(Ordo Iuris) — The European Commission’s latest report on the rule of law in Poland confirms the purely political nature of the dispute over the rule of law between Brussels and EU member states run by conservative governments.
Main points
- The latest EC report from 2025 on the rule of law in Poland departs from its previous criticism of Poland in favor of praise for the current government. The publication is full of praise for declarations of reform, despite the lack of real changes in the legal system.
- The concept of the rule of law in the EU remains undefined, which allows for political manipulation and subjective assessments, as in the case of the conditionality mechanism applied to Poland.
- The EC rewards the Tusk government for its promises to take action, e.g. on the separation of the functions of the minister of justice and the prosecutor general, while ignoring the lack of concrete legislative changes.
- The report omits cases of violations of existing law, such as the forced takeover of public media and the National Prosecutor’s Office, as well as other cases of gross violations of the rule of law.
- The EC’s actions, including praise for simple declarations and silence on violations, point to the political nature of the rule of law reports.
The EC’s 2025 report on the rule of law in Poland
The European Commission has published its latest report on the rule of law in Poland for 2025. This document, the sixth in the EU’s cycle of rule-of-law monitoring, analyzes four key areas: the judiciary, the fight against corruption, media pluralism, and institutional issues.
Previous reports were highly critical of Poland and served as a ruthless tool of political pressure. Brussels’ attitude toward Poland over the last decade has been largely based on political pressure through systemic questioning of the rule of law in Poland, which has significantly weakened our position both within the EU and vis-à-vis our international partners in general, and served as a justification for blocking EU funds due to Poland.
However, the new report is different. The 2025 report is full of smooth words about great changes and steps in the right direction, even though they are only planned steps.
READ: Swiss priest: Here’s the fatal flaw of ‘synodality’ in the Catholic Church
The rule of law tailored to needs
The concept of the rule of law remains undefined and vague in EU law, which opens the door to subjective assessments and political manipulation. We have seen this in previous years when comparing successive reports on the rule of law issued by the European Commission and the European Council, which assessed, for example, the mechanism for appointing judges in Poland very negatively, while a similar mechanism operating in Germany was assessed positively. This two-tier approach was explained in a not very subtle way, as a matter of differing “democratic maturity.”
The conditionality mechanism introduced by the EU in 2020 is a glaring example of such instrumentalization as far as its later use against Poland is concerned. By making access to EU funds conditional on a subjective assessment of “the rule of law” while ignoring the conclusions of the European Council of December 11, 2020, which accompanied the adoption of this mechanism and set out the framework within which it should operate, the EC violated the principle of legal certainty and the powers conferred on the EU.
Interestingly, as soon as the political option preferred by the Brussels elite came to power in Poland, the EU ceased to see any violations of the rule of law in Poland, and the European Commission almost immediately unblocked the first funds for Poland’s National Recovery Plan (Poland’s stated plan for the use of the “Next Generation EU” Recovery and Resilience Facility, which was meant to help European economies recover after the lockdowns of the COVID-19 pandemic).
READ: Trump admin condemns UK’s ‘persecution of silent prayer’ outside abortion mills
Then, on May 29, 2024, the EC decided to terminate the Article 7 procedure against Poland, which means that it officially ceased to see a “clear risk of a serious breach” by Poland “of the values referred to in Article 2” of the Treaty on the European Union. This decision was reportedly due to the new Polish government’s conciliatory stance towards EU demands, including its decision to join the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), rather than actual reforms.
It is worth noting that with the new EU planned Financial Framework for 2028-2034, the conditionality mechanism is to be strengthened, giving Brussels even greater freedom to block funds for countries that oppose its agenda. Indeed, the circumstances surrounding the lifting of the conditionality mechanism against Poland were a classic example of the “carrot and stick” approach, which has completely exposed the EC’s intentions and modus operandi.
Today, when comparing reports on the rule of law from the time when Poland was ruled by the more conservative and more sovereigntist Law and Justice government and the latest report published during the EU-backed left-liberal government of Donald Tusk, it is really very hard not to see the flexibility that the European Commission has given to the definition of the “rule of law.”
Praise for declarations
The EC’s 2025 report is full of claims about “significant progress” in Poland in various areas, which later in the report turn out to be progress in the form of promises, announcements, or declarations by the current government that it is “starting to address the issue.”
The mechanism used in the report is noteworthy because the factual and legal situation, which was criticized just a year earlier, can now be considered at least neutral, despite the lack of any changes. After all, “significant progress” has been made in the Polish government’s declared planned actions!
An example of such “significant progress” is the issue of separating the functions of the minister of justice and the prosecutor general and ensuring the independence of the prosecution service. The report notes that no legislation has yet been adopted in this area, but “significant progress has been made to separate the office of the Minister of Justice from that of the Prosecutor General.”
The 2016 law combining these functions is still in force, and to date, no new legislation or institutional changes have been introduced – nor does the government of Donald Tusk particularly boast about its work on separating these functions. On the contrary, it seems that, just as Justice Minister Adam Bodnar did until July of this year, Tusk’s current justice minister, Waldemar Żurek, has already been making extensive use of the opportunities his position affords him in its current form, both as justice minister and as prosecutor general.
The European Commission, therefore, had to write “the government intends” or “the government plans,” rather than to base its assessments on the action of the Polish government. The fact is that work on the relevant bill was underway, but since the draft bill was adopted by the Standing Committee of the Council of Ministers in early December 2024 and amendments were proposed by the Legal Affairs Committee in January 2025, there has been no further news about this project, which is clearly struggling to gain momentum.
READ: Famine declared in Gaza by UN-linked food security group
It is worth emphasizing here that the EU’s demands for reform of the prosecution service are a tool of pressure that violates the principle of subsidiarity and state sovereignty. Poland has the right to shape its prosecution system in accordance with its own constitution. The EU’s demands to separate the functions of the minister of justice and the prosecutor general are aimed at imposing foreign standards on Poland, ignoring the national legislative, historical, and social context.
Regardless of which system we support, we should defend the right to self-determination in this matter. This issue was actually brought forward by the European Commission only when the Polish conservatives decided to merge those two functions as they were at the time Poland accessed the EU, when this was not an issue at all.
By praising Donald Tusk’s government for its alleged intention to separate the functions of the prosecutor general from the minister of justice, the European Commission is clearly turning a blind eye to the unlawful replacement of the national prosecutor and the takeover of the Prosecutor’s Office by Tusk’s government – an issue widely discussed not only in Poland. The role of the national prosecutor is specifically designed to ensure that someone other than the minister of justice has direct supervision over the work of prosecutors in Poland, which is why the president’s approval is legally required to dismiss or replace the national prosecutor.
In January 2024, however, Tusk’s justice minister and prosecutor general, Adam Bodnar, removed the incumbent national prosecutor without President Andrzej Duda’s approval, installing his own appointee to take control of the country’s prosecution service.
The European Commission’s failure to recognize such a blatant interference in the justice system cannot be attributed to ignorance. There can be only one explanation: the EU does not consider violations of the rule of law problematic when they come from a government perceived in Brussels as “pro-EU,” i.e., supportive of transferring more power to the EU and aligned with the European Commission’s LGBT, gender, and progressive policy priorities.
Judicial independence
The EC report also notes “some progress” in the area of judicial independence, but points to continuing problems with the disciplinary system for judges and the independence of the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS). In this regard, it refers to rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which accused Poland of violating the principles of judicial independence.
The questioning of the independence of the judiciary is largely related to the dispute over the composition of the National Council of the Judiciary and the appointment of judges by the president of the Republic of Poland on the recommendation of the reformed KRS. Here, too, what until recently did not raise any objections from the commission in the case of Spain, namely that the Parliament elects the majority of the members of the National Council of the Judiciary, including its judges, allegedly constitute, in the case of Poland, a restriction of the independence of judges recommended to the president of Poland by the National Council of the Judiciary.
At the same time, numerous changes of presidents and vice-presidents of courts in violation of the applicable law by two successive ministers of justice under Donald Tusk are no longer considered by the European Commission to be an issue worthy of mention in this year’s report on the rule of law in Poland.
At the same time, the EC report praises the government for “preparing reform plans” for the disciplinary system for judges and the National Council of the Judiciary, noting that “the government intends” to introduce new regulations ensuring greater independence. The problem is that no specific changes have been adopted recently, which again indicates that the EC is “rewarding” the current ruling coalition in Poland for its declarations alone, rather than for actual actions.
READ: Media hypocrisy over school funding cuts under Biden, Trump show it’s all about the LGBT agenda
An objectively prepared report on the rule of law should certainly include the bill announced by Minister Bodnar and Prime Minister Tusk in September last year, which would allow for the vetting of approximately 3,500 judges in Poland, with the possibility of their removal or demotion, in violation of the Polish Constitution. However, there is not a single sentence on this subject in the EC report.
It is also worth mentioning the work on the bill on the obligatory enforcement in Poland of the rulings coming from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The EC report positively assesses the progress made in preparing legislation to ensure the effective implementation of the Strasbourg court’s judgments.
The document naturally mentions that “the government plans” to introduce regulations facilitating the implementation of judgments, once again praising the Tusk government for its promises alone, as if they had any impact on reality and the “rule of law.” In the case of this bill, however, the fact is that work is ongoing, and the bill itself was the subject of a critical opinion issued by the Ordo Iuris Institute in March 2025.
As emphasized in said opinion, the legislative activity of the ECtHR has intensified significantly in recent years, and the court’s judgments often go beyond the original intention of the signatory states of the European Convention on Human Rights. In a number of judgments, there is a conflict between loosely interpreted provisions of the convention and national law, leading to a violation of the sovereignty of states, including Poland. The proposed law, although presented as a step towards compliance with international standards, raises concerns about further restrictions on the autonomy of the Polish legal system, especially in the context of ECtHR rulings that promote ideological agendas.
The Ordo Iuris Institute has pointed out that the automatic implementation of such judgments without a critical analysis of their compatibility with the Polish Constitution may undermine the principles of a democratic state governed by the rule of law.
The fight against corruption
The EC report welcomes Poland’s accession to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) in 2024. The EC’s praise for Poland in this field is, in fact, about its voluntary (at least in theory) limitation of its national sovereignty in the prosecution of crimes. On the other hand, the report is silent on the fact that this was one of the conditions for the withdrawal of use of the conditionality mechanism against Poland, which amounted to blackmail on the side of the European Commission.
Instead, the EC’s report states that “preliminary investigations are ongoing into cases of serious corruption involving public officials and politicians.” This refers to the proceedings related to the Justice Fund, which are worth mentioning, as reports of political motives behind these proceedings are undoubtedly alarming, not to mention the treatment of some of the people who have been remanded in custody.
READ: Mandatory ‘pronoun training’ is turning Ireland’s hospitals into speech policing zones
As pointed out by the Ordo Iuris Institute in its amici curiae opinion on the arrest of Father Michał Olszewski and in its opinion on the detention of Dominik B. sent to the National Prosecutor’s Office in Katowice, Donald Tusk’s government is committing serious violations of international standards. In its latest report on the rule of law in Poland, the European Commission, of course, makes no mention of this at all.
Another example is the high-profile case of Marcin Romanowski, a former deputy minister of justice who was granted political asylum in Hungary in 2024 after being charged with embezzlement of public funds by the prosecutors under the control of the national prosecutor unlawfully appointed by the Tusk government.
Romanowski maintains that the charges are motivated by political revenge rather than actual evidence, and he has managed to convince the government of another country of the validity of his concerns, which gives the case a very significant dimension. Despite this, the EC report makes no mention of this event.
[Also read our report, available for download here: “Ordo Iuris Experts Raise the Alarm in Poland: The Tusk Government Systematically Violates the Principles of a Democratic State Governed by the Rule of Law.”]
The European Commission’s publication, on the other hand, praises Donald Tusk’s government for its “commitment to the fight against corruption” and “plans for further reforms,” even though concrete actions are limited to initiating further proceedings, the political nature of which is widely commented on in Poland itself. This is yet another example of how the EC rewards the new government for declarations and superficial actions, ignoring the controversies surrounding their legality.
The recent disclosure of funding from the National Recovery Plan for projects that are absurd, grotesque, or even beneficial to people close to members of the ruling coalition – in the context of praise for the fight against corruption – only reinforces the impression of unashamed bias in the European Commission’s report.
READ: Pro-life activists urge Kenyan gov’t to stop group pushing abortion pills on women
Following the publication of the list of beneficiaries of part of the funds from Poland’s National Recovery Plan (KPO), particularly in the context of the relaxation of the criteria for their allocation after Donald Tusk’s Civic Coalition and his coalition partners came to power, the manner in which these funds are being distributed raises serious doubts as to their economy and transparency. The criteria for allocating funds have been relaxed by Donald Tusk’s government to such an extent that they constitute a glaring example of waste of EU funds.
At a time of such significant financial needs in the areas of defense, infrastructure construction, and economic development, as well as the deteriorating standard of living of the population, such wasteful use of Next Generation EU funds requires a thorough investigation and consequences. It is worth noting whether the issue of these “recovery” funds will be raised in next year’s rule-of-law report. This is all the more important given that the amounts in question are many times greater than those spent by the former Law and Justice government in the framework of the earlier-mentioned Justice Fund.
Media pluralism
In its report on the rule of law in Poland, the European Commission noted progress in “media pluralism” and “transparency of media ownership.” However, it pointed to the need for further action on the independence of public media and the protection of journalists.
The document states that “pending new rules to strengthen the independence of the management of public broadcasters’ management bodies, there has been a decrease in politically biased media content in public service media. The current management of the major public service media (i.e. Polish Television, Polish Radio, and Polish Press Agency) is composed of temporary liquidators, appointed to oversee public broadcasting entities during the state of liquidation.”
This statement is astonishing in its bias and omission of key facts. The EC praises the government for its “plans to reform public media” and “commitment to increasing their independence,” even though the report clearly states that “the government intends” to introduce new regulations and that specific provisions have not yet been adopted.
Furthermore, the report completely omits the controversy surrounding the forced takeover of public media after the appointment of Donald Tusk’s new government on December 13, 2023. Later that month, the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage, led by Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz, initiated the process of liquidating Telewizja Polska, Polskie Radio, and the Polish Press Agency, appointing temporary liquidators.
This process, carried out in a manner raising serious legal concerns, included the forcible seizure of public media headquarters and changes to their management boards without consultation with the National Broadcasting Council, in violation of the Broadcasting Act and constitutional principles of media freedom.
READ: Hungary celebrates 1,000+ years of being Christian with giant cross in the sky
It is difficult to find a more glaring example of a violation of the principles of a democratic state governed by the rule of law than the forcible takeover of public media without any legal basis. By remaining silent on these events, the EC report seems to sanction actions that in fact undermine the rule of law.
It is also intriguing, to say the least, to state that “there has been a decrease in politically biased media content in public service media.” It is true that public media have changed significantly in recent years. However, this change consists primarily of a shift in the political narrative promoted, and it is difficult to find public broadcasters’ coverage more objective than it was before October 2023.
One of the most recent examples of this is the coverage of the inauguration of President Karol Nawrocki on August 6, 2025. TVP consistently avoided referring to him as “president,” referring to him only by his last name. What is more, the broadcast of the swearing-in ceremony before the Sejm was shown only on the public television news channel, TVP Info, and not on the main channel TVP1 as is usually the case for events of such importance. It is difficult to interpret these choices as anything other than a deliberate marginalization of the event. In that context, the EC’s claim that the pluralism of public media has improved is not only unfounded but absurd.
Defending sovereignty is against the rule of law
The latest report on the rule of law in Poland supports the long-standing view that the rule-of-law dispute is fundamentally political.
Today, it is clear to see that the definition of the rule of law is tailored to the political sympathies (and antipathies) of Brussels, and the so-called Rule of Law Reports, as well as the conditionality mechanism (also known as the “rule of law mechanism”), which conditions the allocation of EU funds supposedly to a country’s respect for rule-of-law principles, are merely a political tool to exert pressure on member states.
It is worth noting that while the funds for Poland were released shortly after Donald Tusk was sworn in as the prime minister of Poland, they are still being withheld in large part for Hungary.
It is hard to believe that the European Commission knows nothing about the statements made by Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who, in his speech on December 13, 2023, shortly after taking office, said that “we must introduce a militant democracy that will not allow the return of authoritarian tendencies. This requires decisive action, even if it is controversial.” In another speech, on January 15, 2024, he stated that “this is not the time to strictly adhere to the letter of the law when the future of democracy and the stability of the state are at stake.”
READ: Viral statistic shows abortion has wiped out 28% of Gen Z generation
The above words, indicating a willingness to act above the law to keep the opposition at bay, are not commented on in any way in the EC report, even though they cast a serious shadow on the Polish government’s intentions regarding the rule of law. As a result, this shadow spreads to the European Commission itself.
The Ordo Iuris Institute has been pointing for years to the need for thorough reforms that will restore the European Union’s shape and meaning as an economic community and a union of sovereign nations. In an era of such great polarization, not only in Poland but throughout Europe and the world, continuing the centralization of the EU and attempts to interfere so intrusively in the domestic politics and affairs of EU member states can only end badly for European integration and cooperation.
We are now at a point where the question “whether and how to reform the union” should be replaced with “can the union still be reformed?”
Reprinted with permission from Ordo Iuris.
