Both Malta and Poland have had their share of controversy of late when it comes to the judiciary.  In Poland, it is about when members of the judiciary are to leave the bench for retirement while in Malta it is about the ways in which they are appointed in the first place.

And they tie in together because both the system employed by Malta to make appointments to the bench and the way in which Poland is seeking to cut the retirement ages of members of the judiciary run afoul of the EU treaties.

Both also impact in no small way on the independence of the judiciary, that last bastion of faith that the citizen is meant to have in the State.

The European Union's top court ruled on Monday a Polish law that pushed Supreme Court judges into early retirement, by lowering the retirement age from 70 to 65, violates EU law - a setback for Poland's right-wing government but a move welcomed by many who feared the measure would cause a serious erosion of democratic standards.

In its ruling, the European Court of Justice said the measures breach judicial independence. An interim decision from the court in November ordered the Polish government to reinstate judges who were forced to retire early, about one-third of the Supreme Court's justices in all.

Meanwhile in Malta, last April rule of law NGO Repubblika asked the Maltese courts to refer the matter of the recent contentious judicial appointments - in which three new magistrates were appointed and three magistrates were promoted to judge despite clear warnings from the Council of Europe's Venice Commission - for a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice.

Those appointments, which flew in the face of the Venice Commission's recommendations while the figurative ink was still drying on paper, altered the composition of the country's judiciary by 13 per cent all at once.  As Repubblika rightly observed, this in itself proves that 'the current system is dysfunctional and easily leads to corruption'.

Monday's judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union against Poland is a landmark case that will have an effect on the independence of judiciaries across the bloc, but in Malta, in particular, the case could very well have untold ramifications.

That is because a Maltese court last month ruled that it would await judgment in the Polish case before deciding on the compatibility of Malta's system of judicial appointments with EU law.

In a decree on the case, a Maltese judge has already stated that Monday's decision on Poland was to guide the Maltese courts on the question of the applicability of the EU treaties in Malta.

Of course, it is now too late to stop the appointments to the judiciary but what will happen if the justice hearing the challenge from the NGO agrees with its argumentation?  The virtual floodgates would have been opened and decisions taken by these new magistrates and judges would need to be revisited in some way shape or form.

One is hard-pressed to contemplate a more disastrous prospect for the state of our rule of law.

Last month Judge Mark Chetcuti decided to postpone his decision on whether to refer Repubblika's complaint against the government vis-à-vis the appointment of new members of the judiciary to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

In his decision he said he would wait for a decision by the European Court expected in the case the European Commission filed against Poland on interventions by the government of that country on the independence of its judiciary.

The Judge said he expected the decision on the Polish case to provide 'redeeming guidance' for his decision on the legal challenge against the judicial appointments.

That verdict is now in, the 'redeeming guidance' has been delivered and it certainly did not go the government's way.  And although the government attempted to brush it off as a case of not comparing like with like, the judge is of a different opinion.

And so, for that matter is this newspaper.

At the end of the day it is all about the independence of the judiciary. It is about how they are appointed and how and when they retire.  In Poland, it is about controlling when they leave and subsequently replaced, and in Malta it is about how, when and what checks and balances are applied when they are appointed.