The European Commission sanctions Poland

Poland finally pays for its arrogant attitude and contempt for the rules towards the European institutions. The background is the obstinacy to the exploitation of a coal mine, located in the territory of the Czech Republic, by a Polish state company, which has generated a dispute between Prague and Warsaw; litigation regulated by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg. The court of the Union condemned Poland not to continue the exploitation of the field in the Czech Republic; Warsaw’s refusal to comply with this ruling resulted in a fine of 500,000 euros per day, which added up for all the days of non-compliance resulted in a sum of 70 million euros to be paid by the Polish state. Despite the agreement subsequently reached between the two countries, Ursula Von der Leyen confirmed the sanction, making it clear that no EU member country is allowed to violate EU rules. The situation was also aggravated by the contemptuous attitude of the Warsaw government against the Luxembourg court, accused of wanting to impose its own rules in an arbitrary manner. It is not excluded that without these attacks the fine could be reduced or even not applied, but the behavior of the nationalist government of Poland has long been under the scrutiny of the European institutions, especially for the anti-liberal and anti-guarantee attitude towards the civil rights. The solution of the European Commission will therefore be to subtract a portion of the funds destined for Poland equal to the total amount of the fine, the aforementioned 70 million euros. From a technical point of view this is no longer a legal decision, because following the agreement between Prague and Warsaw, the ruling of the Luxembourg court becomes outdated, but the maintenance of the administrative sanction as a pure political act, which sets a precedent for direction of community policy, so much so that the case constitutes a novelty, being the first time that the European Commission has acted by withholding funds following failure to comply with a sentence. In addition, Poland will also have to pay 45 million euros to the Czech Republic for damages resulting from the non-suspension of the mining activity. The paradox of the Polish government’s declaration that it has declared that it will oppose the Commission’s decision in all the appropriate fora is that the only place to appeal is that European Court of Justice which has its seat in Luxembourg and which has been practically disavowed by the Polish government. Warsaw thus appears in a blind alley towards the Commission, also because the question of the disciplinary court that threatens the independence of the Polish judiciary remains open; in this case too, the Luxembourg Court declared the new institution illegal, which in any case continues to exercise its function in open conflict with the provisions of the Union. The tension between Warsaw and Brussels has therefore reached a very high point, despite the hopes of the populist executive of Poland, which hoped for a sort of distraction of the European institutions, more focused on the Ukrainian question and of refugees from Belarus. The choice of the Commission, on the contrary, has favored a sanctioning action to reaffirm the political direction that was wanted to be taken: that of avoiding the repetition, as often happened too often in the past, of tolerating the behavior of some member states in open contrast with the principles in force and inspiring the common European home. The one-way utilitarian attitude, i.e. for their own benefit, of too many European members is no longer tolerable in an association of states whose membership is free but bound by specific rules, which must be universally accepted once they become members of the Union . States such as Poland enter substantial sums in their budgets, which often represent the majority of their budget, directly from the Union, without providing the required contribution in terms of collaboration with other nations and the application and compliance with European law; these are essentially unreliable countries, towards which the sanction for non-payment of funds must be only the first warning, preparatory to much more serious and definitive sanctions. The policy of overcoming unanimity can only favor this direction and perhaps only the states will remain strongly convinced of the idea of ​​Union, with their advantages but also their obligations, certainly respected and not questioned.