the PhD research. Author also received ‘Mobility grant’ from the ATTR Research School, Faculty of Theology, UiO that allowed for the visits to the International Institute for the Sociology of Law in Oñati, Gipuzkoa, Spain. Contact: lukeboja@gmail.com

Erreferentziak

AEAJ et al., 2022. Four European organisations of judges sue EU Council for disregarding EU Court’s judgements on decision to unblock funds to Poland. Association of European Administrative Judges (AEAJ), European Association of Judges (EAJ), Rechters voor Rechters (Judges for Judges), Magistrats Européens pour la Démocratie et les Libertés (MEDEL) and vice presidents from August 2017 to February 2018 [online]. Available at: https://www.aeaj.org/media/files/2022-08-29-86-Poland%20Action%20for%20anulment%20EU%20Council%20PRESS%20RELEASE-%20EN%20-%20to%20circulate.pdf.

Barber, N., 2013. Self-defence for institutions. The Cambridge Law Journal [online], 72(3), 558–577. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197313000706. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197313000706

Barcik, J., 2017. Standardy udziału sędziów w sferze publicznej w dokumentach międzynarodowych. Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa. Kwartalnik [online], 1(34), 35–46. Available at: http://www.krspl.home.pl/admin/files/kwartalnik/krs_01_2017_druk_prv.pdf.

Barcik, J., 2018. Niezawisłość sędziowska jako wartość konstytucyjna Unii Europejskiej – glosa do wyroku Trybunału Sprawiedliwości z 27.02.2018 r., C-64/16, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses. Europejski Przegląd Sądowy, 2018/5, 23–29.

Barcz, J., Grzelak, A., and Szyndlauer, R., eds., 2021. Problem praworządności w Polsce w świetle orzecznictwa Trybunału Sprawiedliwości UE (2018–2020) [online]. Elipsa. Available at: https://bip.brpo.gov.pl/sites/default/files/2021-11/Problem%20praworz%C4%85dno%C5%9Bci%20w%20Polsce%20w%20%C5%9Bwietle%20orzecznictwa%20Trybuna%C5%82u%20Sprawiedliwo%C5%9Bci%20UE%20%282018%E2%80%932020%29.pdf.

Białogłowski, W., et al., 2017. Konstytucyjny spór o granice zmian organizacji i zasad działania Trybunału Konstytucyjnego czerwiec 2015 - marzec 2016. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer Polska.

Biqdata, 2017. Wszystkie protesty na jednej mapie. W obronie sądów spotkaliśmy się w ponad 250 miastach. Gazeta Wyborcza [online], 24 July. Available at: https://biqdata.wyborcza.pl/biqdata/7,159116,22176137,wszystkie-protesty-na-jednej-mapie-w-obronie-sadow-spotkalismy.html.

Bobek, M., 2008. The Fortress of Judicial Independence and the Mental Transitions of the Central European Judiciaries. European Public Law [online], 99–123. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=995220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/EURO2008007

Bojarski, Ł., 2019a. Bon ton sądowy i trybunalski [Bon Ton in a Court and Tribunal], Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, at D4–D5, 5 Nov.

Bojarski, Ł., 2019b. Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa. In: T. Zalasiński, ed., Jak przywrócić państwo prawa? Warsaw: Fundacja Im. Stefana Batorego.

Bojarski, Ł., 2020. Sędziowski Ruch Oporu [Judicial Resistance Movement]. Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, at D2-D3, 14 Jan.

Bojarski, Ł., 2021. Civil Society Organizations for and with the Courts and Judges—Struggle for the Rule of Law and Judicial Independence: The Case of Poland 1976–2020. German Law Journal [online], 22, 1344–1384. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2021.72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2021.72

Bojarski, Ł., 2024. For the Rule of Law and Judicial Independence: Robe and Banner – Methods of Judicial Resistance in Poland (2015–2023). Draft.

Bojarski, Ł., et al., eds., 2019. Konstytucja, praworządność, władza sądownicza: aktualne problemy trzeciej władzy w Polsce. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer Polska.

Bonelli, M., and Claes, M., 2018. Judicial serendipity: how Portuguese judges came to the rescue of the Polish judiciary: ECJ 27 February 2018, Case C-64/16, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses. European Constitutional Law Review [online], 14, 622–643. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019618000330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019618000330

Borkowski, G., ed., 2016. Extraordinary Congress of the Polish Judges [online]. Warsaw: TNOiK “Dom Organizatora” Toruń. Available at: http://krspl.home.pl/admin/files/nksp%20wersja%20angielska%20%2020170117%201.pdf.

Călin, D., and Bodnar, A., 2022. Fighting for European Values. The Story of Romanian Judges and Prosecutors. Conference paper: Judges Under Stress. The Breaking Point of Judicial Institutions. University of Oslo, November 2022.

Cardinal, M.C., 2021. The disempowerment of the judiciary in Syria since the March revolution of 2011 and the emergence of off-bench resistance to authoritarian rule: What role for women judges and prosecutors? Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1245. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1245

Cardinal, M.C., forthcoming 2024. Judicial Resistance to Authoritarian Rule in Syria since the March Revolution of 2011. Oñati Socio-Legal Series.

Coman, R., and Puleo, L., 2022. Judges associations against rule of law dismantlement in Hungary, Poland and Romania. Framing opposition goals and instances of resistance. Conference paper: Judges Under Stress. The Breaking Point of Judicial Institutions. University of Oslo, November 2022.

Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 2nd April, 1997 [Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Dz.U. 1997, Nr 78 poz. 483]. English translation available at: https://www.sejm.gov.pl/prawo/konst/angielski/kon1.htm .

Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), 2002. Opinion no. 3 of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) to the attention of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the principles and rules governing judges’ professional conduct, in particular ethics, incompatible behaviour and impartiality [online]. Strasbourg, 19 November. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/16807475bb.

Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), 2015. Opinion no. 18, The position of the judiciary and its relation with the other powers of state in a modern democracy [online]. London, 16 October. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/1680700a33

Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), 2020. Opinion No. 23, The role of associations of judges in supporting judicial independence [online]. Strasbourg, 6 November. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/opinion-23-en-ccje-2020/1680a03d4b.

Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), 2022. Opinion No. 25 on freedom of expression of judges [online]. Strasbourg, 2 December. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/opinion-no-25-2022-final/1680a973ef%0A%0A.

Council of Europe (CoE), 1950. The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [online]. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Convention_ENG.

Council of Europe (CoE), 2010. Magna Carta of European Judges [online]. Strasbourg, 17 November. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/16807482c6.

Čuroš, P., 2023. Attack or reform: Systemic interventions in the judiciary in Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 13, 626–658. Available at: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1393. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1393

Czarnota, A., 2016. Rule of Law as an Outcome of Crisis. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law [online], 8, 311–321. Available at: https://www.proquest.com/docview/1987923945?sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-016-0039-5

Czarnota, A., 2017. The Constitutional Tribunal. VerfBlog [online], 3 June. Available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/the-constitutional-tribunal/.

Dijkstra, S. 2017. The Freedom of the Judge to Express his Personal Opinions and Convictions under the ECHR. Utrecht Law Review [online], 13(1), 1–17. Available at: https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.371

EU 2012a. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union [online], C 326/391, 26 October. Available at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj.

EU 2012b. Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union [online], C 326, 26 October. Available at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/treaty/tfeu_2012/oj.

EU 2016a. Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/1374 of 27 July 2016 regarding the rule of law in Poland. Official Journal of the European Union [online], 217, 12 August. Available at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reco/2016/1374/oj.

EU 2016b. Consolidated version of the Treaty on the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union [online], C 202/1, 7 June. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12016ME%2FTXT.

EU 2017a. Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/146 of 21 December 2016 regarding the rule of law in Poland complementary to Recommendation (EU) 2016/1374. Official Journal of the European Union [online], L 22/65, 27 January. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32017H0146.

EU 2017b. Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/1520 of 26 July 2017 regarding the rule of law in Poland complementary to Recommendation (EU) 2016/1374 and (EU) 2017/146. Official Journal of the European Union [online], 228, 2 September. Available at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reco/2017/1520/oj.

EU 2021a. European Parliament resolution of 21 October 2021 on the rule of law crisis in Poland and the primacy of EU law (2021/2935(RSP)) [online]. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0439_EN.html.

EU 2021b. European Parliament resolution of 24 June 2021 on the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report. (2021/2025(INI)). Official Journal of the European Union [online], C 81/27, 18 February. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021IP0313.

European Commission, 2019. Rule of Law: European Commission refers Poland to the Court of Justice to protect judges from political control [online]. Press release. Brussels, 10 October. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_19_6033.

European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), 2022a. Interim measures in the case of Polish Supreme Court judge’s immunity. ECHR 042 (2022), 8 Febr.

European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), 2022b. Interim measures amended in cases concerning judges’ immunity. ECHR 252 (2022), 10 Aug.

European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), 2022c. Notification of 20 applications concerning judicial independence in Poland. ECHR 136 (2022). Press release. 25 April.

European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), 2022d. Notification of 37 applications concerning judicial independence in Poland. ECHR 248 (2022). Press release. 25 July.

European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), 2024. Press country profile. Poland [online]. July 2024. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/cp_poland_eng.

European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ), 2010. ENCJ working Group Judicial Ethics Report 2009–2010 [online]. Available at: https://www.encj.eu/images/stories/pdf/ethics/judicialethicsdeontologiefinal.pdf.

European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ), 2012. Justice, Society and the Media, Report 2011–2012 [online]. Available at: https://www.encj.eu/images/stories/pdf/GA/Dublin/encj_report_justice_society_media_def.pdf.

Filipek, P., and Taborowski, M., 2024. Decoding the Euro Box Promotion case: Independence of constitutional courts, equality of States, and the clash in judicial standards in view of the principle of primacy. Common Market Law Review, 61, 831–868. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2024052

Fleck, Z., 2023. Subordination, conformity and alignment – lack of professional community. Conference paper: Judges Under Stress. The Breaking Point of Judicial Institutions. University of Oslo, November 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1896

Forum, 2020. Pismo sędziów polskich do OBWE w sprawie wyborów prezydenckich. Forumfws.eu [online], 28 April. Available at: https://forumfws.eu/glos-w-sprawie/sedziowie-obwe/.

Gałczyńska, M., and Jałoszewski, M., 2022. Śledztwo Onetu i OKO.press. Jak Piebiak szukał haków na sędziów w zielonych teczkach. Wskazywał „szkodników”. OKO Press [online], 20 April. Available at: https://oko.press/sledztwo-onetu-i-oko-press-jak-piebiak-szukal-hakow-na-sedziow/.

Grabowska-Moroz, B., and Szuleka, M., 2018. It starts with the personnel. Replacement of common court presidents and vice presidents from August 2017 to February 2018. Warsaw: Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights.

Graver, H.P., 2015. Judges Against Justice: on Judges When the Rule of Law Is under Attack. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44293-7

Graver, H.P., 2018. Why Adolf Hitler Spared the Judges: Judicial Opposition Against the Nazi State. German Law Journal [online], 19(4), 845–878. Available at: https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/65871/German%2Blaw%2Breview%2B06%252BVol_19_No_04_Graver.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200022896

Graver, H.P., 2020. Jussens helter. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN0809-750X-2020-04-13

Graver, H.P., 2023. Valiant Judges, Iniquitous Law. Thirteen Stories of Heroes of the Law. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003395324

Gregorczyk-Abram, S., 2017. „Tydzień Konstytucyjny” w polskich szkołach. Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa. Kwartalnik, 2017/1, 61.

Gregorczyk-Abram, S., and Wawrykiewicz, M., 2019. Terra incognita: postępowania indywidualne w obronie sędziów Sądu Najwyższego i Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego: tematyka pytań prejudycjalnych. In: Ł. Bojarski et al., eds., Konstytucja, praworządność, władza sądownicza: aktualne problemy trzeciej władzy w Polsce. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer Polska.

Gwizdak, J., 2016. Unikaj sądów! [YouTube clip]. TEDx Katowice [online], 11 July. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_BDwOZklNs.

Halliday, T.C., Karpik, L., and Feeley, M.M., eds., 2007. Fighting for political freedom: comparative studies of the legal complex and political liberalism. Oxford/Portland: Hart.

International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), 1999. Universal Charter of the Judge [online]. Available at: https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/IAJ-Universal-Charter-of-the-Judge-instruments-1989-eng.pdf.

Israël, L. 2001. La Résistance dans les milieux judiciaires. Action collective et identités professionnelles en temps de guerre. Genèses [online], 45, 45–68. Available at: https://shs.cairn.info/revue-geneses-2001-4-page-45?lang=fr. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/gen.045.0045

Israël, L. 2005a. From cause lawyering to resistance. French communist lawyers in the shadow of history, 1929–1945. In: A. Sarat and S. Stuart, eds., The worlds cause lawyers make. Structure and Agency in Legal Practice. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503625440-008

Israël, L. 2005b. Robes noires, années sombres. Avocats et magistrats en résistance pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Pour une histoire du vingtième siècle. Paris: Fayard.

Iustitia, 2017. Uchwała Stowarzyszeń Sędziowskich z 28.12.2017 r. (wzywająca do bojkotu wyborów do KRS) [online]. Available at: https://krs.pl/pl/o-radzie/zbior-zasad-etyki-zawodowej-sedziow/591-uchwala-nr-25-2017-krajowej-rady-sadownictwa-z-dnia-13-stycznia-2017-r.html.

Iustitia, 2018. Uchwały Zgromadzenia Przedstawicieli Sędziów Apelacji Krakowskiej z dnia 12 października 2018 roku. Iustitia.pl [online], 14 October. Available at: https://themis-sedziowie.eu/uchwaly-zgromadzenia-przedstawicieli-sedziow-apelacji-krakowskiej-z-dnia-12-pazdziernika-2018-roku/.

Iustitia, 2020a. 18-ty dzień każdego miesiąca Dniem Solidarności z Represjonowanymi Sędziami. Warsaw, Iustitia.pl.

Iustitia, 2020b. Fundusz pomocy dla represjonowanych sędziów. Warsaw, Iustitia.pl.

Iustitia, 2021. Raporty. Obietnice a rzeczywistość – statystyki sądów rejonowych po pięciu latach „reform” (2015–2020). Warsaw, Iustitia.pl.

Iustitia, 2022. Apel polskich sędziów w obronie prawa UE. Rekordowa liczba nazwisk. Warsaw, Iustitia.pl.

Jałoszewski, M., 2018. Sędziowie odmawiają współpracy z nową KRS. Nie będą opiniować awansów. OKO Press [online], 26 November. Available at: https://oko.press/sedziowie-odmawiaja-wspolpracy-z-nowa-krs-nie-beda-opiniowac-awansow/.

Jałoszewski, M., 2021a. Polish court challenges Disciplinary Chamber’s order. Judge Paweł Juszczyszyn can return to adjudicating. Rule of Law [online], 12 May. Available at: https://ruleoflaw.pl/polish-court-challenges-disciplinary-chamber-order-judge-pawel-juszczyszyn-can-return-to-adjudicating/.

Jałoszewski, M., 2021b. Prawnik sędziego Juszczyszyna złożył do prokuratury zawiadomienie na prezes SN Manowską. OKO.press [online], 10 June. Available at: https://oko.press/prawnik-sedziego-juszczyszyna-zlozyl-do-prokuratury-zawiadomienie-na-prezes-sn-manowska/.

Jałoszewski, M., 2022. The Sejm has appointed the neo-NCJ. It contains judges associated with Ziobro’s ministry and from the ‘Kasta’ group. Rule of Law [online], 20 May. Available at: https://ruleoflaw.pl/the-sejm-has-appointed-the-neo-ncj-mk-ii-it-contains-judges-associated-with-ziobros-ministry-and-from-the-kasta-group/.

Kalb, J., and Bannon, A., 2018. Courts Under Pressure: Judicial Independence and Rule of Law in the Trump Era. New York University Law Review [online], 1, 93. Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1281&context=faculty_scholarship.

Kalisz, M., and Szuleka, M., 2022. Postępowania dyscyplinarne przeciwko sędziom sądów powszechnych w Polsce. Raport z monitoringu w 2022 r [online]. Warsaw: Helsińska Fundacja Praw Człowieka. Available at: https://hfhr.pl/publikacje/postepowania-dyscyplinarne-przeciwko-sedziom-sadow-powszechnych-raport.

Kershaw, I., 2015. The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation. London: Bloomsbury. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474240970

Kocjan, J., 2023. Znaczenie orzecznictwa Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka dla naprawy wymiaru sprawiedliwości po kryzysie praworządności w Polsce. Europejski Przegląd Sądowy, 2023/12.

Kopińska, G., ed., 2019. Ustawa w 2 godziny 20 minut. XIII Komunikat Obywatelskiego Forum Legislacji podsumowujący aktywność legislacyjną rządów Zjednoczonej Prawicy, Sejmu VIII kadencji i Senatu IX kadencji [Law in 2 hours 20 minutes. The 13th Communiqué of the Citizens’ Legislation Forum summarizing the legislative activity of the governments of the United Right, the Eighth term of the Sejm and the Ninth term of the Senate] (online). Warsaw: Fundacja Im. Stefana Batorego. Available at: https://www.batory.org.pl/upload/files/Programy%20operacyjne/Forum%20Idei/Komunikat_2019-1.pdf.

KOS, 2019. Pomoc Psychologiczna dla Prawników. Pakiet Informacyjny “Prawnik Pod Presją”. Komitetobronysprawiedliwosci.pl [online]. Available at: https://komitetobronysprawiedliwosci.pl/kos-we-wspolpracy-ze-specjalistami-organizuje-pomoc-psychologiczna-dla-osob-wykonujacych-zawody-prawnicze/.

Kosar, D., and Vincze, A., 2022. European Standards of Judicial Governance: From Soft Law Standards to Hard Law. Journal für Rechtspolitik [online], 30, 491–501. Available at: https://doi.org/10.33196/jrp202204049101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33196/jrp202204049101

Kościerzyński, J., ed., 2020. Justice under pressure – repressions as a means of attempting to take control over the judiciary and the prosecution in Poland. Years 2015–2019 [online]. Warsaw: Iustitia. Available at: https://ruleoflaw.pl/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Raport_EN.pdf.

Kościerzyński, J., ed., 2024. Wymiar sprawiedliwości pod presją. Represje jako metoda walki o przejęcie kontroli nad władzą sądowniczą i prokuraturą w Polsce w latach 2015–2023. Warsaw: Iustitia [onlilne]. Available at: https://forumfws.eu/publikacje/wymiar-sprawiedliwosci-pod-presja-ii/.

Krzyżanowska-Mierzewska, M., 2016. Ochrona proceduralna przysługująca sędziom w sporach z państwem. Komentarz do wyroku Wielkiej Izby w sprawie Baka przeciwko Węgrom z 23.06.2016 r., skarga 20261/12 [Procedural protection accorded to judges in disputes with the state. Commentary on the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Baka v. Hungary…]. Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa. Kwartalnik [online], 2016/3(32), 25–30. Available at: http://www.krspl.home.pl/admin/files/kwartalnik/krs_03_2016_druk_prv.pdf.

Krzyżanowska-Mierzewska, M., 2023. Proceduralna reakcja Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka na kryzys praworządności w Polsce. Europejski Przegląd Sądowy [online], 2023/2. Available at: https://assets.contenthub.wolterskluwer.com/api/public/content/7630977624b14529a45ddac73812d83b?v=0da11437.

Lyman, R. 2017. In Poland, an Assault on the Courts Provokes Outrage. N.Y. Times, 19 July.

Łętowska, E., 2022. Defending the Judiciary: Strategies of Resistance in Poland’s Judiciary. VerfBlog [online], 27 September. Available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/defending-the-judiciary/.

Łętowska, E., 2023. Po pierwszej lekturze wyroku Tuleya przeciw Polsce. Europejski Przegląd Sądowy, 2023/10.

Maroń, G., 2011. Instytucja Ślubowania Sędziowskiego w Polskim Porządku Prawnym [Institution of judicial oath of office in the Polish legal order]. Studia Prawnicze / The Legal Studies [online], 3-4(189), 265–292. Available at: https://czasopisma.inp.pan.pl/index.php/sp/article/view/2596. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37232/sp.2011.3-4.10

Matczak, M., 2020. The Clash of Powers in Poland’s Rule of Law Crisis: Tools of Attack and Self-Defense. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law [online], 12, 421–450. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40803-020-00144-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-020-00144-0

Matos, J.I., 2020. The speech by the President of the European Judges Association José Igreja Matos at the March of Thousand Robes in Warsaw, Poland. Iustitia.pl [online], 11 January. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1l_TgLOFhQ. DOI: https://doi.org/10.38023/789c6db3-f881-431f-bbca-1aab0fc00c0c

Matthes, C.Y., 2022. Judges as activists: how Polish judges mobilise to defend the rule of law. East European Politics [online], 38(3). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2022.2092843. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2022.2092843

Mazur, D., Pech, L., and Wachowiec, P., 2021. 1825 Days Later: The End of the Rule of Law in Poland, part I and II. VerfBlog [online], 13 January. Available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/1825-days-later-the-end-of-the-rule-of-law-in-poland-part-i/.

Mijatović, D., 2019. Report following her visit to Poland from 11 to 15 March 2019, Strasbourg, 28 June 2019 [online]. Strasbourg: Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/report-on-the-visit-to-poland-from-11-to-15-march-2019-by-dunja-mijato/168094d848.

Moliterno, J.E., and Čuroš, P., 2021. Recent Attacks on Judicial Independence: The Vulgar, the Systemic, and the Insidious. German Law Journal [online], 22(7), 1159–91. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2021.63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2021.63

Morawski, L. 2017. A Critical Response. VerfBlog [online], 3 June. Available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/a-critical-response/.

National Council of the Judiciary of Poland (NCJ), 2003. Zbiór Zasad Etyki Zawodowej Sędziów i Asesorów Sądowych. 16/2003 [online]. Available at: https://krs.pl/pl/o-radzie/zbior-zasad-etyki-zawodowej-sedziow/591-uchwala-nr-25-2017-krajowej-rady-sadownictwa-z-dnia-13-stycznia-2017-r.html.

National Council of the Judiciary of Poland (NCJ), 2016. Zgromadzenia Ogólne Sędziów popierają uchwały przyjęte podczas Nadzwyczajnego Kongresu Sędziów Polskich [online]. Available at: https://www.krs.pl/pl/dzialalnosc/konferencje/199-nadzwyczajny-kongres-sedziow/272-zgromadzenia-ogolne-sedziow-popieraja-uchwaly-przyjete-podczas-nadzwyczajnego-kongresu-sedziow-polskich.html.

National Council of the Judiciary of Poland (NCJ), 2018. Uchwała nr 626/2018 Krajowej Rady Sądownictwa z 12 grudnia 2018 r. w przedmiocie wykładni zasad etyki zawodowej sędziów [Resolution of December 12, 2018 on the interpretation of the rules of professional ethics of judges. 626/2018].

Oniszczuk, J., 1996. Państwo prawne w orzecznictwie Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. Zasady państwa prawnego [The rule of law in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court. Principles of the rule of law]. Warsaw: Helsińska Fundacja Praw Człowieka.

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), 2017. Opinion on Certain Provisions of the Draft Act on the Supreme Court of Poland (as of 26 September 2017) [online]. 20 November. Available at: https://www.osce.org/odihr/357621.

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), 2020. Urgent Interim Opinion on the Bill Amending the Act on the Organization of Common Courts, the Act on the Supreme Court and Certain Other Acts of Poland (as of 20 December 2019) [online]. 14 January. Available at: https://www.osce.org/odihr/443731.

Parau, C.E., 2012. The Drive for Judicial Supremacy in Central and Eastern Europe. In: A. Seibert-Fohr, ed., Judicial Independence in Transition [online]. Cham: Springer, 619–665. Available at: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-28299-7_16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28299-7_16

Parau, C.E., 2018. Transnational Networking and Elite Self-Empowerment. The Making of the Judiciary in Contemporary Europe and Beyond. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5871/bacad/9780197266403.001.0001

Pech, L., 2023. The European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over national judiciary - related measures [online]. Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs Directorate-General for Internal Policies. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/IPOL_STU(2023)747368.

Pech, L., and Kochenov, D., 2021. Respect for the Rule of Law in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice: A Casebook Overview of Key Judgments since the Portuguese Judges Case [online]. Stockholm: SIEPS. Available at: https://sieps.se/en/publications/2021/respect-for-the-rule-of-law-in-the-case-law-of-the-european-court-of-justice/.

Pech, L., and Scheppele, K.L., 2017. Illiberalism Within: Rule of Law Backsliding in the EU. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies [online], 19, 3–47. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/cel.2017.9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cel.2017.9

Pech, L., Sadurski, W., and Scheppele, K.L., 2020. Open Letter to the President of the European Commission regarding Poland’s “Muzzle Law”. VerfBlog [online], 9 March. Available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/open-letter-to-the-president-of-the-european-commission-regarding-polands-muzzle-law/.

Pech, L., Scheppele, K.L., and Sadurski, W., 2019. Open Letter to the President of the European Commission regarding Poland’s disciplinary regime for judges and the urgent need for interim measures in Commission v Poland (C-791/19). VerfBlog [online], 11 December. Available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/open-letter-to-the-president-of-the-european-commission/.

Pereira Coutinho, L., La Torre, M., and Smith, S.D., eds., 2015. Judicial Activism. An Interdisciplinary Approach to the American and European Experiences [online]. Springer. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18549-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18549-1

Ploszka, A. 2020. Granice udziału sędziów sądów powszechnych w debacie publicznej. Standard strasburski a regulacja ustawowa. In: A. Bodnar and A. Ploszka, eds., Wokół kryzysu praworządności, demokracji i praw człowieka. Księga jubileuszowa Profesora Mirosława Wyrzykowskiego. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer Polska.

Puleo, L., and Coman, R., 2024. Explaining judges’ opposition when judicial independence is undermined: insights from Poland, Romania, and Hungary. Democratization [online], 31(1)/2024, 47–69. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2023.2255833. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2023.2255833

Rakowska-Trela, A., 2019. Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa po wejściu w życie nowelizacji z 8.12.2017 r. – organ nadal konstytucyjny czy pozakonstytucyjny? In: Ł. Bojarski et al., eds., Konstytucja, praworządność, władza sądownicza. Aktualne problemy trzeciej władzy w Polsce. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer Polska.

Reuters, 2020. Thousands protest against Poland’s plan to discipline judges [online]. 11 January. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/world/thousands-protest-against-polands-plan-to-discipline-judges-idUSKBN1ZA0PC/.

Sadurski, W., 2019a. Poland’s Constitutional Breakdown. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198840503.001.0001

Sadurski, W., 2019b. Polish Constitutional Tribunal Under PiS: From an Activist Court, to a Paralysed Tribunal, to a Governmental Enabler. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law [online], 11(2), 63–84. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40803-018-0078-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-018-0078-1

Said, A.S., 2009. The Role of the Judges’ Club in Enhancing the Independence of the Judiciary and Spurring Political Reform. In: N. Bernard-Maugiron, ed., Judges and Political Reform in Egypt [online]. Oxford University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5743/cairo/9789774162015.003.0008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5743/cairo/9789774162015.003.0008

Said, M., 2009. A Political Analysis of the Egyptian Judges’ Revolt. In: N. Bernard-Maugiron, ed., Judges and Political Reform in Egypt [online]. Oxford University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5743/cairo/9789774162015.003.0002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5743/cairo/9789774162015.003.0002

Sajó, A., 2021. Ruling by Cheating. Governance in Illiberal Democracy. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108952996

Sanders, A., and Von Danwitz, L., 2017. Defamation of Justice – Propositions on how to evaluate public attacks against the Judiciary. VerfBlog [online], 31 October. Available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/defamation-of-justice-propositions-on-how-to-evaluate-public-attacks-against-the-judiciary/.

Scheppele, K.L., Kochenov, D.V., and Grabowska-Moroz, B., 2021. EU Values Are Law, after All: Enforcing EU Values through Systemic Infringement Actions by the European Commission and the Member States of the European Union. Yearbook of European Law [online], 39, 3–121. Available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3706496. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/yel/yeaa012

Sessa, D., 2019. Statement for the attention of the Association of Polish Judges “IUSTITIA”, International Association of Judges and other national and international associations and institutions concerned with the independence of the judiciary in Poland [online]. 31 December. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/duro-sessa-statement-poland-31-december-2019/1680997c4f.

Spano, R., 2021. Zasada rządów prawa jako gwiazda przewodnia w Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka – trybunał strasburski a niezawisłość sądownictwa. Europejski Przegląd Sądowy, 2021/5.

Szuleka, M., Wolny, M., and Kalisz, M., 2019. The Time of Trial. How do changes in the justice system affect Polish judges? [online] Warsaw, Poland: Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights. Available at: https://archiwum.hfhr.pl/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Czas-proby-EN-web.pdf.

Taborowski, M., 2019. Mechanizmy ochrony praworządności państw członkowskich w prawie Unii Europejskiej. Studium przebudzenia systemu ponadnarodowego. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer.

Tacik, P., 2024. Subject, sovereign, Antigone: Judicial subjectivity and determination of the law. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1900. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1900

Tokson, M., 2015. Judicial Resistance and Legal Change. University of Chicago Law Review [online], 82(2). Available at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol82/iss2/5/.

Trochev, A., and Ellett, R., 2014. Judges and Their Allies: Rethinking Judicial Autonomy through the Prism of Off-Bench Resistance. Journal of Law and Courts [online], 2(1), 67–91. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/674528. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/674528

United Nations (UN), 1985. Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary [online]. Available at: https://independence-judges-lawyers.org/supplementing-the-un-basic-principles-on-the-independence-of-the-judiciary/.

United Nations (UN), 2002. The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct [online]. Available at: https://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/corruption/judicial_group/Bangalore_principles.pdf.

United Nations (UN), 2007. Commentary on The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct [online]. Available at: https://www.unodc.org/conig/uploads/documents/publications/Otherpublications/Commentry_on_the_Bangalore_principles_of_Judicial_Conduct.pdf.

United Nations (UN), 2018. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers on his mission to Poland [online]. Geneva, 6 June. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1629765.

Ustawa, 1989. Ustawa z 29 grudnia 1989 r. o zmianie Konstytucji Polskiej Rzeczypospolitej Ludowej [online]. Available at: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU19890750444.

Ustawa, 2001. Ustawa z dnia 27 lipca 2001 r. Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych [online]. Available at: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20010981070.

Ustawa, 2017. Ustawa z dnia 8 grudnia 2017 r. o zmianie ustawy o Krajowej Radzie Sądownictwa oraz niektórych innych ustaw. Dz.U.2018.3 [online]. Available at: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20180000003.

Ustawa, 2019. Ustawa z 20 grudnia 2019 r. o zmianie ustawy - Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych, ustawy o Sądzie Najwyższym oraz niektórych innych ustaw [online]. Available at: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20200000190.

Venice Commission, 2016–2020. European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) opinions on Polish ‘judicial reform’. CDL-AD(2020)017, CDL-PI(2020)002, CDL-AD(2017)031, CDL-AD(2017)028, CDL-AD(2016)026, CDL-AD(2016)012, CDL-AD(2016)001 [online]. Available at: https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?country=23&year=all.

Venice Commission, 2020. Amendments to the Act on the system of common courts, the Act on the Supreme Court, the Act on Supreme Court, the Act on the National Council of the Judiciary and certain other acts of 20 December 2019 [online]. Available at: https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-REF(2020)002-e.

Verfblog, 2017. Debate - The Polish Constitutional Crisis and Institutional Self-Defense. VerfBlog [online]. Available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/category/debates/the-polish-constitutional-crisis-and-institutional-self-defense/.

Wagner, B., 2019. Nieskazitelność charakteru sędziego [Impeccable character of a judge]. Przegląd Sądowy, 11-12/2019, 7–18.

Weill, R., 2023. War over Israel’s Judicial Independence. VerfBlog [online], 25 January. Available at: https://VerfBlog.de/war-over-israels-judicial-independence/.

Widłak, T., 2024. Judicial resistance and the virtues. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1876. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1876

Wiwinius, J.C., Matos, J.I., and Sterk, K., 2020. [Letter to the president of the European Commission, Dr. U. von der Leyen from the president of the European network of presidents of Supreme Courts, Jean-Claude Wiwinius, the president of the European Association of Judges, Jose Igreja Matos and the president of the European network of Councils for the Judiciary, Kees Sterk] (online). Brussels: European Network of Councils for the Judiciary, 21 February. Available at: https://pgwrk-websitemedia.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/production/pwk-web-encj2017-p/News/Letter%20Judicial%20Networks%20to%20President%20Von%20der%20Leyen%2021%20Feb%202020%20.pdf.

Wójcik, P., 2022. Exhibition and book “Sprawiedliwość” [Justice] (online). Available at: https://atriumcityhall.nl/en/agenda/photo-exhibitionsprawiedliwosc/.

Wróblewski, M., 2017. Granice ekspresji i wypowiedzi sędziego - zarys problemu [Limits of judge’s expression and speech - problem outline]. Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa. Kwartalnik [online], 1(34), 29–34. Available at: http://www.krspl.home.pl/admin/files/kwartalnik/krs_01_2017_druk_prv.pdf.

Wysocka-Schnepf, D., 2020. Władza dyscyplinuje sędziów. Prof. Marek Safjan: To jest niewyobrażalne! [Power disciplines judges. Prof. Marek Safjan: This is unimaginable!]. Wyborcza.pl [online], 28 August. Available at: https://wyborcza.pl/7,82983,26246699,prof-safjan-sedzia-ma-prawo-pisac-do-obwe-ma-moralny.html#commentsAnchor.

Zajadło, J., 2016. Nieposłuszeństwo sędziów. Państwo i Prawo, 71(1), 18–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19195/0137-1134.104.3

Zajadło, J., 2017. Judicial Conscience. Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny, Rok LXXIX, 31–41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/rpeis.2017.79.4.3

Zajadło, J., 2019. Istota sędziowskiego oporu. Kwartalnik Stowarzyszenia Sędziów Polskich "IUSTITIA", 10, 137–142.

Zajadło, J., and Koncewicz, T.T., 2023. Hostile Constitutional Interpretation: Sending a Warning in Rebuilding the Polish Constitutional Court. VerfBlog [online], 6 January. Available at: https://VerfBlog.de/hostile-constitutional-interpretation/.

Zoll, F., and Wortham, L., 2019. Judicial Independence and Accountability: Withstanding Political Stress in Poland. Fordham International Law Journal [online], 42(3), 875. Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj/vol42/iss3/5/.