De Burca, Grainne

Morijn, John

English

Dissertations of the University of Groningen

   University of GroningenRepression of Freedom of Expression in PolandDe Burca, Grainne; Morijn, JohnDOI:10.17176/20200604-013506-0IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordPublication date:2020Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):De Burca, G., & Morijn, J. (2020, Jun 3). Repression of Freedom of Expression in Poland: Renewingsupport for Wojciech Sadurski. https://doi.org/10.17176/20200604-013506-0CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.Download date: 10-09-2023Repression of Freedom of Expressionin Poland: Renewing support forWojciech SadurskiGráinne de Búrca 2020-06-03T15:37:02In pre-COVID19 times we drew attention (here and here) to the fact that ourcolleague, Professor Wojciech Sadurski, faces multiple civil and criminal cases inPoland resulting from his tweets which were critical of the ruling party. The caseswere brought against him by the current government and its associates. In the first,PiS sued him for civil defamation based on a tweet of November 2018 in which hedescribed PiS as an “organised criminal group”. A first hearing in that case tookplace on 27 November 2019 (see here). Sadurski was also sued by TVP, a TV-station fully controlled by PiS, both for civil and criminal defamation, following a tweetof January 2019 in which he described the TV-station as a “Goebbelsian mediacompany”. That civil defamation case was scheduled for 28 January this year, butcancelled at the last minute (see here). Unfortunately, COVID19 has evidently not changed the priorities of PiS andassociates. The cases against Sadurski were recently rescheduled on short notice– another tactic of legal harassment – while the world is preoccupied with othermatters. Hearings are now due to take place in (COVID19 induced) absentia onMonday 15 June (PiS v Sadurksi) and 19 June 2020 (TVP v Sadurski – criminaldefamation). The latter case was initially quashed on a procedural motion on18 March 2020. But TVP appealed, showing the real priorities of PiS during theCOVID19 pandemic, alleging serious legal errors by the judge of first instance. Thecourt of appeal agreed with TVP and remanded the case for reexamination. TVP vSadurski (civil defamation) has not yet been rescheduled.Drawing attention to the same cases multiple times risks sounding like a brokenrecord. Readers may well ask: but has anything changed? The answer is thatinfuriatingly little has changed. Indeed the correct framing should be: why haven’tthings changed? In its Annual Work Programme 2020, enthusiastically titled “AUnion That Strives for More”, the European Commission has announced, forthis year alone, no less than three grand plans for a new European DemocracyAction Plan, a revamped Annual Rule of Law Report and a New Strategy for theImplementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. But what is the point of yetanother set of action plans and strategies, when the Commission, the EuropeanParliament, Member states and national parliaments are not taking action onthe basis of existing possibilities and competences right now, while freedom ofexpression is slowly suffocated as part of Poland’s slide into authoritarianism? Whatis the point of EU and national politicians waxing lyrically about the importance offreedom of expression while refusing to speak out about flagrant abuses such as thecases against Sadurski? - 1 -The problem is also considerably broader than the cases against Sadurski. Searchfor ‘freedom of expression’ in the Court of Justice database and you will find CaseC-55/20. It is a request for a preliminary ruling, lodged at the end of January, by theDisciplinary Court of the Bar Association in Warsaw. It provides a sharp impressionof the extent and the depth of the attempts to suppress freedom of expression inPoland today and the Polish government’s determination to silence any sort ofcriticism by opponents. The facts: R.G., a lawyer made public statements about the actions of the PublicProsecutor in 2016 “in which (s)he commented on the hypothetical possibility ofhis/her client, D.T., (then) President of the European Council [yes, Donald Tusk]being charged with a criminal offence”.   Incensed by this statement, given the Polishgovernment’s bitter resentment of Donald Tusk, the National Prosecutor in July 2017wrote to the Bar Association to request disciplinary proceedings be instituted againstR.G. The Prosecutor complained that these statements “went beyond the limits of anadvocate’s freedom of expression, could be construed as unlawful threats, that is, asa criminal offence, and constituted disciplinary misconduct”. The Bar Association’sDisciplinary Spokesperson then investigated the case and has since attempted todismiss it more than once for lack of any ground. But the Public Prosecutor andthe Ministry of Justice have continued to appeal. The Bar Association’s DisciplinaryCourt is now asking for guidance from Luxembourg as to whether this is a matter ofEU law (insofar as the EU Services Directive also applies to the disciplinary liabilityof advocates), and as to how it should go about its work in a context in which theultimate appeal instance (the Disciplinary Chamber of the Polish Supreme Court)is no longer impartial and independent in the light of criteria formulated by theEuropean Court of Justice.Clearly the sweeping strategy of PiS and associates to silence its critics throughlegal harassment and other tactics needs to be met with an equally if not moredetermined counterstrategy. That counterstrategy requires constant exposure ofthe party’s legal and non-legal hounding of its critics, calling publicly on those withinfluence over PiS to use that influence to stop the harassment, and continuing tomake noise until the assaults on freedom of expression cease. If we sound like a broken record, it is because – despite numerous requests andattempts to draw their attention to this issue – national and European politicianshave so far refused to act on their obligations and have failed to give any attentionto these cases or to call on PiS to withdraw them.  If the cases against WojciechSadurski continue, and if one of them ends up before the Court of Justice due tothe unwillingness of leaders to act or intervene against the harassment, this wouldrepresent a real political failure.  Europe needs intellectuals like Sadurski to speakout against what is happening to democracy and constitutionalism in his country, andcourageous intellectuals like him deserve to be protected by the EU and by memberstate governments when they do so.We renew our public support for Wojciech Sadurski and call on others to renewtheirs.  His words are his, but his freedom of expression is also ours. We stand#WithWoj and we ask you to do the same, either by signing below, or by showingyou are #WithWoj on social media. - 2 -- 3 -

Repression of Freedom of Expression in Poland:Renewing support for Wojciech Sadurski

ARTS repository - University of Groningen

   University of GroningenRepression of Freedom of Expression in PolandDe Burca, Grainne; Morijn, JohnDOI:10.17176/20200604-013506-0IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordPublication date:2020Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):De Burca, G., & Morijn, J. (2020, Jun 3). Repression of Freedom of Expression in Poland: Renewingsupport for Wojciech Sadurski. https://doi.org/10.17176/20200604-013506-0CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.Download date: 07-06-2022Repression of Freedom of Expressionin Poland: Renewing support forWojciech SadurskiGráinne de Búrca 2020-06-03T15:37:02In pre-COVID19 times we drew attention (here and here) to the fact that ourcolleague, Professor Wojciech Sadurski, faces multiple civil and criminal cases inPoland resulting from his tweets which were critical of the ruling party. The caseswere brought against him by the current government and its associates. In the first,PiS sued him for civil defamation based on a tweet of November 2018 in which hedescribed PiS as an “organised criminal group”. A first hearing in that case tookplace on 27 November 2019 (see here). Sadurski was also sued by TVP, a TV-station fully controlled by PiS, both for civil and criminal defamation, following a tweetof January 2019 in which he described the TV-station as a “Goebbelsian mediacompany”. That civil defamation case was scheduled for 28 January this year, butcancelled at the last minute (see here). Unfortunately, COVID19 has evidently not changed the priorities of PiS andassociates. The cases against Sadurski were recently rescheduled on short notice– another tactic of legal harassment – while the world is preoccupied with othermatters. Hearings are now due to take place in (COVID19 induced) absentia onMonday 15 June (PiS v Sadurksi) and 19 June 2020 (TVP v Sadurski – criminaldefamation). The latter case was initially quashed on a procedural motion on18 March 2020. But TVP appealed, showing the real priorities of PiS during theCOVID19 pandemic, alleging serious legal errors by the judge of first instance. Thecourt of appeal agreed with TVP and remanded the case for reexamination. TVP vSadurski (civil defamation) has not yet been rescheduled.Drawing attention to the same cases multiple times risks sounding like a brokenrecord. Readers may well ask: but has anything changed? The answer is thatinfuriatingly little has changed. Indeed the correct framing should be: why haven’tthings changed? In its Annual Work Programme 2020, enthusiastically titled “AUnion That Strives for More”, the European Commission has announced, forthis year alone, no less than three grand plans for a new European DemocracyAction Plan, a revamped Annual Rule of Law Report and a New Strategy for theImplementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. But what is the point of yetanother set of action plans and strategies, when the Commission, the EuropeanParliament, Member states and national parliaments are not taking action onthe basis of existing possibilities and competences right now, while freedom ofexpression is slowly suffocated as part of Poland’s slide into authoritarianism? Whatis the point of EU and national politicians waxing lyrically about the importance offreedom of expression while refusing to speak out about flagrant abuses such as thecases against Sadurski? - 1 -The problem is also considerably broader than the cases against Sadurski. Searchfor ‘freedom of expression’ in the Court of Justice database and you will find CaseC-55/20. It is a request for a preliminary ruling, lodged at the end of January, by theDisciplinary Court of the Bar Association in Warsaw. It provides a sharp impressionof the extent and the depth of the attempts to suppress freedom of expression inPoland today and the Polish government’s determination to silence any sort ofcriticism by opponents. The facts: R.G., a lawyer made public statements about the actions of the PublicProsecutor in 2016 “in which (s)he commented on the hypothetical possibility ofhis/her client, D.T., (then) President of the European Council [yes, Donald Tusk]being charged with a criminal offence”.   Incensed by this statement, given the Polishgovernment’s bitter resentment of Donald Tusk, the National Prosecutor in July 2017wrote to the Bar Association to request disciplinary proceedings be instituted againstR.G. The Prosecutor complained that these statements “went beyond the limits of anadvocate’s freedom of expression, could be construed as unlawful threats, that is, asa criminal offence, and constituted disciplinary misconduct”. The Bar Association’sDisciplinary Spokesperson then investigated the case and has since attempted todismiss it more than once for lack of any ground. But the Public Prosecutor andthe Ministry of Justice have continued to appeal. The Bar Association’s DisciplinaryCourt is now asking for guidance from Luxembourg as to whether this is a matter ofEU law (insofar as the EU Services Directive also applies to the disciplinary liabilityof advocates), and as to how it should go about its work in a context in which theultimate appeal instance (the Disciplinary Chamber of the Polish Supreme Court)is no longer impartial and independent in the light of criteria formulated by theEuropean Court of Justice.Clearly the sweeping strategy of PiS and associates to silence its critics throughlegal harassment and other tactics needs to be met with an equally if not moredetermined counterstrategy. That counterstrategy requires constant exposure ofthe party’s legal and non-legal hounding of its critics, calling publicly on those withinfluence over PiS to use that influence to stop the harassment, and continuing tomake noise until the assaults on freedom of expression cease. If we sound like a broken record, it is because – despite numerous requests andattempts to draw their attention to this issue – national and European politicianshave so far refused to act on their obligations and have failed to give any attentionto these cases or to call on PiS to withdraw them.  If the cases against WojciechSadurski continue, and if one of them ends up before the Court of Justice due tothe unwillingness of leaders to act or intervene against the harassment, this wouldrepresent a real political failure.  Europe needs intellectuals like Sadurski to speakout against what is happening to democracy and constitutionalism in his country, andcourageous intellectuals like him deserve to be protected by the EU and by memberstate governments when they do so.We renew our public support for Wojciech Sadurski and call on others to renewtheirs.  His words are his, but his freedom of expression is also ours. We stand#WithWoj and we ask you to do the same, either by signing below, or by showingyou are #WithWoj on social media. - 2 -- 3 -

   University of GroningenRepression of Freedom of Expression in PolandDe Burca, Grainne; Morijn, JohnDOI:10.17176/20200604-013506-0IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordPublication date:2020Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):De Burca, G., & Morijn, J. (2020, Jun 3). Repression of Freedom of Expression in Poland: Renewingsupport for Wojciech Sadurski. https://doi.org/10.17176/20200604-013506-0CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.Download date: 28-12-2022Repression of Freedom of Expressionin Poland: Renewing support forWojciech SadurskiGráinne de Búrca 2020-06-03T15:37:02In pre-COVID19 times we drew attention (here and here) to the fact that ourcolleague, Professor Wojciech Sadurski, faces multiple civil and criminal cases inPoland resulting from his tweets which were critical of the ruling party. The caseswere brought against him by the current government and its associates. In the first,PiS sued him for civil defamation based on a tweet of November 2018 in which hedescribed PiS as an “organised criminal group”. A first hearing in that case tookplace on 27 November 2019 (see here). Sadurski was also sued by TVP, a TV-station fully controlled by PiS, both for civil and criminal defamation, following a tweetof January 2019 in which he described the TV-station as a “Goebbelsian mediacompany”. That civil defamation case was scheduled for 28 January this year, butcancelled at the last minute (see here). Unfortunately, COVID19 has evidently not changed the priorities of PiS andassociates. The cases against Sadurski were recently rescheduled on short notice– another tactic of legal harassment – while the world is preoccupied with othermatters. Hearings are now due to take place in (COVID19 induced) absentia onMonday 15 June (PiS v Sadurksi) and 19 June 2020 (TVP v Sadurski – criminaldefamation). The latter case was initially quashed on a procedural motion on18 March 2020. But TVP appealed, showing the real priorities of PiS during theCOVID19 pandemic, alleging serious legal errors by the judge of first instance. Thecourt of appeal agreed with TVP and remanded the case for reexamination. TVP vSadurski (civil defamation) has not yet been rescheduled.Drawing attention to the same cases multiple times risks sounding like a brokenrecord. Readers may well ask: but has anything changed? The answer is thatinfuriatingly little has changed. Indeed the correct framing should be: why haven’tthings changed? In its Annual Work Programme 2020, enthusiastically titled “AUnion That Strives for More”, the European Commission has announced, forthis year alone, no less than three grand plans for a new European DemocracyAction Plan, a revamped Annual Rule of Law Report and a New Strategy for theImplementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. But what is the point of yetanother set of action plans and strategies, when the Commission, the EuropeanParliament, Member states and national parliaments are not taking action onthe basis of existing possibilities and competences right now, while freedom ofexpression is slowly suffocated as part of Poland’s slide into authoritarianism? Whatis the point of EU and national politicians waxing lyrically about the importance offreedom of expression while refusing to speak out about flagrant abuses such as thecases against Sadurski? - 1 -The problem is also considerably broader than the cases against Sadurski. Searchfor ‘freedom of expression’ in the Court of Justice database and you will find CaseC-55/20. It is a request for a preliminary ruling, lodged at the end of January, by theDisciplinary Court of the Bar Association in Warsaw. It provides a sharp impressionof the extent and the depth of the attempts to suppress freedom of expression inPoland today and the Polish government’s determination to silence any sort ofcriticism by opponents. The facts: R.G., a lawyer made public statements about the actions of the PublicProsecutor in 2016 “in which (s)he commented on the hypothetical possibility ofhis/her client, D.T., (then) President of the European Council [yes, Donald Tusk]being charged with a criminal offence”.   Incensed by this statement, given the Polishgovernment’s bitter resentment of Donald Tusk, the National Prosecutor in July 2017wrote to the Bar Association to request disciplinary proceedings be instituted againstR.G. The Prosecutor complained that these statements “went beyond the limits of anadvocate’s freedom of expression, could be construed as unlawful threats, that is, asa criminal offence, and constituted disciplinary misconduct”. The Bar Association’sDisciplinary Spokesperson then investigated the case and has since attempted todismiss it more than once for lack of any ground. But the Public Prosecutor andthe Ministry of Justice have continued to appeal. The Bar Association’s DisciplinaryCourt is now asking for guidance from Luxembourg as to whether this is a matter ofEU law (insofar as the EU Services Directive also applies to the disciplinary liabilityof advocates), and as to how it should go about its work in a context in which theultimate appeal instance (the Disciplinary Chamber of the Polish Supreme Court)is no longer impartial and independent in the light of criteria formulated by theEuropean Court of Justice.Clearly the sweeping strategy of PiS and associates to silence its critics throughlegal harassment and other tactics needs to be met with an equally if not moredetermined counterstrategy. That counterstrategy requires constant exposure ofthe party’s legal and non-legal hounding of its critics, calling publicly on those withinfluence over PiS to use that influence to stop the harassment, and continuing tomake noise until the assaults on freedom of expression cease. If we sound like a broken record, it is because – despite numerous requests andattempts to draw their attention to this issue – national and European politicianshave so far refused to act on their obligations and have failed to give any attentionto these cases or to call on PiS to withdraw them.  If the cases against WojciechSadurski continue, and if one of them ends up before the Court of Justice due tothe unwillingness of leaders to act or intervene against the harassment, this wouldrepresent a real political failure.  Europe needs intellectuals like Sadurski to speakout against what is happening to democracy and constitutionalism in his country, andcourageous intellectuals like him deserve to be protected by the EU and by memberstate governments when they do so.We renew our public support for Wojciech Sadurski and call on others to renewtheirs.  His words are his, but his freedom of expression is also ours. We stand#WithWoj and we ask you to do the same, either by signing below, or by showingyou are #WithWoj on social media. - 2 -- 3 -

University of Groningen

   University of GroningenRepression of Freedom of Expression in PolandDe Burca, Grainne; Morijn, JohnDOI:10.17176/20200604-013506-0IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordPublication date:2020Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):De Burca, G., & Morijn, J. (2020, Jun 3). Repression of Freedom of Expression in Poland: Renewingsupport for Wojciech Sadurski. https://doi.org/10.17176/20200604-013506-0CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.Download date: 26-12-2020Repression of Freedom of Expressionin Poland: Renewing support forWojciech SadurskiGráinne de Búrca 2020-06-03T15:37:02In pre-COVID19 times we drew attention (here and here) to the fact that ourcolleague, Professor Wojciech Sadurski, faces multiple civil and criminal cases inPoland resulting from his tweets which were critical of the ruling party. The caseswere brought against him by the current government and its associates. In the first,PiS sued him for civil defamation based on a tweet of November 2018 in which hedescribed PiS as an “organised criminal group”. A first hearing in that case tookplace on 27 November 2019 (see here). Sadurski was also sued by TVP, a TV-station fully controlled by PiS, both for civil and criminal defamation, following a tweetof January 2019 in which he described the TV-station as a “Goebbelsian mediacompany”. That civil defamation case was scheduled for 28 January this year, butcancelled at the last minute (see here). Unfortunately, COVID19 has evidently not changed the priorities of PiS andassociates. The cases against Sadurski were recently rescheduled on short notice– another tactic of legal harassment – while the world is preoccupied with othermatters. Hearings are now due to take place in (COVID19 induced) absentia onMonday 15 June (PiS v Sadurksi) and 19 June 2020 (TVP v Sadurski – criminaldefamation). The latter case was initially quashed on a procedural motion on18 March 2020. But TVP appealed, showing the real priorities of PiS during theCOVID19 pandemic, alleging serious legal errors by the judge of first instance. Thecourt of appeal agreed with TVP and remanded the case for reexamination. TVP vSadurski (civil defamation) has not yet been rescheduled.Drawing attention to the same cases multiple times risks sounding like a brokenrecord. Readers may well ask: but has anything changed? The answer is thatinfuriatingly little has changed. Indeed the correct framing should be: why haven’tthings changed? In its Annual Work Programme 2020, enthusiastically titled “AUnion That Strives for More”, the European Commission has announced, forthis year alone, no less than three grand plans for a new European DemocracyAction Plan, a revamped Annual Rule of Law Report and a New Strategy for theImplementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. But what is the point of yetanother set of action plans and strategies, when the Commission, the EuropeanParliament, Member states and national parliaments are not taking action onthe basis of existing possibilities and competences right now, while freedom ofexpression is slowly suffocated as part of Poland’s slide into authoritarianism? Whatis the point of EU and national politicians waxing lyrically about the importance offreedom of expression while refusing to speak out about flagrant abuses such as thecases against Sadurski? - 1 -The problem is also considerably broader than the cases against Sadurski. Searchfor ‘freedom of expression’ in the Court of Justice database and you will find CaseC-55/20. It is a request for a preliminary ruling, lodged at the end of January, by theDisciplinary Court of the Bar Association in Warsaw. It provides a sharp impressionof the extent and the depth of the attempts to suppress freedom of expression inPoland today and the Polish government’s determination to silence any sort ofcriticism by opponents. The facts: R.G., a lawyer made public statements about the actions of the PublicProsecutor in 2016 “in which (s)he commented on the hypothetical possibility ofhis/her client, D.T., (then) President of the European Council [yes, Donald Tusk]being charged with a criminal offence”.   Incensed by this statement, given the Polishgovernment’s bitter resentment of Donald Tusk, the National Prosecutor in July 2017wrote to the Bar Association to request disciplinary proceedings be instituted againstR.G. The Prosecutor complained that these statements “went beyond the limits of anadvocate’s freedom of expression, could be construed as unlawful threats, that is, asa criminal offence, and constituted disciplinary misconduct”. The Bar Association’sDisciplinary Spokesperson then investigated the case and has since attempted todismiss it more than once for lack of any ground. But the Public Prosecutor andthe Ministry of Justice have continued to appeal. The Bar Association’s DisciplinaryCourt is now asking for guidance from Luxembourg as to whether this is a matter ofEU law (insofar as the EU Services Directive also applies to the disciplinary liabilityof advocates), and as to how it should go about its work in a context in which theultimate appeal instance (the Disciplinary Chamber of the Polish Supreme Court)is no longer impartial and independent in the light of criteria formulated by theEuropean Court of Justice.Clearly the sweeping strategy of PiS and associates to silence its critics throughlegal harassment and other tactics needs to be met with an equally if not moredetermined counterstrategy. That counterstrategy requires constant exposure ofthe party’s legal and non-legal hounding of its critics, calling publicly on those withinfluence over PiS to use that influence to stop the harassment, and continuing tomake noise until the assaults on freedom of expression cease. If we sound like a broken record, it is because – despite numerous requests andattempts to draw their attention to this issue – national and European politicianshave so far refused to act on their obligations and have failed to give any attentionto these cases or to call on PiS to withdraw them.  If the cases against WojciechSadurski continue, and if one of them ends up before the Court of Justice due tothe unwillingness of leaders to act or intervene against the harassment, this wouldrepresent a real political failure.  Europe needs intellectuals like Sadurski to speakout against what is happening to democracy and constitutionalism in his country, andcourageous intellectuals like him deserve to be protected by the EU and by memberstate governments when they do so.We renew our public support for Wojciech Sadurski and call on others to renewtheirs.  His words are his, but his freedom of expression is also ours. We stand#WithWoj and we ask you to do the same, either by signing below, or by showingyou are #WithWoj on social media. - 2 -- 3 -

   University of GroningenRepression of Freedom of Expression in PolandDe Burca, Grainne; Morijn, JohnDOI:10.17176/20200604-013506-0IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordPublication date:2020Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):De Burca, G., & Morijn, J. (2020, Jun 3). Repression of Freedom of Expression in Poland: Renewingsupport for Wojciech Sadurski. https://doi.org/10.17176/20200604-013506-0CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.Download date: 31-10-2023Repression of Freedom of Expressionin Poland: Renewing support forWojciech SadurskiGráinne de Búrca 2020-06-03T15:37:02In pre-COVID19 times we drew attention (here and here) to the fact that ourcolleague, Professor Wojciech Sadurski, faces multiple civil and criminal cases inPoland resulting from his tweets which were critical of the ruling party. The caseswere brought against him by the current government and its associates. In the first,PiS sued him for civil defamation based on a tweet of November 2018 in which hedescribed PiS as an “organised criminal group”. A first hearing in that case tookplace on 27 November 2019 (see here). Sadurski was also sued by TVP, a TV-station fully controlled by PiS, both for civil and criminal defamation, following a tweetof January 2019 in which he described the TV-station as a “Goebbelsian mediacompany”. That civil defamation case was scheduled for 28 January this year, butcancelled at the last minute (see here). Unfortunately, COVID19 has evidently not changed the priorities of PiS andassociates. The cases against Sadurski were recently rescheduled on short notice– another tactic of legal harassment – while the world is preoccupied with othermatters. Hearings are now due to take place in (COVID19 induced) absentia onMonday 15 June (PiS v Sadurksi) and 19 June 2020 (TVP v Sadurski – criminaldefamation). The latter case was initially quashed on a procedural motion on18 March 2020. But TVP appealed, showing the real priorities of PiS during theCOVID19 pandemic, alleging serious legal errors by the judge of first instance. Thecourt of appeal agreed with TVP and remanded the case for reexamination. TVP vSadurski (civil defamation) has not yet been rescheduled.Drawing attention to the same cases multiple times risks sounding like a brokenrecord. Readers may well ask: but has anything changed? The answer is thatinfuriatingly little has changed. Indeed the correct framing should be: why haven’tthings changed? In its Annual Work Programme 2020, enthusiastically titled “AUnion That Strives for More”, the European Commission has announced, forthis year alone, no less than three grand plans for a new European DemocracyAction Plan, a revamped Annual Rule of Law Report and a New Strategy for theImplementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. But what is the point of yetanother set of action plans and strategies, when the Commission, the EuropeanParliament, Member states and national parliaments are not taking action onthe basis of existing possibilities and competences right now, while freedom ofexpression is slowly suffocated as part of Poland’s slide into authoritarianism? Whatis the point of EU and national politicians waxing lyrically about the importance offreedom of expression while refusing to speak out about flagrant abuses such as thecases against Sadurski? - 1 -The problem is also considerably broader than the cases against Sadurski. Searchfor ‘freedom of expression’ in the Court of Justice database and you will find CaseC-55/20. It is a request for a preliminary ruling, lodged at the end of January, by theDisciplinary Court of the Bar Association in Warsaw. It provides a sharp impressionof the extent and the depth of the attempts to suppress freedom of expression inPoland today and the Polish government’s determination to silence any sort ofcriticism by opponents. The facts: R.G., a lawyer made public statements about the actions of the PublicProsecutor in 2016 “in which (s)he commented on the hypothetical possibility ofhis/her client, D.T., (then) President of the European Council [yes, Donald Tusk]being charged with a criminal offence”.   Incensed by this statement, given the Polishgovernment’s bitter resentment of Donald Tusk, the National Prosecutor in July 2017wrote to the Bar Association to request disciplinary proceedings be instituted againstR.G. The Prosecutor complained that these statements “went beyond the limits of anadvocate’s freedom of expression, could be construed as unlawful threats, that is, asa criminal offence, and constituted disciplinary misconduct”. The Bar Association’sDisciplinary Spokesperson then investigated the case and has since attempted todismiss it more than once for lack of any ground. But the Public Prosecutor andthe Ministry of Justice have continued to appeal. The Bar Association’s DisciplinaryCourt is now asking for guidance from Luxembourg as to whether this is a matter ofEU law (insofar as the EU Services Directive also applies to the disciplinary liabilityof advocates), and as to how it should go about its work in a context in which theultimate appeal instance (the Disciplinary Chamber of the Polish Supreme Court)is no longer impartial and independent in the light of criteria formulated by theEuropean Court of Justice.Clearly the sweeping strategy of PiS and associates to silence its critics throughlegal harassment and other tactics needs to be met with an equally if not moredetermined counterstrategy. That counterstrategy requires constant exposure ofthe party’s legal and non-legal hounding of its critics, calling publicly on those withinfluence over PiS to use that influence to stop the harassment, and continuing tomake noise until the assaults on freedom of expression cease. If we sound like a broken record, it is because – despite numerous requests andattempts to draw their attention to this issue – national and European politicianshave so far refused to act on their obligations and have failed to give any attentionto these cases or to call on PiS to withdraw them.  If the cases against WojciechSadurski continue, and if one of them ends up before the Court of Justice due tothe unwillingness of leaders to act or intervene against the harassment, this wouldrepresent a real political failure.  Europe needs intellectuals like Sadurski to speakout against what is happening to democracy and constitutionalism in his country, andcourageous intellectuals like him deserve to be protected by the EU and by memberstate governments when they do so.We renew our public support for Wojciech Sadurski and call on others to renewtheirs.  His words are his, but his freedom of expression is also ours. We stand#WithWoj and we ask you to do the same, either by signing below, or by showingyou are #WithWoj on social media. - 2 -- 3 -

Proceedings - University of Groningen

   University of GroningenRepression of Freedom of Expression in PolandDe Burca, Grainne; Morijn, JohnDOI:10.17176/20200604-013506-0IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordPublication date:2020Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):De Burca, G., & Morijn, J. (2020, Jun 3). Repression of Freedom of Expression in Poland: Renewingsupport for Wojciech Sadurski. https://doi.org/10.17176/20200604-013506-0CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.Download date: 13-02-2023Repression of Freedom of Expressionin Poland: Renewing support forWojciech SadurskiGráinne de Búrca 2020-06-03T15:37:02In pre-COVID19 times we drew attention (here and here) to the fact that ourcolleague, Professor Wojciech Sadurski, faces multiple civil and criminal cases inPoland resulting from his tweets which were critical of the ruling party. The caseswere brought against him by the current government and its associates. In the first,PiS sued him for civil defamation based on a tweet of November 2018 in which hedescribed PiS as an “organised criminal group”. A first hearing in that case tookplace on 27 November 2019 (see here). Sadurski was also sued by TVP, a TV-station fully controlled by PiS, both for civil and criminal defamation, following a tweetof January 2019 in which he described the TV-station as a “Goebbelsian mediacompany”. That civil defamation case was scheduled for 28 January this year, butcancelled at the last minute (see here). Unfortunately, COVID19 has evidently not changed the priorities of PiS andassociates. The cases against Sadurski were recently rescheduled on short notice– another tactic of legal harassment – while the world is preoccupied with othermatters. Hearings are now due to take place in (COVID19 induced) absentia onMonday 15 June (PiS v Sadurksi) and 19 June 2020 (TVP v Sadurski – criminaldefamation). The latter case was initially quashed on a procedural motion on18 March 2020. But TVP appealed, showing the real priorities of PiS during theCOVID19 pandemic, alleging serious legal errors by the judge of first instance. Thecourt of appeal agreed with TVP and remanded the case for reexamination. TVP vSadurski (civil defamation) has not yet been rescheduled.Drawing attention to the same cases multiple times risks sounding like a brokenrecord. Readers may well ask: but has anything changed? The answer is thatinfuriatingly little has changed. Indeed the correct framing should be: why haven’tthings changed? In its Annual Work Programme 2020, enthusiastically titled “AUnion That Strives for More”, the European Commission has announced, forthis year alone, no less than three grand plans for a new European DemocracyAction Plan, a revamped Annual Rule of Law Report and a New Strategy for theImplementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. But what is the point of yetanother set of action plans and strategies, when the Commission, the EuropeanParliament, Member states and national parliaments are not taking action onthe basis of existing possibilities and competences right now, while freedom ofexpression is slowly suffocated as part of Poland’s slide into authoritarianism? Whatis the point of EU and national politicians waxing lyrically about the importance offreedom of expression while refusing to speak out about flagrant abuses such as thecases against Sadurski? - 1 -The problem is also considerably broader than the cases against Sadurski. Searchfor ‘freedom of expression’ in the Court of Justice database and you will find CaseC-55/20. It is a request for a preliminary ruling, lodged at the end of January, by theDisciplinary Court of the Bar Association in Warsaw. It provides a sharp impressionof the extent and the depth of the attempts to suppress freedom of expression inPoland today and the Polish government’s determination to silence any sort ofcriticism by opponents. The facts: R.G., a lawyer made public statements about the actions of the PublicProsecutor in 2016 “in which (s)he commented on the hypothetical possibility ofhis/her client, D.T., (then) President of the European Council [yes, Donald Tusk]being charged with a criminal offence”.   Incensed by this statement, given the Polishgovernment’s bitter resentment of Donald Tusk, the National Prosecutor in July 2017wrote to the Bar Association to request disciplinary proceedings be instituted againstR.G. The Prosecutor complained that these statements “went beyond the limits of anadvocate’s freedom of expression, could be construed as unlawful threats, that is, asa criminal offence, and constituted disciplinary misconduct”. The Bar Association’sDisciplinary Spokesperson then investigated the case and has since attempted todismiss it more than once for lack of any ground. But the Public Prosecutor andthe Ministry of Justice have continued to appeal. The Bar Association’s DisciplinaryCourt is now asking for guidance from Luxembourg as to whether this is a matter ofEU law (insofar as the EU Services Directive also applies to the disciplinary liabilityof advocates), and as to how it should go about its work in a context in which theultimate appeal instance (the Disciplinary Chamber of the Polish Supreme Court)is no longer impartial and independent in the light of criteria formulated by theEuropean Court of Justice.Clearly the sweeping strategy of PiS and associates to silence its critics throughlegal harassment and other tactics needs to be met with an equally if not moredetermined counterstrategy. That counterstrategy requires constant exposure ofthe party’s legal and non-legal hounding of its critics, calling publicly on those withinfluence over PiS to use that influence to stop the harassment, and continuing tomake noise until the assaults on freedom of expression cease. If we sound like a broken record, it is because – despite numerous requests andattempts to draw their attention to this issue – national and European politicianshave so far refused to act on their obligations and have failed to give any attentionto these cases or to call on PiS to withdraw them.  If the cases against WojciechSadurski continue, and if one of them ends up before the Court of Justice due tothe unwillingness of leaders to act or intervene against the harassment, this wouldrepresent a real political failure.  Europe needs intellectuals like Sadurski to speakout against what is happening to democracy and constitutionalism in his country, andcourageous intellectuals like him deserve to be protected by the EU and by memberstate governments when they do so.We renew our public support for Wojciech Sadurski and call on others to renewtheirs.  His words are his, but his freedom of expression is also ours. We stand#WithWoj and we ask you to do the same, either by signing below, or by showingyou are #WithWoj on social media. - 2 -- 3 -

   University of GroningenRepression of Freedom of Expression in PolandDe Burca, Grainne; Morijn, JohnDOI:10.17176/20200604-013506-0IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordPublication date:2020Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):De Burca, G., & Morijn, J. (2020, Jun 3). Repression of Freedom of Expression in Poland: Renewingsupport for Wojciech Sadurski. https://doi.org/10.17176/20200604-013506-0CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.Download date: 29-04-2023Repression of Freedom of Expressionin Poland: Renewing support forWojciech SadurskiGráinne de Búrca 2020-06-03T15:37:02In pre-COVID19 times we drew attention (here and here) to the fact that ourcolleague, Professor Wojciech Sadurski, faces multiple civil and criminal cases inPoland resulting from his tweets which were critical of the ruling party. The caseswere brought against him by the current government and its associates. In the first,PiS sued him for civil defamation based on a tweet of November 2018 in which hedescribed PiS as an “organised criminal group”. A first hearing in that case tookplace on 27 November 2019 (see here). Sadurski was also sued by TVP, a TV-station fully controlled by PiS, both for civil and criminal defamation, following a tweetof January 2019 in which he described the TV-station as a “Goebbelsian mediacompany”. That civil defamation case was scheduled for 28 January this year, butcancelled at the last minute (see here). Unfortunately, COVID19 has evidently not changed the priorities of PiS andassociates. The cases against Sadurski were recently rescheduled on short notice– another tactic of legal harassment – while the world is preoccupied with othermatters. Hearings are now due to take place in (COVID19 induced) absentia onMonday 15 June (PiS v Sadurksi) and 19 June 2020 (TVP v Sadurski – criminaldefamation). The latter case was initially quashed on a procedural motion on18 March 2020. But TVP appealed, showing the real priorities of PiS during theCOVID19 pandemic, alleging serious legal errors by the judge of first instance. Thecourt of appeal agreed with TVP and remanded the case for reexamination. TVP vSadurski (civil defamation) has not yet been rescheduled.Drawing attention to the same cases multiple times risks sounding like a brokenrecord. Readers may well ask: but has anything changed? The answer is thatinfuriatingly little has changed. Indeed the correct framing should be: why haven’tthings changed? In its Annual Work Programme 2020, enthusiastically titled “AUnion That Strives for More”, the European Commission has announced, forthis year alone, no less than three grand plans for a new European DemocracyAction Plan, a revamped Annual Rule of Law Report and a New Strategy for theImplementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. But what is the point of yetanother set of action plans and strategies, when the Commission, the EuropeanParliament, Member states and national parliaments are not taking action onthe basis of existing possibilities and competences right now, while freedom ofexpression is slowly suffocated as part of Poland’s slide into authoritarianism? Whatis the point of EU and national politicians waxing lyrically about the importance offreedom of expression while refusing to speak out about flagrant abuses such as thecases against Sadurski? - 1 -The problem is also considerably broader than the cases against Sadurski. Searchfor ‘freedom of expression’ in the Court of Justice database and you will find CaseC-55/20. It is a request for a preliminary ruling, lodged at the end of January, by theDisciplinary Court of the Bar Association in Warsaw. It provides a sharp impressionof the extent and the depth of the attempts to suppress freedom of expression inPoland today and the Polish government’s determination to silence any sort ofcriticism by opponents. The facts: R.G., a lawyer made public statements about the actions of the PublicProsecutor in 2016 “in which (s)he commented on the hypothetical possibility ofhis/her client, D.T., (then) President of the European Council [yes, Donald Tusk]being charged with a criminal offence”.   Incensed by this statement, given the Polishgovernment’s bitter resentment of Donald Tusk, the National Prosecutor in July 2017wrote to the Bar Association to request disciplinary proceedings be instituted againstR.G. The Prosecutor complained that these statements “went beyond the limits of anadvocate’s freedom of expression, could be construed as unlawful threats, that is, asa criminal offence, and constituted disciplinary misconduct”. The Bar Association’sDisciplinary Spokesperson then investigated the case and has since attempted todismiss it more than once for lack of any ground. But the Public Prosecutor andthe Ministry of Justice have continued to appeal. The Bar Association’s DisciplinaryCourt is now asking for guidance from Luxembourg as to whether this is a matter ofEU law (insofar as the EU Services Directive also applies to the disciplinary liabilityof advocates), and as to how it should go about its work in a context in which theultimate appeal instance (the Disciplinary Chamber of the Polish Supreme Court)is no longer impartial and independent in the light of criteria formulated by theEuropean Court of Justice.Clearly the sweeping strategy of PiS and associates to silence its critics throughlegal harassment and other tactics needs to be met with an equally if not moredetermined counterstrategy. That counterstrategy requires constant exposure ofthe party’s legal and non-legal hounding of its critics, calling publicly on those withinfluence over PiS to use that influence to stop the harassment, and continuing tomake noise until the assaults on freedom of expression cease. If we sound like a broken record, it is because – despite numerous requests andattempts to draw their attention to this issue – national and European politicianshave so far refused to act on their obligations and have failed to give any attentionto these cases or to call on PiS to withdraw them.  If the cases against WojciechSadurski continue, and if one of them ends up before the Court of Justice due tothe unwillingness of leaders to act or intervene against the harassment, this wouldrepresent a real political failure.  Europe needs intellectuals like Sadurski to speakout against what is happening to democracy and constitutionalism in his country, andcourageous intellectuals like him deserve to be protected by the EU and by memberstate governments when they do so.We renew our public support for Wojciech Sadurski and call on others to renewtheirs.  His words are his, but his freedom of expression is also ours. We stand#WithWoj and we ask you to do the same, either by signing below, or by showingyou are #WithWoj on social media. - 2 -- 3 -

https://pure.rug.nl/ws/files/150690658/Repression_of_Freedom_of_Expression_in_Poland_Renewing_support_for_Wojciech_Sadurski.pdf

Repression of Freedom of Expression in Poland:Renewing support for Wojciech Sadurski

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Dissertations of the University of Groningen

ARTS repository - University of Groningen

Dissertations of the University of Groningen

University of Groningen

ARTS repository - University of Groningen

Proceedings - University of Groningen

University of Groningen

Proceedings - University of Groningen