Vetting Process of Judges in Comparative Perspective – Lessons for Restoring the Rule of Law in Poland
Between 2018 and 2024 more than 2500 judges were appointed in Poland contrary to the ECHR (see among others: ECtHR: Grzęda v. Poland, Żurek v. Poland) and EU law. Such appointments led to the situation in which courts operating with new judges in the sitting panel cannot be regarded as independent and impartial courts established by law (see: Wałęsa v. Poland). There is a need for a vetting process in order to restore elementary justice and regain public confidence into the judiciary.
A comparative perspective might be useful to apply in the Polish context. The research will not only analyse European (and unsuccessful) examples (Albania, Serbia, Ukraine, Moldova) but also others (Pakistan, Argentina, Kenya). The aim of the project would be to identify good practice examples concerning vetting and also the kind of practices that should be avoided. The research seeks to find good practices and standards for vetting process of judges that are applicable all over the world. To do so, existing literature concerning vetting processes in Europe (Albania, Ukraine, Serbia, Moldova) and beyond (Pakistan, Argentina, Kenya) will be analysed as well as the case law of the ECtHR in this regard with the Venice Commission and OSCE opinions.
