This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/29/world/europe/poland-law-altering-top-court-goes-into-effect-despite-criticism.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Poland: Law Altering Top Court Goes Into Effect Despite Criticism Poland: Law Altering Top Court Goes Into Effect Despite Criticism
(34 minutes later)
Poland’s president on Monday signed into law an amendment to how its highest court, the Constitutional Tribunal, makes rulings, a move that critics say will paralyze the court and erode checks and balances on government powers. It was the latest development in a constitutional crisis that began when the conservative nationalist Law and Justice party, winner of October’s parliamentary election, appointed five judges to the 15-member court. The appointments were labeled illegal by opposition leaders and set off major public protests. The amendment signed into law by President Andrzej Duda, a close ally of the party, requires the court to adopt most rulings by a two-thirds margin with at least 13 judges present. In the past as few as five judges could be assigned to and vote on any particular case. Poland’s president on Monday signed into law an amendment to how its highest court, the Constitutional Tribunal, makes rulings, a move that critics say will paralyze the court and erode checks and balances on government powers. It was the latest development in a constitutional crisis that began when the conservative nationalist Law and Justice party, winner of October’s parliamentary election, appointed five judges to the 15-member court. The appointments were labeled illegal by opposition leaders and set off major public protests. The amendment signed into law by President Andrzej Duda, a close ally of the party, requires the court to adopt most rulings by a two-thirds majority with at least 13 judges present. In the past as few as five judges could be assigned to and vote on any particular case.