A comment on the CJEU’s judgment in LM
| DOI | 10.1177/1023263X18808185 |
| Date | 01 August 2018 |
| Published date | 01 August 2018 |
| Author | Daniel Sarmiento |
| Subject Matter | Editorial |
Editorial
A comment on the CJEU’s
judgment in LM
Daniel Sarmiento*
In a landmark decision that was rendered last July, the Court of Justice of the European Union
(CJEU) ruled, for the first time, on what impact Poland’s aggressive judicial reforms will have on
the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, and in particular on the functioning of the European
Arrest Warrant. Highly awaited in many legal circles, the judgment in the case of LM
1
is good
proof of the state of affairs in Europe at this time. It is also a relevant judgment that sheds light on
the relationship between two key provisions of EU law: Articles 2 and 7 of the Treaty on European
Union (TEU), with the broader landscape of EU rules in specific policy areas. LM is certainly a
case about the degree of judicial cooperation that is required in criminal proceedings, but it is,
above all, a benchmark from which to assess how to deal with a rogue Member State that flirts with
violating the values of the Union that are enshrined in Article 2 TEU.
The context of the case is straightforward. Polish courts issued three European Arrest Warrants
against LM, in order for him to be surrendered from Ireland to Poland for the purposes of con-
ducting criminal prosecutions on the charges of trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances. In the meantime, the Polish legislature enacted a broad array of laws amending the
entirety of the Polish judicial system, including the retirement age of judges. As a result of the
reforms, the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and the Judiciary Committee underwent
profound changes that would eventually lead to the removal of the vast majority of its current
members. These reforms have engendered a reaction from the European Commission in the shape
of infringement proceedings before the CJEU, as well as the issuance of a reasoned opinion on the
basis of Article 7(1) TEU. LM’s argument before the Irish courts was obvious: Polish courts are no
longer impartial, and a partial judicial system breaches the value of the Rule of Law pursuant to
Article 2 TEU. Therefore, according to LM, exceptional circumstances would have to apply in
order for the Irish court to refuse the surrender.
* Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Corresponding author:
Daniel Sarmiento, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
E-mail: daniel.sarmiento@der.ucm.es
Maastricht Journal of European and
Comparative Law
2018, Vol. 25(4) 385–387
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1023263X18808185
maastrichtjournal.sagepub.com
MJ
MJ
To continue reading
Request your trial