Ewa Szadkowska: A failed crusade, or two years of restoring the rule of law

Restoring the rule of law was one of the main slogans used by the currently ruling parties heading into the 2023 elections. Politicians and citizens, however, seem to have interpreted this concept somewhat differently and expected different outcomes. The former primarily aimed to remove so-called neo-judges from the courts, reclaim the prosecutor's office from Zbigniew Ziobro's men , purge the Constitutional Tribunal of its understudies, and purge the National Council of the Judiciary of its "leaf-pickers" (as judges who once ran through the corridors of the Ministry of Justice building, collecting signatures on lists of support for their candidacies for the Council).

For citizens, the promise of unblocking funds from the KPO, which they heard so often during the campaign, certainly sounded good, but I bet they were mainly hoping for a speeding up of court cases, for prosecutors to stop bending their necks over phone calls "from above," and for the Constitutional Tribunal to finally get down to work like it did in the days when it ruled on many matters important to ordinary people, considering their constitutional complaints.

Two years of restoring the rule of law. Has the ruling coalition delivered on its promises?

It was a fair outcome, because however we understand restoring the rule of law, it failed. The neo-judges are holding strong, the Constitutional Tribunal is crossing new boundaries of self-embarrassment, the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS) is defending the status quo, the prosecutor's office is in a state of dual power and front-line prosecutors have lost hope of depoliticizing their "firm," an all-out war is raging within the Supreme Court, and the State Tribunal, for years in the shadows and shunned by political storms, has joined the ranks of internally conflicted institutions.

Speeding up trials remains a pipe dream; even the so-called Swiss franc law , intended to ease bottlenecks and free the courts from repetitive, almost mass-proceeding cases, has yet to be passed. Nor have the announced reforms to criminal law, civil procedure, or the regulations on expert witnesses. The list of omissions, or as the colloquial saying goes, "unfinished business," continues.

"I care most about the constitutional law because I believe that we must first determine who the legal judge is, and only then decide how to apply substantive law. Because what good is it to create a good procedure and good law if every verdict is handed down because of improper court composition," Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek said in an August interview with "Rz" (Polish daily newspaper).

Reforms awaited by the courts. Will President Karol Nawrocki sign the bill regulating the status of new judges?

And this is the crux of the problem and a poor prognosis for the future. Without the passage of the so-called Rule of Law Act, we clearly cannot expect the rest of these crucial changes to the justice system. And President Karol Nawrocki has left no doubt as to what he will do with the anti-neo-judge legislation once it reaches his desk. And the cycle continues.

The coalition went into the elections without a plan B, staking everything on one card, hoping that the front runners would clear the gap and that "their" president would address key issues. And then it would be time for the remaining important reforms. Now this policy is backfiring. Because who, in another two years, will believe the promise of restoring the rule of law in Poland?