HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER

breach of the rule of law principle. 26 The authors illustrate this with the LM case in which the CJEU addressed concerns about judicial independence in Poland in the context of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). The case arose from an Irish court’s question about whether Poland’s judicial reforms could justify refusing an EAW under Article 47 of the Charter, as an exception to the principle of mutual trust among Member States. They criticize the CJEU’s approach, arguing that it effectively delegated the assessment of the Polish judiciary’s condition to the Irish court. The CJEU also imposed a two-pronged test on national judges, which they deem unworkable and essentially illogical. 27 To sum up, the primary application of Article 19 TEU is a more reasonable way to protect the rule of law. Unlike Article 47 of the Charter, Article 19 TEU considers the systemic nature of the rule of law breaches. Nevertheless, Article 47 of the Charter should not be overlooked. Its supplementary role should clarify the requirements derived from Article 19 TEU. 2. Polish Judiciary and Article 19 TEU In this section, I examine two Polish cases decided by the Court of Justice to highlight the difference between two distinct approaches depending on the type of procedure. In both cases, Article 19 TEU served as the legal basis. However, both cases concluded differently, primarily due to the different nature of the proceedings; one of them, Miasto Łowicz reference for a preliminary ruling and the second, Commission v. Poland , was an infringement procedure. In the case of Miasto Łowicz , the Court of Justice ruled in a joint procedure concerning preliminary rulings related to the payment of public subsidies and criminal proceedings. 28 The underlying reason for the preliminary ruling request was Poland’s introduction of a system of disciplinary liability, in which the president appointed members of the criminal chamber of the Supreme Court based on nominations from the politically appointed National Council of the Judiciary. 29 In the second case, the Commission initiated infringement proceedings against Poland concerning a new national regulation. This regulation introduced an age limit for the retirement of Supreme Court justices who had taken office before April 3, 2018. Additionally, the regulation granted the president discretionary authority to extend justices’ terms beyond the established retirement age. 30 26 KOCHENOV, D. – MORIJN, J. Strengthening the Charter’s Role in the Fight for the Rule of Law in the EU: The Cases of Judicial Independence and Party Financing. European Public Law 2021, Vol 27, No 4, p. 775–776. 27 KOCHENOV, D. – MORIJN, J. c. d. , p. 771–775. 28 Judgement – Miasto Łowicz, Joined Cases C-558/18 and C-563/18,ECLI: EU:C:2020:234, § 2. 29 Ibid. § 10. 30 Judgement – Commission v Poland, C-619/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:531, § 1.

153