Bodnar: ‘I will hold Ziobro’s people accountable. I will change the courts, I will give the prosecutors independence’


Journalist covering law and politics for Previously journalist at Gazeta Wyborcza, Rzeczpospolita, Polska The Times, Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.


Adam Bodnar announces 9 Acts reforming the justice administration. First, the NCJ, the Constitutional Tribunal and the prosecution service, and the solution of the problem of Ziobro’s nominees in the courts – Schab, Radzik, Lasota and Nawacki. He describes his relations with Tusk. He talks about the ‘shocking scale’ of the surveillance with Pegasus

Minister of Justice and Prosecutor General Adam Bodnar tells us about his relations with Prime Minister Donald Tusk, stating that meetings are ‘regular’. ‘This is working together to fix the justice system. I never had the feeling that I was being called in and questioned. The prime minister knows perfectly well what the plan is that I am introducing. He also knows perfectly well what discussions I am having at the level of the European Commission.’ Bodnar denies that the Prime Minister was pressuring him for faster decisions.


He summarizes in the interview what he has managed to do in two months of being in government. We ask about the staff change in the courts, which judges throughout Poland are impatiently waiting for, as well as about the accountability of Ziobro’s people. And also about what he will do with neo-judges and whether he will abolish the ministry’s supervision over the courts. We talk about Pegasus and accountability for the hate scandal. And about his cooperation with judges who were defending the rule of law in recent years.


Two months of Bodnar’s rule were marked by the removal of former national prosecutor Dariusz Barski, who was the best man at Zbigniew Ziobro’s wedding, and who was supposed to stop changes taking place in the justice system and block the replacement of PiS staff.


Adam Bodnar is one of the members of the new government who is being most attacked by the right wing.


Prime Minister Tusk chose him because Bodnar is an authority who is valued in Poland and abroad. He had an impressive term of office as Poland’s Commissioner for Human Rights (2015–2021). A record number of over 600,000 voters voted for him in the elections to the Senate in Warsaw. Bodnar’s advantage is that he will find it easier to convince citizens and the European Commission that the changes being made are good and consistent with European standards. And that this is not about taking shortcuts.


Adam Bodnar does not reveal all the details, but he says more than in other interviews. He outlines his action plan.


Remove the Ziobrists from the prosecution service

Mariusz Jałoszewski: Two months have passed since you were appointed Minister of Justice. How do you feel in your new role? You are on the covers of all the newspapers. The right-wing media are writing that you are the butcher of civil rights. Do such comparisons hurt?


Minister of Justice, Adam Bodnar: This isn’t the first time in my life that my public activities have been criticized or even attacked. After all, when I was the Commissioner for Human Rights, I was often criticized and that wasn’t particularly pleasant. Of course, now my role is completely different. It’s a political role involving decision-making on a completely different level. I treat criticism and attacks as a part of my work. I see it, but I have work to do. I stick to that and I know that there will still be various, difficult moments.


What have you managed to do in these two months that you are satisfied with?


I am very satisfied with the process of joining the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. People have come to terms with the fact that the Polish prosecutor’s office is also European. We already have acceptance at the level of our government and parliament. We are just waiting for formal consent from the European Commission. I am also pleased that, step by step, we are introducing a new standard for electing court presidents. The Assemblies of Judges elect the candidates. Successive courts are receiving presidents elected in this way.


Are you satisfied with the changes in the prosecution service? Zbigniew Ziobro was supposed to have cemented the prosecutor’s office, but that went quickly. A few weeks were enough to change the leadership of the National Prosecutor’s Office, the regional prosecutor’s offices and two important district prosecutor’s offices in Warsaw.


The prosecutor’s office has now felt a breath of fresh air. I look forward not only to it working with the European Prosecutor’s Office, but also to it potentially working with the International Criminal Court in connection with the war in Ukraine. The education of future prosecutors at the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution will also change.


A team has also been appointed to investigate Justice Fund matters and regional prosecutors are appointed in individual towns. These various, seemingly small things are making major changes. I am also due to meet with prosecutors and employees of the prosecutor’s office at the regional prosecutor’s offices.


The prosecutor’s office was the PiS government’s armed force in recent years. It was affiliated to the party and handled political investigations. It protected the people from the authorities and harassed their opponents. Prime Minister Tusk certainly wanted to remove the Ziobrists from power as quickly as possible. Was he pressuring you to accelerate this?


The matter of the prosecution service was considered one of the fundamental issues for the functioning of the state from the very beginning. And there was no need to talk about it in any special way. One of my first decisions was to delegate five prosecutors from Lex Super Omnia to work at the ministry. They very actively helped me prepare the concept of a new opening in the prosecutor’s office.


Whose idea was it to acknowledge that Dariusz Barski is an illegal national prosecutor? That he was ineffectively reinstated from retirement in 2022?


Upon analysis of the laws, it transpired that there was a defect in reinstating Prosecutor Barski in the position of national prosecutor. We also ordered [three – ed.] legal opinions and they all state the same thing. Then, we just wondered how to implement this.


Does Dariusz Barski still come to work? What’s with his office?


He doesn’t come in. His office is sealed and is waiting for a new national prosecutor, who will be selected in the recruitment that is currently being conducted. This person will officially take over the office from Prosecutor Barski. This will be symbolic in a way.


Who now supervises investigations and makes the most important decisions? You, as the Prosecutor General, or Jacek Bilewicz, as the acting national prosecutor?


I avoid direct, individual involvement in pending criminal prosecution proceedings. I believe the prosecutor general should keep his distance from what individual prosecutors do. Of course, I can request explanations and ask for information. I do that regularly. But I shouldn’t tell prosecutors what they should do and with respect to whom.


Are you leaving that to Bilewicz?


I believe that is the role of the regional prosecutors. I know that Prosecutor Bilewicz is also taking a personal interest in these matters.

Do you talk to PM Tusk frequently?


Regularly. We talk about the generally understood notion of the restoration of the rule of law.


Are these regular meetings, or, in other words, ‘being called in by the boss’ and being questioned by the prime minister as to what has been achieved and what is urgent?


This is working together to fix the justice system. I never had the feeling that I was being called in and questioned. The prime minister knows perfectly well what the plan is that I am introducing. He also knows perfectly well what discussions I am having at the level of the European Commission. I am also in constant contact with Minister Maciej Berek.


Does the prime minister apply pressure at these meetings to accelerate other decisions?


No. We discuss various matters that are taking place on an ongoing basis. There were initially some meetings on the unblocking of the funds for the NRRP, joining the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the NCJ.


The hot topic now is how many people were being monitored by PiS’s services with Pegasus. There is also talk of PiS politicians, lawyers and journalists. Information has appeared that Pegasus could have been used several thousand times.


I can only say that I find the scale of the surveillance shocking. I am preparing a comprehensive legal solution with the coordinator of the secret services, Minister Tomasz Siemoniak, to legally disclose at least some of this information.


It is being speculated that the Sejm will pass resolutions and laws on the illegal NCJ and Julia Przyłębska’s Constitutional Tribunal at its next session. Both of these bodies are filled with the previous government’s nominees; they are still active and trying to block the reversal of Ziobro’s ‘reforms’ in the courts and the prosecutor’s office. What is the coalition’s plan?


The Council of Ministers is to issue an opinion on the draft amendment to the Act on the NCJ, and the parliamentary majority is to adopt it [the bill terminates the neo-NCJ and introduces the election of 15 new judge-members, who will be elected by the judges themselves – ed.]. And then we will have to wait for the president’s decision.


The changes to the NCJ are specially split into two stages so that there is nothing in this Act that would undermine what the president considers his sacred competence [this bill does not address the matter of neo-judges appointed by the president – ed.].


The Sejm adopted a resolution in 2023 with the votes of the ruling coalition’s MPs, in which it acknowledged that the neo-NCJ is not the body referred to in the Constitution. It called for the resignation of the members of the neo-NCJ. But the illegal Council is still operating; its members are nominating neo-judges. And now, the neo-NCJ is trying use the Constitutional Tribunal to block the dismissal of Ziobro’s court presidents, who are also members of that body, like Maciej Nawacki and Rafał Puchalski. Are you satisfied with that resolution?


I am satisfied. I believe the resolution has achieved its effect. It has delegitimized the current membership of the National Council of the Judiciary, which is a clear legal sign. I also suspended the announcement of new recruitments for judicial nominations. However, I cannot influence the president who announces recruitments to the Supreme Court.


So what’s the idea for Przyłębska’s Constitutional Tribunal? Everyone is saying you are in favour of resolving that problem.


First, there will be a resolution of the Sejm. Various other changes regarding the functioning of the Constitutional Tribunal will also be proposed. This is about statutes. There will be a discussion on how to renew or form the Constitutional Tribunal from the beginning.


What will that resolution contain? The dismissal of three stand-ins, as well as Krystyna Pawłowicz and Stanisław Piotrowicz, who were already past retirement age when they were elected to the Constitutional Tribunal?


It will include mentions of stand-ins, as well as Julia Przyłębska’s chairing of the Constitutional Tribunal and the consequences of this for the functioning of the whole of the Tribunal [lawyers claim Przyłębska is not the president of the Constitutional Tribunal because she was elected ineffectively, and even if she were to be considered its president, her term of office has already ended – ed.].


Will stand-ins be dismissed?


I can’t say any more at this stage.


A proposal of a constitutional reset has appeared. In other words, the resetting of the Supreme Court, the NCJ and the Constitutional Tribunal. And establishing them from scratch without any political divisions. This would require the amendment of the Constitution in cooperation with PiS, to which the Left Wing objects. Are you in favour of a reset?


This slogan was put forward by the Confederation Party, but not much followed, other than the slogan itself becoming popular. Everyone in Poland thinks that if you just click your fingers, everything can be fixed quickly. As a minister, I have to represent not only my own views, but also the views of the whole Coalition. And the Coalition is not currently raising this topic.


Your task is also to unlock billions of euros for Poland for the Next Generation EU for the National Recovery Plan. Do you have a plan to make changes in the justice system? What are you going to propose to the European Commission?


The most important date for me is now 20 February, when I am due to present the so-called Action Plan for the justice system. We will present it for consultation to establish what is still missing in it and what should be improved or added. The plan consists of 9 Acts.


There will be an Act on the new NCJ [which is currently being processed – editor] and the Anti-Muzzle Act that will eliminate all changes made to the Court Acts, which are in conflict with EU law. The third Act applies to the prosecutor’s office. It will consist of two parts. The first applies to the separation of the positions of prosecutor general and minister of justice. It will be passed now; there is no point in waiting. And the second part is a comprehensive Act on the new prosecutor’s office. It is expected and necessary, but it will require more time to prepare.


The fourth Act is about the NCJ. It will resolve the problem of the recruitments of neo-judges. The fifth Act applies to the amendment to the Act on the Structure of the Ordinary Courts. I’m not sure whether there is a need for an in-depth amendment here, as the Iustitia association of judges would like, having proposed moving the whole of the judicial apparatus to be supervised by the NCJ. I believe it’s a little early for such a discussion when we have many other matters that haven’t been tidied up in the courts.


I would prefer to focus on the court presidents and disciplinary commissioners, as well as on reducing the powers of the ministry of justice and delegating some of the decisions to the judicial associations.


The next two Acts address the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Tribunal. Additionally, we are also planning an Act on the status of court and prosecutor’s office employees. I don’t know why it hasn’t been passed yet. The problem was probably the increase in spending on salaries.


One of my biggest objectives for this year is to allocate budget funds for a substantial increase in salaries for court and prosecutor’s office employees.


In the case of judges and prosecutors, I get the impression that the salary system is relatively stable, especially at this higher level. These are really decent rates. And the last, ninth Act, which is symbolic for me. It applies to the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.


I will also appoint four codification committees for the reform of criminal, civil and family law and a committee for the codification of the structure of courts and prosecutor’s offices. I have already submitted the respective draft regulations on this matter and they are now being taken over by the council of ministers by circulation.


When will all these bills be ready?


The most urgent bills will be passed in the first half of the year, regardless of what the president does with them later. However, in my opinion, we can wait until the second half of the year to deal with bigger issues, such as a comprehensive law on the prosecution service. However, we have to prepare the Act on the Supreme Court first.


Will the illegal Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs and the Professional Liability Chamber, which were established by PiS, be disbanded?


We have (and want) to do that. The need for that is confirmed by the judgments of the European Courts. There is also the matter of the extraordinary complaint.


Minister Ziobro used it to cancel judgments that were inconvenient for the government or to harass the government’s opponents. Ziobro, as the prosecutor general, filed as many as three extraordinary complaints to the detriment of Judge Waldemar Żurek, who was being oppressed by the authorities. Will you now withdraw the extraordinary complaints from the Review Chamber?


I am at the stage of reviewing these matters. We have to assess whether I am able to withdraw a given complaint if it was filed to the benefit of a specific person. Other than that, after the CJEU judgment of December 2023, I cannot imagine the Review Chamber examining these complaints.


Will you leave this complaint for the future?


Ultimately no. The legislative change must involve our withdrawal from this instrument. Of course, it is a kind of safeguard for impossible legal situations, but, even so, it is too risky. Numerous cases have shown that it can be used for political purposes.


Changes in the justice system are not only about new bills reversing Ziobro’s ‘reforms’. Judges are waiting for staff changes in the courts and for Ziobro’s people to be held accountable. Changes here are not taking place as quickly as in the prosecutor’s office. So far, you have managed to dismiss only three court presidents nominated by Minister Ziobro. The judges are expecting some acceleration.


Changes in the courts are moving forward step by step. The terms of office of some court presidents are ending and we are appointing new ones. We are interrupting the terms of office of others and dismissing them with the aid of the court colleges. We dismissed the president of the Court of Appeal in Kraków, the president and his deputies at the Court of Appeal in Poznań and the president of the Regional Court in Kielce. Further courts are in the queue.


However, you didn’t manage to dismiss the president of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw, Piotr Schab. That court’s college, which consists of Ziobro’s presidents, did not give its consent to that. Despite his suspension, Schab has returned to work because he received a so-called interim measure from Przyłębska’s Constitutional Tribunal.


We are trying to make the most of the available legal resources in every situation involving court presidents.


What’s the idea? Will the ministry request permission from the the illegal NCJ for dismissal, or will it ignore it and issue a decision dismissing Schab from the position of president?


I do not discuss personnel matters in public. I am acting in a thoughtful manner and am not anticipating the facts. When the decision is ready, I will issue it and then we can talk about it.


Schab is still also the chief disciplinary commissioner, together with his deputies, Michał Lasota, who is also the president of the Regional Court in Olsztyn, and Przemysław Radzik. It was they who ramped up the repression against judges. The judges are treating the continuation of these people in office as a slap in the face.


We are at the stage of preparing for a comprehensive solution to this matter, which should primarily assume the form of a statute. However, I am currently taking advantage of the institution of ad hoc commissioners as effectively as possible [these are extraordinary commissioners appointed by the minister, there are already three of them and they are taking over disciplinary matters from Schab and his deputies – ed.]. In other words, I’m trying to operate preventively and limit the harmful actions of these people, especially with respect to judges who apply EU law.


Will we have to wait for a new Act before Schab and his deputies are dismissed?


We are thinking about this problem. The Act on the Structure of the Ordinary Courts does not specify the criteria for dismissing them but, on the other hand, they have terms of office. The dismissal criteria specified for deputies of disciplinary commissioners at the courts of appeal can be applied. We are analysing this. We will not be waiting for the new Act to do this. But we have to act effectively, and we are preparing for it.


Even if Schab, Radzik and Lasota rebel, the ministry will send a signal to lawyers and judges that they are no longer disciplinary commissioners. And then all that is needed is to enforce their dismissal. This will be a clear signal to the judicial community and the public. You managed to do this in the prosecutor’s office.


I had completely different opportunities in the prosecutor’s office because I am the prosecutor general who is the superior of all prosecutors and can give them official orders.


There’s probably no one in Poland who would want the minister of justice to have the same relationship with judges as with prosecutors. But if the minister sends a signal that they are not disciplinary commissioners, the judges will make sure they resign.


That’s why I’m preparing it. This is a matter of weeks. I know what the tension is in the courts and what the expectations are. I also know what is happening in the Court of Appeal in Warsaw. I will be making decisions to give judges a break there, for instance by delegating judges to help with adjudicating.


The chair of the neo-NCJ, Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woicka, is adjudicating on a secondment to this court. She was delegated in the last weeks of the PiS government. She was initiating reprisals against the Kraków judges when she was president of the Regional Court in Kraków. The judges are surprised that she is still adjudicating there. Can she be dismissed?


Yes, she can. But Ms Pawełczyk-Woicka will be the first to find out about this as soon as I make such a decision.


What about Maciej Nawacki, the member of the neo-NCJ, who is also a symbol of the previous government? He is still the president of the District Court in Olsztyn.


Anyone who is symbolic of the destruction of the justice system is or will be of great interest to the ministry of justice. And I will not rest until these people stop harming Polish judges and are held accountable for what they have done.


Do judges have to write appeals to dismiss presidents? There are increasingly more appeals of this kind from the courts because the judges do not want Ziobro’s nominees. Isn’t it possible to dismiss presidents without appeals?


It is. Although I must admit that every appeal gives me a sense of certainty that I am not alone in these decisions, but that I have the support of the judicial community. This also gives me a greater chance that the court’s college will accept my dismissal request in such a situation. This is what recently happened in Kielce. Local tension among judges also results in changes in the attitudes of the members of the college. Of course, this doesn’t always go hand in hand. But it was also possible in Poznań.


The presidents of other courts, who were nominated by Ziobro, are members of the colleges. And decide whether to dismiss another of Ziobro’s presidents. This is a closed group which was supposed to cement the changes in the courts. Can’t we ignore such a college’s opinion?


They are also changing their attitudes. We are thinking about changes in other courts. We have new people in the ministry dealing with the courts. These are Judges Marta Warywoda-Kożuchowska and Dr Dominik Czeszkiewicz. They are supporting us in these matters.

There are also many of Minister Ziobro’s nominees in your ministry. You are surrounded by them. About 150 judges have been delegated to work here. The judges also dislike the fact that the people who helped Ziobro destroy the independence of the courts are now working for you as if nothing has happened.


Prosecutors have also been delegated to work in the ministry. I first dismissed a dozen or so people in senior positions. I dramatically reduced the levels of their salaries, as well as the service and functional allowances that were awarded to judges and prosecutors delegated to work at the ministry of justice. This will give huge savings. We will be able to save between five and ten thousand zlotys per month per delegation. I don’t want to be populist, but there are people here who, as departmental directors, were earning PLN 45,000 a month [a judge’s fixed salary is less than half of this amount, namely PLN 15,000–20,000 gross – ed.].


Okay, but what about the other judges on secondments from Minister Ziobro’s times? Will you recall them? Or will you convert them to work for the rule of law?


All the people who we believed we will not want to work with were already dismissed ‘with immediate effect’. I don’t expect any more changes in this mode. In the other cases, we will change the personnel structure of the ministry in a planned, consistent manner, considering all the pros and cons.


I get the impression that no matter what I do, I am constantly being accused of not having done enough. I see various staff problems myself, but I know that, when it comes to personnel matters, you cannot act hastily. You have to prepare very well for that. I am the last person to say: now let’s forgive them and all work together.


Wouldn’t it be easier and quicker to make changes in the courts – including staff changes – by bringing 30–50 judges from Iustitia and Themis to help the ministry? They passed the test of independence and the rule of law during the last 8 years. They know the environment. Prosecutors from Lex Super Omnia helped with the prosecution service. Why not take advantage of the advice of the judges in the courts?


I try to take advantage of the knowledge and experience of everyone who wants to work with us. I have a specific mission and I think this cooperation is quite fruitful, although perhaps not as effective as the judges would like. Only two months have passed. I talk to the associations of judges and tell them what I have already done.


Iustitia declared its full support for you in December 2023. Didn’t you get a list of people from the associations of judges who can work for you in the ministry and help implement the changes?


The offer of cooperation is still on the table. Deputy Minister Dariusz Mazur, who is a judge and is responsible for the courts in the ministry, makes decisions. I support him in this. He also recently received support from Judges Czeszkiewicz and Warywoda-Kożuchowska.


Is there a conflict with Iustitia? We are hearing voices of criticism increasingly frequently that the changes are taking place too slowly.


No, we are not in conflict. I know what the president of Iustitia, Krystian Markiewicz, says in his interviews. But we have normal, regular meetings within the team that is restoring the rule of law. The last one was held on Thursday, 15 February, and the president of Iustitia, Professor Krystian Markiewicz, took part in it. I also have a meeting planned with all the associations of judges. There is a normal dialogue. I consider it to be simply natural that, in democratic conditions, we do not offend each other; we just talk to each other. I don’t feel we are in conflict.


Do you agree with the words of the former judge from Katowice, Jarosław Gwizdak, that judges should now be stamped on? This is what he said on TVN24. They should now go to the case files, adjudicate and not interfere anymore. It sounded as if the judges had already done their job and were no longer needed.


I believe judges certainly have the right to state what the solutions are. But it should be remembered that the legislative authority is not the same as the executive authority. I am now responsible for the legislative process. Of course, I will cooperate and build trust between the judiciary and the legislative authority. Not only because there should be such respect. But also because the protest in defence of the rule of law in recent years was based on the judiciary.


Iustitia has its own bills on the ordinary courts, the NCJ and the Supreme Court. It is proposing that they are passed together as a comprehensive reform of the courts. This is mainly about the role of the NCJ, which would assume administrative supervision over the courts. This supervision is currently handled by the ministry and we know how it ended after 8 years of Ziobro. The courts are in a state of collapse, they are ruled by Ziobro’s people, judges were being repressed. You are currently only proposing a change in the procedure of electing judges to the NCJ. Would you later agree to the handover of the management of the courts to the new NCJ, as Iustitia is proposing? All the more so that you want to do the same with the prosecutor’s office which is to be given full independence from the politicians.


In principle, I am all for that. I don’t want to accumulate power and build some empire. Quite the contrary. That’s why I’m holding all these competitive recruitments to important positions. But for us to get to this stage, we first have to rebuild the courts so that they can start functioning normally.


Besides, who do we pass supervision over to now? The current NCJ, or the Supreme Court [headed by Neo-Judge Małgorzata Manowska – ed.], in which many representatives of the judicial community do not have a great deal of confidence?


The Supreme Administrative Court conducts its own supervision over the administrative courts and this actually works quite well there. Let’s look at Western solutions. There are countries in which this is also working. I have nothing against it and I’m not saying no to such a model, but we simply need to think this through carefully.


My first year is ahead of me – the year of the most serious institutional changes. I hope it will be possible to convince the president of some of them, after which we will propose further institutional changes.


How the problem of neo-judges will be resolved is also of importance to the judges who were defending the rule of law in recent years. Iustitia proposes the withdrawal of their nominations and that they should take part in new competitive recruitments, but before a legal NCJ. They cannot imagine that neo-judges would retain their nominations or be subjected to vetting, which will end in the same way for most of them. That would be damaging to them. Because they refrained from entering before an illegal body, instead postponing their career progression. What are your thoughts on neo-judges?


I realize that we have a gigantic dispute in the legal world about how to do this and how to fix it so as not to suddenly bring the whole of the justice system to a standstill. I understand the responsibility I have here.


First, let’s see what the president will do with the Act on the NCJ and whether we will be able to at least renew this constitutional body. The discussion on neo-judges awaits us in March and April – should we go in the direction of individual vetting or new competitive recruitments?


I strongly agree with Iustitia’s arguments. I don’t think there is any dispute between us. I’m more afraid that, if we go towards vetting mechanisms, the vetting process will last a very long time. Most of these nominations will be rubber stamped anyway.


The judges are still hurt by the fact that nobody has been held accountable for the hate scandal. More than 4 years have passed since it was disclosed, but the investigation into this matter is still ongoing. No one has been charged.


I can’t imagine that nobody will be held accountable for that. As far as I am aware, the decision of the prosecutor’s office in this case will be made in a matter of weeks rather than months.


The interview was published in Polish on 18 February 2024.


Journalist covering law and politics for Previously journalist at Gazeta Wyborcza, Rzeczpospolita, Polska The Times, Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.



February 21, 2024


Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional TribunalPolandjudgesdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean Commissionjudicial independenceEuropean UnionMałgorzata ManowskaAndrzej DudaCourt of JusticeIgor TuleyaEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary systemMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiMateusz MorawieckiCJEUmuzzle lawNational Recovery PlanAdam BodnarCommissioner for Human RightsdemocracyWaldemar ŻurekPrzemysław Radzikcriminal lawpresidential electionselectionsKamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerPiotr Schabmedia freedomneo-judgeselections 2023Julia PrzyłębskajudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme Courtpreliminary rulingsSupreme Administrative CourtHungaryelections 2020K 3/21Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaNational Council for JudiciaryharassmentProsecutor GeneralprosecutorsŁukasz PiebiakMichał LasotaBeata MorawiecPaweł JuszczyszynCourt of Justice of the European UnionPrime MinisterPresidentConstitutionCOVID-19European Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiCriminal ChamberRegional Court in KrakówRecovery FundExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberEU budgetfreedom of expressionprosecutiondisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanMałgorzata GersdorfSejmcourtsMaciej Ferekfreedom of assemblyconditionalityLaw and JusticeNCJMinistry of JusticeJustice FundNational ProsecutorPiSStanisław PiotrowiczAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPresident of the Republic of PolandIustitiaTHEMISimmunityAnna DalkowskaNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsStanisław Biernatconditionality mechanismWłodzimierz WróbelLabour and Social Security Chambercommission on Russian influence2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiNational Electoral CommissionJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsPresident of PolandLGBTXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. Polandmedia independenceKrystian MarkiewiczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczMichał WawrykiewiczArticle 6 ECHREAWUrsula von der LeyenTVPmediaLex Super OmniaLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaDidier ReyndersStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationAndrzej StępkaPiotr GąciarekcorruptionP 7/20K 7/21Lex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanProfessional Liability ChambersuspensionparliamentJarosław DudziczChamber of Professional Liabilityelectoral codePiotr Prusinowskidemocratic backslidingdecommunizationLaw on the NCJrecommendationHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europepublic opinion pollreportEuropean ParliamentZiobrointimidation of dissenterstransferretirement agePiebiak gatehuman rightsEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawcoronavirusC-791/19Piotr PszczółkowskiGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaJarosław GowinLGBT ideology free zonescriminal codeSenateZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczMarcin WarchołdefamationFree CourtsEwa WrzosekEU law primacyAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej MiteraViktor OrbanOLAFNext Generation EUvetoabortionJózef IwulskiTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiMarek MazurkiewiczAndrzej MączyńskiJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław RymarFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskiBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikSLAPPOKO.pressDariusz ZawistowskiMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiMarian BanaśSupreme Audit OfficeAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyKrakówXero Flor v. PolandAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Civil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaPegasusMariusz KamińskisurveillanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraEdyta Barańskaright to fair trialUkraineKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecDariusz DrajewiczRafał Puchalskismear campaignmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentMarzanna Piekarska-Drążekelectoral processWojciech Maczugapublic medialexTuskcourt changeselections integrityelections fairnessabuse of state resourcesPATFoxpopulismequal treatmentfundamental rightsCT PresidentEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justice2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUStanisław ZabłockiLIBE CommitteeFrans TimmermansUS Department of StateSwieczkowskiadvocate generalpress releaseRights and Values ProgrammeC-619/18defamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardWojciech SadurskijudgePechKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakAmnesty Internationaltrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote billresolution of 23 January 2020Leon KieresPKWinfringment actionEU valuesENCJIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawPrzemysła RadzikElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsC-487/19Article 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentSimpson judgmentForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited NationsLeszek Mazurinterim measuresautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingproteststhe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europemedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióGazeta WyborczaPollitykaBrussels IRome IIArticle 2Forum shoppingtransparencyEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian KaletaC-156/21C-157/21Marek PiertuszyńskiNational Prosecutor’s OfficeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOlsztyn courtPrzemysła CzarnekEducation MinisterIpsosOlimpia Barańska-MałuszeHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr Burasauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258clientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's OfficePolish National FoundationLux VeritatisMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykTVNjournalistslexTVNPolish mediaRzeszówborderprimacyEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej RutkiewiczMirosław Wróblewskiright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMichał WośMinistry of FinanceJacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryMarek AstCourt of Appeal in KrakówPutinismKaczyńskiPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderekct on the Protection of the Populatiolegislationlex WośRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtAntykastaStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczKatarzyna ChmuraGrzegorz FurmankiewiczMarek JaskulskiJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaKasta/AntykastaAndrzej SkowronŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiEmilia SzmydtTomasz SzmydtE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał Dworczykmedia pluralism#RecoveryFilesrepairing the rule of lawBohdan BieniekMarcin KrajewskiMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsWiesław KozielewiczNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeGrzegorz PudaPiotr MazurekJerzy KwaśniewskiPetros Tovmasyancourt presidentsODIHRFull-Scale Election Observation MissionNGOKarolina MiklaszewskaRafał LisakMałgorzata FroncJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiSebastian MazurekElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikSzymon Szynkowski vel SękJoanna Scheuring-Wielgusinsulting religious feelingsoppositionAdam GendźwiłłDariusz Dończyktest of independenceTomasz KoszewskiJakub KwiecińskidiscriminationAct on the Supreme Courtelectoral commissionsEuropean Court of HuKrzysztof RączkaPoznańKoan LenaertsKarol WeitzKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiRThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFJustyna WydrzyńskaAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszJoanna KnobelCrimes of espionageextraordinary commissionZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaCourt of Appeal in WarsawOsiatyński'a ArchiveUS State DepartmentAssessment Actenvironmentinvestmentstrategic investmentgag lawsuitslex RaczkowskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActdisinformationNational Broadcasting Councilelection fairnessDobrochna Bach-GoleckaRafał WojciechowskiAleksandra RutkowskaGeneral Court of the EUArkadiusz RadwanLech WałęsaWałęsa v. Polandright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawpilot-judgmentDonald Tusk governmentSLAPPscivil lawRadosław BaszukAction PlanJustice MinistryVěra JourováDonald Tuskjustice system reform