16 October 2020
Das epochale Versagen der EU-Kommission
Über Richterin Beata Morawiec, die galoppierende Sowjetisierung der polnischen Justizpolitik und wie es so weit kommen konnte. Continue reading >>
1 
28 November 2018
Episode 5 of the Celmer Saga – The Irish High Court Holds Back
On 19 November 2018, Donnelly J gave her fifth judgment in the Celmer saga concluding that the real risk of a flagrant denial of justice has not been established by Mr Celmer and ordered that he be surrendered on foot of the European Arrest Warrants issued against him. Given that Donnelly J had initially found that there were ‘breaches of the common value of the rule of law’, this came as some surprise. Continue reading >>
0
07 September 2018
Talk to me like Lawyers do – Celmer returns to the High Court of Ireland
The Celmer case is back before the High Court of Ireland, which gave a further judgment on 01 August 2018. The decision provides a first insight into the practical application of the CJEU's ruling, most notably its encouragement of executing judicial authorities to enter into dialogue. Continue reading >>
0
05 July 2018
The AG Opinion in the Celmer Case: Why the Test for the Appearance of Independence is Needed
In this post, I focus on what I believe is the most important question in the Celmer case: what kind of a test for the rule of law/fair trial, and with how many prongs? I argue that the rule of law/fair trial test that the Court should apply is the test for the appearance of independence, known from the practice of the ECtHR. I also argue that the Court should not leave the application of this test to the referring court but carry it out by itself. Continue reading >>
0
02 July 2018
The AG Opinion in the Celmer Case: Why Lack of Judicial Independence Should Have Been Framed as a Rule of Law Issue
On 28 June 2018, Advocate General Evgeni Tanchev delivered his Opinion in the Case C‑216/18 PPU Minister for Justice and Equality v LM on the surrender of a crime suspect to Poland. The issue is whether Mr. Artur Celmer, referred to by the Opinion as LM, should be surrendered from Ireland to Poland when there are serious doubts as to whether he would receive a fair trial, due to the alleged lack of independence of the judiciary resulting from recent changes to the Polish judicial system. Continue reading >>06 June 2018
Hic Rhodus, hic salta: The ECJ Hearing of the Landmark “Celmer” Case
The highly anticipated hearing in the Celmer case took place on 1 June 2018 before the Grand Chamber of the ECJ. The stakes are undoubtedly high. On the one hand, the efficiency of the European Arrest Warrant mechanism is clearly at risk — a risk which could lead to broader consequences for the whole architecture of mutual trust and recognition. On the other hand, the Celmer dispute goes to the heart of the problems surrounding the current Polish judicial reforms, and to the ensuing concerns about judicial independence. Taking into account the present negotiations between the Polish government and the Commission, Celmer is unquestionably both political and delicate in the extreme. Continue reading >>13 May 2018
10 Facts on Poland for the Consideration of the European Court of Justice
In June, the European Court of Justice is to decide whether, despite massive legislative changes, the Polish judiciary is still independent and therefore able to ensure a fair trial to people extradited to Poland on the basis of a European Arrest Warrant. Marcin Matczak, a Polish lawyer, uses the old tradition of the amicus curiae letter – a letter from a friend of the court – to depict the situation of the Polish judiciary in 2018. Continue reading >>10 April 2018
Judicial Independence as a Precondition for Mutual Trust
The Celmer case calls for us to reflect on the question what role judicial authorities can and should play in ensuring compliance with democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (DRF) in other EU Member States. In our view, judicial authorities ultimately have an independent responsibility to put a halt to surrenders, in case the wanted person’s fair trial rights are put in peril due to a general lack of judicial independence in the issuing state. At the same time, the political responsibility for balancing diverse EU constitutional principles needs to be borne by democratically elected institutions. Therefore, the court of the executing state should not only halt or suspend judicial cooperation in the event that persuasive pieces of evidence point to a violation of the values shared by the EU and the Member States in the issuing state, but it should also freeze the case awaiting a resolution of the matter from political actors. Continue reading >>
0