Estonian judge: Baton-wielding police cannot solve Poland's rule-of-law dispute

Ivo Pilving, chair of the Administrative Law Chamber of Estonia's Supreme Court, has said the conflict over Poland's Constitutional Tribunal, the country's top constitutional court, cannot be resolved with rubber batons. In his view, a compromise is needed that goes beyond the standoff between two political camps. He made the comments to Estonia's public broadcaster ERR.

What happened in Poland

On Friday, a fierce struggle broke out in Poland between the liberal government and the conservative opposition over control of the Constitutional Tribunal. The situation forced the president to cut short a foreign trip and return to Warsaw urgently. The escalation was triggered by the removal from office of the tribunal's president and deputy president, both of whom the head of state supported.

Late on Friday, hundreds of supporters of the opposition Law and Justice (PiS) party gathered outside the court building to protest the turn of events, and large police forces were sent to the scene. Right-wing politicians addressed the crowd and accused Donald Tusk's government of attempting a coup against the court.

Pilving's assessment

Pilving said Friday's events cannot be unambiguously described either as restoring the rule of law or as breaching the constitution. He called the conflict deeply regrettable and the last thing Poland and the region need right now.

He noted that the European Court of Justice has pointed to problems with judicial independence in several rulings. Last December it found that the way Poland's Constitutional Court is staffed conflicts with fundamental EU principles. Polish courts have also, in a number of decisions, not treated EU law as supreme.

As an Estonian judge, he said, he cannot assess another country's government, but he is sceptical that police with batons and shields can solve the problem; it would more likely polarise and escalate the conflict. In his view, the rule of law cannot be restored by force, and further polarisation would lead to two parallel court systems whose rulings the opposing camps would reject. A way out would be a cross-party compromise whose key aim is a fully independent court.