Marcin Romanowski has been deputy minister of justice of Poland since June 2019, and he holds the title of doctor of legal sciences. He holds a law degree from the faculty of law and administration of Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, and he completed postgraduate studies in law at the University of Regensburg, Bavaria. He is also an associate professor at the department of theory and philosophy of law at the faculty of law and administration of the Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw.
Romanowski belongs to Suwerenna Polska (Sovereign Poland, until May this year Solidarna Polska), which since 2015 has governed Poland in coalition with Law and Justice. We recently discussed the controversial decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to adopt the Istanbul Convention and the new migrant sharing agreement.
Isn’t the CJEU’s decision that all EU countries should adopt the Istanbul Convention a flagrant violation of the treaties? Is there no concern for the rule of law here?
The EU’s general treaty regime for the adoption of international agreements, such as the Istanbul Convention, requires unanimity in the council of ministers. This rule protects the interests of the member states, since the international law system is founded upon the sovereign will of states, and treaties often interfere with the fundamental competences of national governments. On one hand, the Istanbul Convention is portrayed by European institutions as a mechanism intended to combat domestic violence. On the other hand, reality shows that the intention of its authors was to promote gender ideology, portraying the natural family as the main reason for the prevalence of domestic violence in society. This amounts to a great interference in family affairs in all member states. Nonetheless, the CJEU delivered a surprising decision allowing for adoption procedures to bypass the unanimity requirement, making the sovereign voice of smaller member states basically unheard.
Poland has passed laws against domestic violence without any ideological baggage. Have these laws worked, and is there any real need to adopt the Istanbul Convention?
The original anti-domestic violence act that was proposed by us was adopted by all political parties in Poland. We have proven that there is no need for ideological input when it comes to legislative initiatives in such sensitive matters as domestic violence. The act introduced mechanisms such as immediate orders for the perpetrator to leave the household—used over 12,000 times already, making the decrease in domestic violence visible. Recently, a new provision was accepted by the parliament, extending protection to places other than the household, such as schools attended by children or the workplace of the victim. Contrary to the Istanbul Convention, our proposals contain real instruments, both legal and practical, requiring constant cooperation with all authorities involved in the process, but without any ideological stances based on radical ideas threatening the natural family.
Your ministry has also drafted a bill for the protection of children, what is it about?
Family protection is one of the main goals that we constantly pursue in the ministry of justice and the Sovereign Poland party. As the person responsible for family affairs in the ministry, I’m proud of what we have already achieved, knowing that there is more to come. In addition to the anti-violence acts, we have created a network consisting of more than 300 assistance centers operated by NGOs under a special fund created by the ministry of justice. These centers provide free legal and psychological help to victims of crime, their relatives, partners, and witnesses as well. Currently, we have been working with a number of external experts since 2021 to develop a nationwide strategy to combat sexual violence against children. Our goal is to establish a strong network of different layers: legal, practical, and financial, safeguarding families, especially kids from sexual abuse in any shape or form.
What measures will Poland take to deal with this decision of the CJEU?
Poland tries to oppose and block the widespread radical left-wing ideology within numerous EU legislative proposals. We carefully analyze the ongoing processes, and we believe that models devoid of moral foundations cannot contribute to a safe and healthy society. During the entire procedure related to the Istanbul Convention, we submitted an official position stating that the adoption of the convention by the EU cannot proceed without following the common accord principle. However, the CJEU’s position remained unchanged. As a result, our voice of opposition, although not isolated, could not prevent the adoption of the document with the required majority instead of unanimity. Legal complaint against the decision seems to have a poor chance of success, given the approach the CJEU takes towards the Treaties and EU law. Luckily, we are still sovereign and our constitutional tribunal has the last word in any case concerning the Polish legal system, and how much international agreements can interfere with it.
Besides Hungary, neither the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, or Bulgaria have adopted the Istanbul Convention within their own legal frameworks. Is Brussels going to start a witch-hunt against all these countries?
The fact that such a large group of member states will now be forced to recognize the convention’s principles as enforceable EU law raises serious ethical concerns about this situation. EU institutions behave as if the law were merely malleable material for constructing foundations that will later enable the enforcement of extremely radical ideas of the European Left. The inclusion of the gender-based convention in EU law, over whose interpretation and execution the CJEU has a nearly unlimited mandate, poses a great danger to states such as Poland and Hungary, who have already suffered from financial restrictions due to gender-related legislation.
Poland has a general election in 2023. Do you think that the European Commission can use this tool to support the Brussels party, Donald Tusk’s Civic Platform?
Representatives of the European Commission have admitted on several occasions that their goal is to change the government in Poland because, in their view, the current coalition, although it enjoys the mandate of a sovereign people, does not reflect the pre-imposed covenants of un-elected officials from Brussels. For eight years, we have pursued a sovereign policy that has resulted in Poland being one of the safest and fastest-growing countries in the EU, where truth does not yield to political correctness. The return to power of the Civic Platform (part of EPP) will not serve our independence, and Poland will no longer oppose attempts at the federalization of the Union. However, I have a deep faith that it will not come to that. Changes are happening in many countries in Europe; the recent election results in Italy, or the polls before the upcoming elections in Spain, indicate a significant shift in social sentiment throughout Europe, which may help maintain the power of conservative political forces in Poland.
If the member states accept this CJEU decision, tomorrow it could be about climate change or ‘LGBT rights.’ As well as being a weapon against conservative governments, isn’t this a further step towards a bureaucratic superstate in which the sovereignty of nations diminishes in relevance?
It should be noted that the European Commission has already attempted to implement the principles of the Istanbul Convention through a directive, which we managed to block. In order to bypass the outcome, the CJEU changed the rules of the game and allowed the EU to directly adopt the convention without unanimity. It is evident that the goal is not the common interest of member states but rather the objectives of a small group aiming to accumulate power.
With regard to illegal immigration, Poland and Hungary have rejected the EU’s migrant-sharing scheme, which foresees the payment of 20,000 euros for each rejected migrant. Orbán has called it an “abuse” and Morawiecki has said that Poland will not pay for other countries’ mistakes in immigration policy. How do you rate this measure?
Relocation is an attempt to shift responsibility for decisions made, for example, in Berlin. Poland is open to legal migration, as evidenced by our stance in the face of the war in Ukraine. We have welcomed millions of people fleeing their motherland, and not even one camp comparable to what we can observe in many other states has been built. We remember well when the majority of refugees running from Russian aggression lived for a very long time alongside Polish families in their homes. Nevertheless, we will not legitimize irrational decisions and the uncontrolled influx of illegal migrants, inaccurately called ‘refugees.’ Although we issue one of the highest number of residence permits to non-EU citizens in the entire community almost every year, Poland has one of the lowest crime rates. Everyone feels safe in Poland, regardless of their location or time. This is thanks to our consistency in terms of putting our territorial integrity above the ideological agenda promoted in Brussels.
