DOCSLIB.ORG

Legal Think Tanks and Governments. Country Report. Poland

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Legal Think Tanks and Governments. Country Report. Poland “Legal Think Tanks and government – capacity building”: project supported by the International Visegrad Fund www.visegradfund.org Project partners: POLAND HUNGARY Legal Think Tanks and Government CZECH REPUBLIC – Capacity Building Country Report. Poland SLOVAKIA UKRAINE Authors Łukasz BOJARSKI Grzegorz WIADEREK MOLDOVA 1 Authors of the study Łukasz BOJARSKI President and co-founder of INPRIS, lawyer. Co-founder and Chairman of the Board of the Polish Legal Clinics Foundation (FUPP). Expert of Polish and international institutions (including European Commission, OSCE, Council of Europe, academia, private foundations including Stefan Batory Foundation, Open Society Institute). Member of the Editorial Board of the „National Judicial Council. Quarterly” (http://www.krs.pl/pl/kwartalnik-krs). Before: Member of the National Council of the Judiciary of Poland, (2010-2015). Member of the Board of Directors of PILnet – The Global Network for Public Interest Law (2008-2016). Employee of the Helsinki Foundation of Human Rights in the years 1998-2010. Member of the Experts Council of the „Citizen and the Law” (Obywatel i Prawo) program of the Polish- American Freedom Foundation (2005-2013), Member of the Committee on the Efficiency of Justice in the Ministry of Justice. Fields of interest: judiciary, legal services, legal profession, legal education, non- discrimination, human rights. Author of the reform proposals on the access to legal aid and the legal profession. Author of numerous publications on the judiciary, access to justice and interactive innovative methods in legal education, see list of main publications. Contact: lukasz.bojarski at inpris.pl Grzegorz WIADEREK Co-founder of INPRIS and member of the Management Board, lawyer. He has authored numerous publications on private and banking law, law related to CSOs, judiciary and issues related to subsidies from the EU. For many years, he worked as the coordinator of the Stefan Batory Foundation’s legal program (Fundacja im. Stefana Batorego 1999-2011), wherein he supervised grant programs and coordinated numerous other projects (such as “Journalist in court”, Citizen Watch of Constitutional Judges Appointment). He was the Chairman of the Experts Council of the „Citizen and the Law” (Obywatel i Prawo) program of the Polish-American Freedom Foundation (2005-2013). For several years, he has been taking an active part in consultations at the Ministry of Justice over subsequent legislative proposals relating to legal aid and advice. He also has considerable training and research – as both expert and evaluator - experience. He collaborated, among others, with the Non-governmental Evaluation Agency, PSDB Ltd., Case -advisers Ltd. See list of main publications. Contact: grzegorz.wiaderek at inpris.pl “Legal Think Tanks and Government – Capacity Building”: project supported by the 2 International Visegrad Fund (www.visegradfund.org) Table of content Table of content ...................................................................................................................................... 3 List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................................ 5 Part One. Country questions ................................................................................................................... 6 Introduction – summary ..................................................................................................................... 6 Short country information .................................................................................................................. 8 The map of Think Tanks in the country ............................................................................................... 9 Think Tanks activities – Government interactions ............................................................................ 11 Legislative process ........................................................................................................................ 19 System of justice, judiciary ............................................................................................................ 26 Legal profession ............................................................................................................................ 37 Access to justice ............................................................................................................................ 42 Legal education ............................................................................................................................. 45 Language of the law (quality, communication) ............................................................................. 51 Internationalisation of law ............................................................................................................ 59 Human rights, equality, discrimination ......................................................................................... 62 Information society and the legal system and administration ...................................................... 68 Monitoring and participation in selection and appointment procedures for public positions ..... 71 Other thematic fields .................................................................................................................... 73 Think Tanks and government ........................................................................................................ 74 Think Tanks and Academia, scientific circles ................................................................................. 76 Think Tanks and their limits .......................................................................................................... 79 Think Tanks – identifying problems .............................................................................................. 80 Think Tanks – communications and media ................................................................................... 82 Cooperation of legal Think Tanks ...................................................................................................... 84 Financing of legal Think Tanks activities ........................................................................................... 88 Part Two – Legal Think Tank Cards ........................................................................................................ 95 ALLERHAND INSTITUTE of Advanced Legal Studies ....................................................................... 95 “Legal Think Tanks and Government – Capacity Building”: project supported by the 3 International Visegrad Fund (www.visegradfund.org) CITIZENS NETWORK WATCHDOG POLAND ................................................................................. 101 ePAŃSTWO FOUNDATION .......................................................................................................... 103 CIVIL DEVELOPMENT FORUM (FOR) ........................................................................................... 106 HELSINKI FOUNDATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ............................................................................ 109 INPRIS – INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND SOCIETY ............................................................................... 111 THE RULE OF LAW INSTITUTE (FUNDACJA INSTYTUT NA RZECZ PAŃSTWA PRAWA) ................. 113 ORDO IURIS INSTITUTE FOR LEGAL CULTURE ............................................................................. 115 ASSOCIATION FOR LEGAL INTERVENTION (STOWARZYSZENIE INTERWENCJI PRAWNEJ) ........... 119 WISE EUROPA – FUNDACJA WARSZAWSKI INSTYTUT STUDIÓW EKONOMICZNYCH I EUROPEJSKICH (WISE EUROPA) .................................................................................................. 121 Part Three – Legal Think Tank ProJects Cards ..................................................................................... 126 Part Five. Bibliography. Further readings on Think Tanks and their products .................................... 138 Part Six – Additional material .............................................................................................................. 146 Programme of cooperation between the Ministry of Justice and the non–governmental organizations ............................................................................................................................... 146 Successful Monitoring of Candidates for Justices of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal ............ 148 Letter of LTTs and CSOs to the Venice Commission .................................................................... 152 THE SITUATION OF CIVIL SOCIETY THE SITUATION OF CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS IN POLAND .................................................................................................................................................... 163 INPRIS – short info .............................................................................................................................. 169 “Legal Think Tanks and Government – Capacity Building”: project supported by the 4 International Visegrad Fund (www.visegradfund.org) List of abbreviations CJEU – Court of Justice of the European Union CoE – Council of Europe CSO – Civil Society Organization CT – Constitutional Tribunal (Poland) EC – European Commission ECtHR – European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg EU – European Union FOR – Civil Development Forum (Forum Obywatelskiego Rozwoju) FUPP – Legal Clinics Foundation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Interim Measures
    Court of Justice of the European Union PRESS RELEASE No 47/20 Luxembourg, 8 April 2020 Order of the Court in Case C-791/19 R Press and Information Commission v Poland Poland must immediately suspend the application of the national provisions on the powers of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court with regard to disciplinary cases concerning judges The pleas of fact and of law put forward by the Commission justify the grant of interim measures In 2017, Poland adopted the new disciplinary regime for judges of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) and the ordinary courts. Specifically, under that legislative reform, a new Chamber, the Izba Dyscyplinarna (the Disciplinary Chamber) was created within the Sąd Najwyższy. The jurisdiction of the Izba Dyscyplinarna thus covers, inter alia, disciplinary cases concerning judges of the Sąd Najwyższy and, on appeal, those concerning judges of the ordinary courts. Taking the view that, by adopting the new disciplinary regime for judges, Poland had failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law,1 on 25 October 2019 the Commission brought an action before the Court of Justice.2 The Commission claims, inter alia,3 that the new disciplinary regime does not guarantee the independence and impartiality of the Izba Dyscyplinarna , composed exclusively of judges selected by the Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (the National Council of the Judiciary; ‘the KRS’), the fifteen judges who are members of which were elected by the Sejm (the lower chamber of the Polish Parliament). By its judgment of 19 November
    [Show full text]
  • Current Judicial Reform in Ukraine and in Poland: Onstitutional and European Legal Aspect in the Context of Independent Judiciary
    RESEARCH ARTICLES CURRENT JUDICIAL REFORM IN UKRAINE AND IN POLAND: ONSTITUTIONAL AND EUROPEAN LEGAL ASPECT IN THE CONTEXT OF INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY Grzegorz Borkowski, Doctor of Law, Judge seconded to the Regional Court Warszawa-Praga, former Head of Office of the National Council of Judiciary (Poland) Olga Sovgyria, Doctor of Science (Law), professor of the Department of Constitutional Law, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (Kyiv, Ukraine) https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-2.3-a000011 Summary: 1. Introduction. – 2. The Judicial System of Poland at the Present Stage. – 2.1. Constitutional Tribunal. – 2.1.1. Composition of the Constitutional Tribunal. – 2.1.2. Refusal of Publication of Certain Judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal. – 2.2. The Common Courts System. – 2.2.1. Merger of the Functions of Minister of Justice and Prosecutor General and its Consequences. – 2.2.2. Court directors. – 2.2.3. Random Allocation of Cases. – 2.2.4. Judicial Appointments. – 2.2.5. Secondment of Judges. – 2.2.6. Appointment and Dismissal of Court Presidents. – 2.3. Supreme Court. – 2.3.1. Extraordinary Complaint (Article 86). – 2.3.2. Changes in the Structure of the Supreme Court. – 2.3.3. Lay Judges. – 2.3.4. Changes in Disciplinary Proceedings in Respect of the SC and the Common Judiciary. – 2.4. National Council for Judiciary. – 2.4.1. Entrusting the Sejm with the Competence to Elect the Members of the Council. – 2.4.2 Termination of Office of the Current Members of the Council. – 3. Judicial Reform in Ukraine in 2016: Problems of Implementation. – 3.1. General Characteristics of the Judiciary in Ukraine.
    [Show full text]
  • Studia Iuridica 2015/60. Collective Labour
    COLLECTIVE LABOUR LAW Studia Iuridica tom 60 COLLECTIVE LABOUR LAW logo WUW.inddWarszawa 1 20155/12/2014 12:54:19 PM Rada Programowa Grażyna Bałtruszajtys (przewodnicząca), Jan Błeszyński, Zdzisław Galicki, Hubert Izdebski, Jacek Lang, Maria Rogacka-Rzewnicka, Marek Wąsowicz, Beata Janiszewska (sekretarz) Członkowie Rady Programowej afiliowani za granicą Marc Bors (Uniwersytet we Fribourgu), Michael Martinek (Uniwersytet w Saarbrücken), Alessandro Somma (Uniwersytet w Ferrarze), Elena V. Timoshina (Uniwersytet w Sankt Petersburgu) Redaktorzy naukowi tomu Łukasz Pisarczyk Jakub Stelina Recenzenci „Studia Iuridica” w 2015 r. Francisco Javier Andrés Santos, Wojciech Dajczak, Włodzimierz Kamyszanskij, Luz Maria Martinez Velencoso, Andriej Łusznikow, Bronisław Sitek, Jakob Fortunat Stagl Redaktor naczelny Tomasz Giaro Redaktor tematyczny Łukasz Pisarczyk Redaktor językowy Radosław Pawelec Sekretarz Redakcji Adam Niewiadomski Projekt okładki i stron tytułowych Jakub Rakusa-Suszczewski Redaktor prowadzący Dorota Dziedzic Redaktor Krystyna Dziewanowska-Stefańczyk Opracowanie redakcyjne streszczeń anglojęzycznych Robert Stępień ISSN 0137-4346 ISBN 978-83-235-1932-4 © Copyright by Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego 2015 Wersją pierwotną czasopisma jest wersja drukowana. „Studia Iuridica” znajdują się w wykazie czasopism punktowanych przez Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego na potrzeby oceny parametrycznej jednostek naukowych. Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego 00-497 Warszawa, ul. Nowy Świat 4 www.wuw.pl; e-mail: [email protected] Dział
    [Show full text]
  • Ruled by Law
    RULED BY LAW THREATS TO THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN POLAND IN 2015-2019 RULED BY LAW THREATS TO THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN POLAND IN 2015-2019 Authors Małgorzata Szuleka, Marcin Wolny in cooperation with Maciej Kalisz Our thanks go to Danuta Przywara, Maciej Nowicki, Dr Piotr Kładoczny, Dr Barbara Grabowska-Moroz, Jarosław Jagura, Konrad Siemaszko, Patryk Wachowiec and Daniel Witko for their assistance and comments on the first versions of this report. Graphic design and layout Marta Borucka Cover photo Jan Kolar / unsplash Edition I Publication available under the Creative Commons license. Acknowledgment of authorship under the same conditions 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0) Legal status: 15th September 2019 Publisher Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights ul. Zgoda 11 00-018 Warszawa CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................... 5 Summary of events in the years 2015–2019 ........................................ 7 The parliamentary elections in October, 2015 .............................................. 7 Information on the most important systemic changes ...................................... 8 The shrinking space for human rights ...................................................... 9 Calendar of changes .......................................................................10 A crisis in the rule of law – attacks on the judiciary ...............................13 Changes in the Constitutional Tribunal ...................................................13 Changes to the Supreme
    [Show full text]
  • ACT of 8 December 2017 on the Supreme Court Chapter 1 General
    Appendix to the announcement of the Speaker of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland of 4 April 2019 (item 825) regarding the publication of a uniform text of the Supreme Court Act ACT of 8 December 2017 on the Supreme Court Chapter 1 General provisions Article 1. The Supreme Court shall be a judiciary body responsible for: 1) the administration of justice by: a) ensuring the legality and uniformity of the case law of common courts and military courts by examining appeals and passing resolutions resolving legal questions; b) 1extraordinary review of valid court judgments to ensure their consistency with the principle of a democratic state ruled by law implementing the principles of social justice by the examination of extraordinary appeals; 2) examining disciplinary cases to the extent defined by statute; 3) examining election protests and confirming the validity of elections to the Sejm and the Senate, the election of the President of the Republic of Poland, elections to the European Parliament, and examining protests concerning the validity of a national referendum or a constitutional referendum, and confirming the validity of a referendum; 4) issuing opinions on draft statutes and other normative acts under which courts adjudicate and function, as well as other draft statutes to the extent that they affect cases within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; 5) performing other actions defined by statute. Article 2. The Supreme Court shall have its seat in Warsaw. Article 3. The Supreme Court shall be divided into Chambers: 1) Civil Chamber; 2) Criminal Chamber; 3) Labour Law and Social Security Chamber; 4) Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs Chamber; 5) Disciplinary Chamber.
    [Show full text]
  • Poland's Constitutional Crisis
    Contemporary Issues Poland’s P o l i Constitutional Crisis: c y B Facts and interpretations r i e f Marcin Matczak w w w . f l j s . o The Foundation for Law, Justice and Society r g in association with the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies and Wolfson College, University of Oxford www.fljs.org The Foundation for Law, Justice and Society © The Foundation for Law, Justice and Society 2018 Executive Summary This policy brief presents the crucial events of ‘the Polish constitutional crisis’, and what has been widely described as a backsliding on the part of Poland into authoritarianism. It attempts to explain the nature and possible causes of the crisis, offering three explanations: (1) historical, originating from the smooth, non-punitive nature of the post- Communist transition; (2) legal, relating to the excessive formalism of Polish legal culture; and (3) sociological, as a crisis of liberalism and of political identification among the youth and across society at large. POLAND’S CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS: FACTS AND INTERPRETATIONS . 1 Poland’s Constitutional Crisis: Facts and interpretations Introduction response was premature because a constitutional review of the previous appointments was already The Polish constitutional crisis began in November underway, and it was disproportionate because 2015, just after Poland’s governing party Prawo I three out of five of the previous appointments were Sprawiedliwosc (which translates as Law and Justice absolutely compliant with the Polish Constitution. and is commonly abbreviated to PiS) won the country’s parliamentary elections, and is characterized Some of the events that took place at the beginning by two principal phases.
    [Show full text]
  • Consultative Council of European Judges (Ccje
    Strasbourg, 12 October 2017 CCJE-BU(2017)9REV CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN JUDGES (CCJE) Opinion of the CCJE Bureau following the request of the Polish National Council of the Judiciary to provide an opinion with respect to the Draft Act of September 2017 presented by the President of Poland amending the Act on the Polish National Council of the Judiciary and certain other acts 1 A. The request and the procedure of the assessment 1. By letter of 3 October 2017, the Chairman of the National Council of the Judiciary of Poland addressed the CCJE, requesting its opinion on the Draft Act on the National Council of the Judiciary of Poland (hereafter the Draft Act) presented by the President of Poland. The CCJE was requested, in particular, to assess the compatibility of the Draft Act with European standards on the independence of the judiciary and the status of councils for the judiciary. The CCJE was provided with the Draft Act as well as the Act of 12 May 2011 on the Polish National Council of the Judiciary, both in English translation. 2. According to its Terms of Reference, one of the tasks of the CCJE is to provide targeted cooperation, inter alia, at the request of the CCJE members, judicial bodies or relevant associations of judges, to enable States to comply with the Council of Europe standards concerning judges. The aforementioned request of the Polish National Council of the Judiciary (hereafter the Council) falls within the Terms of Reference of the CCJE. 3. The CCJE Bureau emphasises that it is not in a position to assess the constitutionality of the Draft Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Eu:C:2019:325 1 Opinion of Mr Tanchev – Case C-619/18 Commission V Poland (Independence of the Supreme Court)
    Report s of C ases OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL TANCHEV delivered on 11 April 2019 1 Case C-619/18 European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 258 TFEU — Article 7 TEU — Rule of law — Article 19(1) TEU — Principle of effective judicial protection — Principles of independence and irremovability of judges — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 47 and 51 — National measures lowering the retirement age of Supreme Court judges in office — Absence of a transitional period — National measures granting the President of the Republic discretion to extend the active mandate of Supreme Court judges) I. Introduction 1. In the present case, the Commission has brought infringement proceedings against the Republic of Poland under Article 258 TFEU for failing to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), on the grounds that, first, national measures lowering the ą ż retirement age of the judges of the S d Najwy szy (Supreme Court, Poland) appointed to that court before 3 April 2018 infringe the principle of irremovability of judges, and second, national measures granting the President of the Republic discretion to extend the active mandate of Supreme Court judges upon reaching the lowered retirement age infringe the principle of judicial independence. 2. Fundamentally, this case presents the Court with the opportunity to rule, for the first time within the context of a direct action for infringement under Article 258 TFEU, on the compatibility of certain measures taken by a Member State concerning the organisation of its judicial system with the standards set down in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, combined with Article 47 of the 2 Charter, for ensuring respect for the rule of law in the Union legal order.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to Claim Innocence in Poland
    This article from Erasmus Law Review is published by Eleven international publishing and made available to anonieme bezoeker The Right to Claim Innocence in Poland Wojciech Jasiński & Karolina Kremens* Abstract ment, leaving it on the fringes of interest for Polish aca- demics. Only occasionally do miscarriages of justice, Wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice, their their reasons and effects, attract academic debate.1 The reasons and effects, only rarely become the subject of aca- issue of the compensation for wrongful conviction demic debate in Poland. This article aims at filling this gap attracts more attention.2 However, the studies rarely and providing a discussion on the current challenges of involve analysis of quantitative and qualitative data con- mechanisms available in Polish law focused on the verifica- cerning wrongful convictions and their reasons.3 Alto- tion of final judgments based on innocence claims. While gether, the research relating to this issue is not even there are two procedures designed to move such judgment: comparable to that carried out on that topic, especially cassation and the reopening of criminal proceedings, only in the US, but also in Europe.4 This seems intriguing. the latter aims at the verification of new facts and evidence, Miscarriages of justice affect their victims in various and this work remains focused exactly on that issue. The ways. They range from physical and psychological to article begins with a case study of the famous Komenda social and financial harm of the persons directly or indi- case, which resulted in a successful innocence claim, serving rectly affected by wrongful conviction.5 But they also as a good, though rare, example of reopening a case and impact the whole society since convicting the innocent acquitting the convict immediately and allows for discussing means that criminal justice system failed to protect the the reasons that commonly stand behind wrongful convic- victims of crime.
    [Show full text]
  • Member States May Not Impose Mandatory Liquidation on Companies That Wish to Transfer Their Registered Office to Another Member State
    Court of Justice of the European Union PRESS RELEASE No 112/17 Luxembourg, 25 October 2017 Judgment in Case C-106/16 Press and Information Polbud – Wykonawstwo sp. z o.o. Member States may not impose mandatory liquidation on companies that wish to transfer their registered office to another Member State The transfer of the registered office of such a company, when there is no change in the location of its real head office, falls within the scope of the freedom of establishment protected by EU law Polbud is a company established in Poland. By a resolution in 2011, an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders of that company decided to transfer the company’s registered office to Luxembourg. That resolution makes no reference to a transfer to Luxembourg of either the place where Polbud’s business is managed or of the place where that company’s business is actually carried out. On the basis of that resolution, the opening of a liquidation procedure was recorded in the Polish commercial register and a liquidator was appointed. In 2013 the registered office of Polbud was transferred to Luxembourg. Polbud then became ‘Consoil Geotechnik Sàrl’, a company under Luxembourg law. Further, Polbud lodged an application at the Polish registry court for its removal from the Polish commercial register. The registry court refused the application for removal. Polbud brought an action against that decision. The Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court of Poland), before which an appeal has brought, first asks the Court of Justice whether freedom of establishment is applicable to the transfer of only the registered office of a company incorporated under the law of one Member State to the territory of another Member State, where that company is converted to a company under the law of that other Member State, when there is no change of location of the real head office of that company.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional "Refolution" in the Ex-Communist World: the Rule of Law
    American University International Law Review Volume 12 | Issue 1 Article 2 1997 Constitutional "Refolution" in the Ex-Communist World: The Rule of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation American University International Law Review. "Constitutional "Refolution" in the Ex-Communist World: The Rule of Law." American University International Law Review 12, no. 1 (1997): 45-143. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SYMPOSIUM CONSTITUTIONAL "REFOLUTION" IN THE EX-COMMUNIST WORLD: THE RULE OF LAW September 26, 1996 FOREWORD* Since the collapse of communist power in the early 1990s, Eastern Europe and the rest of the former Soviet-dominated world have experienced significant and unprecedented changes. Although potentially revolutionary in impact, the eco- nomic, political, and legal transitions have been achieved through reform of exist- ing institutions rather than violent revolution. Timothy Garton Ash has called this process "refolution." This symposium will focus on the development and promo- tion of the rule of law in the context of this "refolution" now underway in the for- mer communist world. The panelists, each an experienced and renowned special- ist, will present their views in a roundtable format that will include extensive audience questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Access to Justice
    DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT C: CITIZENS’ RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS EFFECTIVE ACCESS TO JUSTICE STUDY Abstract This study, commissioned by the European Parliament Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs upon request by PETI Committee, aims to identify and understand the issues affecting effective access to justice raised by the EU citizens and residents in some Member States with the main aim to frame the analysis and obtain a fair representation of recurring issues pertaining to access to justice across the EU. It seeks to understand why citizens have turned to the EU institutions to seek access to justice, and looks at a large range of factors, including legal and procedural issues as well as practical, social, historical and political factors that underpin the issues raised in these petitions. More broadly, the study intends to assess the relevance of the petitions system to address access to justice issues experienced by citizens at national level. PE 596.818 EN This study was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions and was commissioned, overseen and published by the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Policy departments provide independent expertise, both in-house and externally, to support European Parliament committees and other parliamentary bodies in shaping legislation and exercising democratic scrutiny over EU external and internal policies. To contact the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional
    [Show full text]