EU Judicial Independence Dencentralized: A.K. Joined Cases C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, A.K. and others v. Sąd Najwyższy (the independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Polish Supreme Court), Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 19 November 2019, EU:C:2019:982

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Standard

EU Judicial Independence Dencentralized: A.K. Joined Cases C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, A.K. and others v. Sąd Najwyższy (the independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Polish Supreme Court), Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 19 November 2019, EU:C:2019:982. / Krajewski, Michal; Ziółkowski, Michał.

In: Common Market Law Review, Vol. 57, No. 4, 01.08.2020, p. 1107-1138.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Krajewski, M & Ziółkowski, M 2020, 'EU Judicial Independence Dencentralized: A.K. Joined Cases C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, A.K. and others v. Sąd Najwyższy (the independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Polish Supreme Court), Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 19 November 2019, EU:C:2019:982', Common Market Law Review, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 1107-1138.

APA

Krajewski, M., & Ziółkowski, M. (2020). EU Judicial Independence Dencentralized: A.K. Joined Cases C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, A.K. and others v. Sąd Najwyższy (the independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Polish Supreme Court), Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 19 November 2019, EU:C:2019:982. Common Market Law Review, 57(4), 1107-1138.

Vancouver

Krajewski M, Ziółkowski M. EU Judicial Independence Dencentralized: A.K. Joined Cases C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, A.K. and others v. Sąd Najwyższy (the independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Polish Supreme Court), Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 19 November 2019, EU:C:2019:982. Common Market Law Review. 2020 Aug 1;57(4):1107-1138.

Author

Krajewski, Michal ; Ziółkowski, Michał. / EU Judicial Independence Dencentralized: A.K. Joined Cases C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, A.K. and others v. Sąd Najwyższy (the independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Polish Supreme Court), Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 19 November 2019, EU:C:2019:982. In: Common Market Law Review. 2020 ; Vol. 57, No. 4. pp. 1107-1138.

Bibtex

@article{31cfd69703b7475fb2025ddf3997a17a,
title = "EU Judicial Independence Dencentralized: A.K.: Joined Cases C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, A.K. and others v. S{\c a}d Najwy{\.z}szy (the independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Polish Supreme Court), Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 19 November 2019, EU:C:2019:982",
abstract = "The judgment in A.K. and others v. Sad Najwy{\.z}szy was eagerly awaited as another red line for the EU rule of law. It provided a test for assessing the independence of national courts in their capacity as EU courts. In contrast to a bold stance by the Advocate General, the ECJ demonstrated sensible self-restraint. It did not prescribe ready-made institutional solutions aimed at securing judicial independence. It thus avoided the risk of a judge-made harmonization of domestic judicial organization based on scant and indeterminate Treaty provisions on the matter. Under the ECJ{\textquoteright}s test, the referring court was to weigh and compare the relevance of legal and factual circumstances that enhance or impair the public appearance of independence of the brand new Supreme Court Disciplinary Chamber. At the same time, the ECJ shouldered the referring court with a difficult task to make a discretionary assessment of the anti-constitutional legislation altering the judicial organization in Poland – the task that the Supreme Court{\textquoteright}s extended formation subsequently delegated to the rank-and-file judges of lower courts.",
keywords = "Faculty of Law, Court of Justice of the European Union, Judicial independence, Judicial appointment, Poland, Supreme court, Judicial review",
author = "Michal Krajewski and Micha{\l} Zi{\'o}{\l}kowski",
year = "2020",
month = aug,
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "57",
pages = "1107--1138",
journal = "Common Market Law Review",
issn = "0165-0750",
publisher = "Kluwer Law International",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - EU Judicial Independence Dencentralized: A.K.

T2 - Joined Cases C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, A.K. and others v. Sąd Najwyższy (the independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Polish Supreme Court), Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 19 November 2019, EU:C:2019:982

AU - Krajewski, Michal

AU - Ziółkowski, Michał

PY - 2020/8/1

Y1 - 2020/8/1

N2 - The judgment in A.K. and others v. Sad Najwyższy was eagerly awaited as another red line for the EU rule of law. It provided a test for assessing the independence of national courts in their capacity as EU courts. In contrast to a bold stance by the Advocate General, the ECJ demonstrated sensible self-restraint. It did not prescribe ready-made institutional solutions aimed at securing judicial independence. It thus avoided the risk of a judge-made harmonization of domestic judicial organization based on scant and indeterminate Treaty provisions on the matter. Under the ECJ’s test, the referring court was to weigh and compare the relevance of legal and factual circumstances that enhance or impair the public appearance of independence of the brand new Supreme Court Disciplinary Chamber. At the same time, the ECJ shouldered the referring court with a difficult task to make a discretionary assessment of the anti-constitutional legislation altering the judicial organization in Poland – the task that the Supreme Court’s extended formation subsequently delegated to the rank-and-file judges of lower courts.

AB - The judgment in A.K. and others v. Sad Najwyższy was eagerly awaited as another red line for the EU rule of law. It provided a test for assessing the independence of national courts in their capacity as EU courts. In contrast to a bold stance by the Advocate General, the ECJ demonstrated sensible self-restraint. It did not prescribe ready-made institutional solutions aimed at securing judicial independence. It thus avoided the risk of a judge-made harmonization of domestic judicial organization based on scant and indeterminate Treaty provisions on the matter. Under the ECJ’s test, the referring court was to weigh and compare the relevance of legal and factual circumstances that enhance or impair the public appearance of independence of the brand new Supreme Court Disciplinary Chamber. At the same time, the ECJ shouldered the referring court with a difficult task to make a discretionary assessment of the anti-constitutional legislation altering the judicial organization in Poland – the task that the Supreme Court’s extended formation subsequently delegated to the rank-and-file judges of lower courts.

KW - Faculty of Law

KW - Court of Justice of the European Union

KW - Judicial independence

KW - Judicial appointment

KW - Poland

KW - Supreme court

KW - Judicial review

M3 - Journal article

VL - 57

SP - 1107

EP - 1138

JO - Common Market Law Review

JF - Common Market Law Review

SN - 0165-0750

IS - 4

ER -

ID: 252981921