– The independence of the Polish judiciary has such serious shortcomings that one may ask whether the Supreme Court should have stopped it, says Eirik Holmøyvik, law professor at UiB.
Despite these shortcomings, the Supreme Court has ruled that a Norwegian citizen – charged with drug offenses in Poland – must be extradited to Poland.
Holmøyvik believes this is problematic for several reasons:
- The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly pointed out that Polish judges are not legally appointed after 2017
- The country’s prosecuting authority is politically controlled
- The judges are also working under strong political pressure, something the EU has repeatedly tried to intervene against
The defendant’s defense counsel believes that the Supreme Court through the judgment “has declared great confidence in the Polish judicial system”.
The rule of law dies in Poland
– The rule of law in free fall
Although he questions the verdict, Professor Holmøyvik points out that it is in fact in line with the European Court of Justice’s line on the issue of extradition.
– The problem that this line has weaknesses. We do not know if the person will get a fair trial in a legal court. It is worrying, says Holmøyvik.
The threshold set by the European Court of Justice means in practice that it is almost impossible to stop deliveries to Poland, the professor explains.
– It happens while we know that the rule of law in Poland is in free fall. The country can not guarantee basic legal security, Holmøyvik points out.
INFRINGEMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: If a verdict is handed down by judges who have been illegally appointed, it means, according to UiB professor Holmøyvik, a gross violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Photo: Kim E. Andreassen, UiB
sea view
At the same time, he believes the decision of the Supreme Court is important. Although it gave the green light for extradition in this case, it generally tightens the possibilities for extradition to Poland:
– In the judgment, the Supreme Court specifies which situations may give reason to refuse surrender. They say that it will take quite a bit to refuse surrender in the future, and that a worsening of the situation in Poland may require an even stricter practice, says the professor.
Defender: «Disappointed»
In this case, the Supreme Court believes that does not is reason enough to believe that man does not will have a fair trial in Poland, “because of the nature of the crime”.
The man is charged with exporting large quantities of drugs from Poland in the 2000s.
– It’s hard to know. There is a risk that Norway will hand over people who Poland wants to violate the European Convention on Human Rights by sentencing, says the UiB professor.
Inmate (38): – Incredibly degrading
The accused’s defender, Nils Christian Nordhus, writes in an SMS to Dagbladet that the man is disappointed with the result – but that he does not give up.
He believes that the Supreme Court through the judgment has declared great confidence in the Polish judicial system.
– We disagree, and believe there is no basis for trust, rather mistrust. For PiS (the ruling party in Poland, editor’s note), the Supreme Court’s decision is an important contribution to the maintenance of a system in which political authority takes control of the courts.
– Counterintuitive
In 2019, the European Court of Human Rights issued a ruling in principle, in which Iceland was convicted due to political interference in the appointment of one of the judges in a traffic trial.
It is a basic human right to have your case tried in a court of law with politically independent judges, says Katrine Holter, associate professor at the Police Academy.
– The Supreme Court rightly states that Polish courts are currently not independent. Then it is quite counter-intuitive that at the same time they believe that the accused does not really risk having his fundamental right to a fair trial violated by court proceedings in Poland in particular.
CRITICAL: Katrine Holter at the Police Academy believes that the Supreme Court should have struck a blow for the legal security of the accused and others who risk extradition to Poland. Photo: The Police Academy
sea view
She believes it is striking that the Supreme Court considers that there is no risk that the man will be treated politically in a Polish court.
This despite the fact that he has now taken his case all the way to the top of the judicial system in Norway with a claim that the Polish rule of law is a joke.
She would have liked to have seen the Supreme Court lead “as a good example”.
– In my view, the Supreme Court should have struck a tougher blow on the legal security of this accused and others who risk extradition to Poland.
–
