The role of national judges as European judges in protecting the rule of law

Kriza vladavine prava je eden izmed najtežjih izzivov, s katerimi se Evropska unija sooča v zadnjem desetletju, njena osrednja razsežnost pa so sistematični napadi na pravosodje. Pristop Evropske unije k reševanju krize se zdi neučinkovit, kar gotovo velja za poskuse Evropske komisije. Slednja je zapravila ogromno časa za dialog s težavnimi državami članicami, katerih politične elite so zastavile načrten odmik od vrednote vladavine prava, pravo pa le instrumentarizirale za utrditev oblasti. Evropska komisija je z upanjem v dialog težavne države članice zgolj opogumila in jim omogočila sprejem spornih pravosodnih reform in ugrabitev neodvisnih pravosodnih organov. Enako slabo se je Evropska komisija odrezala v tožbah zoper težavne države članice, saj se je prepogosto osredotočila zgolj na formalno zmago pred Sodiščem Evropske unije. Slednje je prav zato izkoristilo predhodno vprašanje portugalskega sodišča v zadevi C-64/16 - Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses in poudarilo položaj nacionalnih sodnikov kot evropskih sodnikov ter njihov pomen za celotni pravni red Evropske unije. S to ključno sodbo je Sodišče Evropske unije Evropski komisiji v roke porinilo primerno orožje za boj s krizo vladavine prava v posamezni državi članici, hkrati pa nacionalnim sodnikom ponudilo dodatno možnost varovanja njihove neodvisnosti. Na podlagi navedenega primera je Evropska komisija sprožila vrsto tožb proti Poljski, ki so slednjo vsaj deloma prisilile v opustitev nekaterih spornih pravosodnih reform. Dejstvo pa je, da krize vladavine prava institucije Evropske unije ne morejo premagati same, najpomembnejši korak bodo morali narediti državljani posamezne države članice in na naslednjih volitvah izkazati željo po spoštovanju vladavine prava.The rule of law crisis is one of the most formidable challenges the European Union has faced during the last decade, with the core problem of systematic attacks on judiciary. Attempts of the European Union to solve the crisis seem inefficient, which is especially true for European Commission\u27s response. The latter spent too much time engaging in dialog with problematic member states, whose political elites purposefully turned away from rule of law values and used law simply as a tool to entrench power. European Commission\u27s faith in dialog thus only emboldened troublesome member states and enabled them to pass controversial judicial reforms and capture independent judicial bodies. European Commission was equally ineffective in bringing infringement cases against member states as it was too often satisfied with a formal victory in front of the Court of Justice. The latter therefore took a preliminary question from a Portuguese court in the case C-64/16 - Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses and used it to highlight the role of national judges as European judges as well as their importance for the legal order of the European Union. With this crucial ruling the Court of Justice gave the European Commission appropriate weaponry to combat rule of law crisis in individual member states, while offering additional protection to the national judges. On the basis of the aforementioned ruling the European Commission was able to bring several infringement actions against Poland which forced the latter to abandon some of its controversial judicial reforms. However, European Union’s institutions cannot solve the rule of law crisis on their own. The most important step must be made by citizens of problematic member states. They have to express their wish for rule of law adherence in the next elections