Featured News
MEDEL has signed an open letter about the recent attacks on judges and the independence of the Judiciary in Poland and asking for the adoption of interim measures by the European Court of Justice. The statement is below.
For more than four years, MEDEL has been observing the process of deterioration of the rule of law in Poland. During this time, MEDEL has repeatedly called upon Polish authorities to stop this process, to restore the principle of separation of powers and to ensure the independence of the judiciary.
Our calls remained unanswered. The Government of Poland as well as the President of Poland ignore the appeals of the international community, the verdicts of the European Court of Justice, the verdicts of the Polish Supreme Court and the verdicts of the Polish Supreme Administrative Court. Moreover, the “reforms” in contrary to both – domestic and international law – continue, and all those trying to implement aforementioned rulings, become the subject of a ruthless “disciplinary” regime, become criminals in their own country. The only objective of the Polish government is to reduce the independent judiciary and transform it to yet another strong arm of the executive.
MEDEL is supporting the European Citizens' Initiative "Respect for the rule of Law within EU".
Europe is currently witnessing a flurry of unprecedented challenges to its founding values and our collective ability to achieve the Union’s aim to promote peace and well-being for its citizens is seriously undermined.
Polarisation of our societies, nationalistic and populistic trends, shrinking civic space and uncouth attempts at dismantling pillars of the Rule of Law, such as the separation of powers based on checks and balances and independence of the judiciary, are unfolding under our eyes.
Today, in the European sphere, we have the necessary regulatory framework in place to implement gender equality policies. This is a framework that supports the creation of plans and bodies for equality, driven by networks of women jurists whose purposes go beyond the legal domain and are transmitted to society at large.
On November 19th, 2019, the European Court of Justice delivered a significant decision in a series of “judicial independence” verdicts, initiated with the case Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v Tribunal de Contas (C- 64/16).
The judgment was delivered on three preliminary questions (C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18) referred by the Labour Law and Social Security Chamber of the Polish Supreme Court and The Supreme Administrative Court.
MEDEL held its Council of Administration last Saturday, November 9th, in Santiago de Compostela.
The following Bureau was elected for the next two years:
MEDEL has held last Friday, november 8th, the conference "Justice and Gender", at the Faculty of History of the University of Santiago de Compostela.
MEDEL will hold its Council of Administration in Santiago de Compostela, Spain, on November 9th.
The previous day, November 8th, together with Juezas y Jueces para la Democracia and Unión Progresista de Fiscales, MEDEL will organize the conference "Gender and Justice".
The Italian television RAI made a special report about Murat Arslan, with the participation of Gualtiero Michelini, former President of MEDEL, from Magistratura Democratica.
MEDEL wishes to express its serious concern over the recent developments within the Bulgarian judicial system, in face of the sharp increase in inroads into the independence of the judiciary, through attacks against individual judges and through reform proposals aimed at limiting their freedom of association.
Freedom of speech, that must be ensured everywhere even with regard to criticism directed at judicial decisions, does not give cover to the public allegations addressed by political and institutional actors against the judges of the Sofia Court of Appeal, stating that they would have acted with goals not related to justice when releasing on parole an Australian citizen, and their repeated exposure in the media and in political rallies. These actions risk instead to cause serious harm to the legitimacy of judicial institutions, by an unacceptable exploitation of the highly emotionalised public reaction to a criminal case.
