The Strategies of Polish Judges Implementing the Judgements of European Courts During the Rule of Law Crisis

The rule of law crisis in Poland was characterized by political interference against judicial independence and judicial resistance. This interference was critiqued on the European level, with numerous judgements of both the ECtHR and the CJEU. This article explores the judicial strategies adopted by Polish judges in response to the prolonged rule of law crisis. The main aim of the study is to analyse how judges balance constitutional values, respond to parliamentary bills contrary to the Constitution such as the ‘Muzzle Law’ which impeded their dialogue with European courts, adjust to a politicized system where their decisions impact their whole personal careers and, finally, uphold the interests of citizens seeking justice. This article thus examines how Polish judges adopted a whole spectrum of strategies to uphold the rule of law and implement European judgements. The research presented in this article uses qualitative analysis focusing on case law to identify patterns in judicial reasoning and the invocation of European legal norms (or lack of norms). The paper seeks to contribute to a broader European discussion on judicial resilience in an era of democratic backsliding. The aim of the article is to present the variety of tools but also the approaches of judges and their motivations at different levels of the judicial system and has particular relevance also for readers interested in the rule of law crisis in other member states of the European Union.