Appeal of 50 judges from the former, legal NCJ: Dissolve the neo-NCJ, stop appointing neo-judges


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


Almost all judges – members of the old, legal National Council of Judiciary (Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa, KRS), which was dissolved by PiS, have signed an appeal to the authorities to implement the ECtHR and CJEU judgments. They are appealing to the authorities to appoint an NCJ which is consistent with the Constitution. They are also appealing to judges to boycott recruitment for the second term of office of the neo-NCJ.

This is the first appeal of its kind in the history of the National Council of the Judiciary, which was established in 1989. The NCJ was supposed to ensure the independence of the courts, which had been breached during the People’s Republic of Poland period. From the outset, it was assumed that judges will be involved in the NCJ.


The NCJ was then written into the Constitution of 1997, and the 15 judge-members were elected by the judges themselves. This was the case until 2018, when PiS violated the Constitution and dissolved the legal NCJ during its term of office, appointing a new one (the neo-NCJ) in its place, which was elected for the first time by MPs (from PiS and Kukiz’15).


However, the Neo-NCJ is unconstitutional for several reasons. It does not have representatives of all courts. Nor was the Sejm allowed to elect 15 judge-members to it. The Constitution states that the Sejm can only elect four of its own representatives.


Furthermore, the neo-NCJ consists mainly of judges connected with Ziobro’s ministry, including court presidents nominated by the minister. Therefore, it is connected to politicians and is not an independent body and does not safeguard the independence of the courts. This is what the Constitution obliges it to do.


For these reasons, in their judgments, the Polish Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court, as well as the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, challenged the legality of the neo-NCJ and the nominations it had given to the judges. Approximately 1,500 neo-judges have already received such nominations.


And now 50 former members – judges of the legal NCJ – state the same. The appeal was signed by almost all members from the beginning of the Council’s existence, including former presidents of the Supreme Court Adam Strzembosz, Małgorzata Gersdorf and Lech Gardocki; Beata Morawiec, currently president of the Themis association of judges, and Waldemar Żurek, one of the symbols of free courts. As well as the last chairman of the old NCJ, which was dissolved by PiS, Dariusz Zawistowski (currently a Supreme Court judge).


The appeal is timely, because the term of office of the neo-NCJ ends in March and the Marshall of the Sejm has already ordered elections of its members for a second term. The Sejm already has all the candidates. Almost all current members of the neo-NCJ and Ziobro’s former deputy, Łukasz Piebiak, are running for office. However, the opposition wants to submit its bill to restore the rule of law.


We are publishing the appeal of the former members of the NCJ in full because of its importance.


‘We, judges, members of the National Council of the Judiciary of all terms of office in the years 1990–2018, including members of the Council, the term of office of which was interrupted in breach of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, in connection with the election in 2018 of judges – members of the National Council of the Judiciary – pursuant to the Act on the National Council of the Judiciary of 12 May 2011 (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2021, item 269), declare that this election was made in breach of Article 187, para. 1, item 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland.


The incompatibility of the appointment of judges – members of the National Council of the Judiciary – with the Polish Constitution resulted in judges, who enjoy prestige and recognition from the environment, not taking part in the elections; only judges supported by politicians and a small group of judges who had long concealed this support did so. The National Council of the Judiciary elected in 2018 had failed to fulfil its basic constitutional function of safeguarding the independence of the courts and the impartiality of judges (Article 186, para. 1 of the Polish Constitution), while its members participated in repressing judges, breaching their independence and undermining their constitutional position.


The fact that the legality of the membership of the National Council of the Judiciary was challenged and the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights contested the appointment procedures did not put a stop to the Council’s activities, so the number of defectively appointed judges is steadily increasing.


Their status is and will be contested, just like the legality and correctness of their rulings. This breaches the right of the citizens to a trial by an independent court, which is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, as well as international treaties and conventions, and can bring about unpredictable adverse consequences in legal transactions.


The defective selection of judges and their attitude have also led to the expulsion of the National Judicial Council from the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ), a forum for European cooperation, of which the Council was a founder.


The maintenance of the current, unconstitutional model of electing judges – members of the National Council of the Judiciary – prevents the appointment of a body that is capable of performing the obligations set out in the Polish Constitution, safeguarding the independence of the courts and the impartiality of judges, enjoying the recognition and trust of the public and the judiciary.


Driven by the concern for the assurance of the right of citizens to the fair consideration of their cases by independent and impartial courts established by law, we therefore call upon the legislative and executive authorities to lay down the principles of election of members of the National Council of the Judiciary in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and international laws that are binding on Poland, and upon judges to refrain from participating in the defective procedure for electing members of the National Council of the Judiciary in the name of fidelity to the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and out of a sense of responsibility for the State and the good of its citizens, until the appropriate statutory amendments are made.’


Former presidents, vice-presidents and members of the National Council of the Judiciary in the years 1990–2018

  1. Andrzej Adamczuk
  2. Grzegorz Borkowsk
  3. Ewa Barnaszewska
  4. Marek Celej
  5. Ewa Chałubińska
  6. Janusz Drachal
  7. Teresa Flemming-Kulesza
  8. Lech Gardocki
  9. Małgorzata Gersdorf
  10. Grzegorz Gładysz
  11. Barbara Godlewska-Michalak
  12. Katarzyna Gonera
  13. Piotr Górecki
  14. Jan Grzęda
  15. Jacek Gudowski
  16. Józef Iwulski
  17. Andrzej Jagiełło
  18. Mirosław Jaroszewski
  19. Irena Kamińska
  20. Andrzej Konopka
  21. Michał Kopeć
  22. Jan Kremer
  23. Barbara Kurzeja
  24. Jerzy Kuźniar
  25. Wacława Macińska
  26. Aleksandra Marszałek
  27. Zbigniew Merchel
  28. Beata Morawiec
  29. Maria Motylska-Kucharczyk
  30. Maria Myślińska
  31. Andrzej Niedużak
  32. Małgorzata Niezgódka-Medek
  33. Gabriela Ott
  34. Sławomir Pałka
  35. Marek Pietruszyński
  36. Irena Piotrowska
  37. Ewa Preneta-Ambicka
  38. Piotr Raczkowski
  39. Jarema Sawiński
  40. Krzysztof Strzelczyk
  41. Adam Strzembosz
  42. Janusz Trzciński
  43. Jan Wasilewski
  44. Krzysztof Wojtaszek
  45. Marek Wolski
  46. Dariusz Zawistowski
  47. Janusz Zimny
  48. Waldemar Żurek
  49. Gabriela Gorzan
  50. Roman Kęska


Translated by Roman Wojtasz


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



January 21, 2022


Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandZbigniew Ziobrorule of lawEuropean CommissionjudgesCourt of Justice of the EUNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaCourt of JusticeMałgorzata ManowskaIgor TuleyaEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary systemMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiWaldemar Żurekmuzzle lawdemocracypresidential electionsKamil ZaradkiewiczNational Recovery Plandisciplinary commissionerPiotr SchabPrzemysław RadzikjudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme CourtAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsSupreme Administrative CourtK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020Beata MorawiecprosecutorsŁukasz Piebiakneo-judgeselectionsNational Council for JudiciaryMichał LasotaEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiPrime MinisterJulia PrzyłębskaPresidentmedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19Małgorzata GersdorfPaweł Juszczyszynfreedom of expressionCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawDagmara Pawełczyk-Woickadisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPresident of the Republic of PolandSejmimmunityAnna DalkowskaNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamberconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetWłodzimierz WróbelCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorStanisław PiotrowiczJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisK 7/21May 10 2020 electionsLex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanProfessional Liability ChamberPresident of PolandLGBTMaciej FerekXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. Polandmedia independenceIustitiaJarosław DudziczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczArticle 6 ECHRTHEMISEAWUrsula von der LeyenChamber of Professional LiabilityTVPmedia2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaPiotr GąciarekRegional Court in KrakówRecovery FundP 7/20Justice FundPiSC-791/19National Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Piotr PszczółkowskiPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikorasuspensionJarosław GowinLGBT ideology free zonesparliamentUkraineKrystian MarkiewiczKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczDariusz DrajewiczRafał PuchalskidefamationcourtsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsharassmentMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekEwa WrzosekEU law primacyLex Super OmniaAdam Tomczyńskielections 2023BelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej Miterademocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetoJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJrecommendationTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiHuman Rights CommissionerMarek MazurkiewiczCCBEAndrzej MączyńskiThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław Rymarpublic opinion pollFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskireportBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersEuropean ParliamentOKO.pressZiobroMichał Laskowskiintimidation of dissentersMarek PietruszyńskitransferKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiPiebiak gatehuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyKrakówcoronavirusXero Flor v. PolandEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej Rutkiewiczresolution of 23 January 2020Mirosław WróblewskiCivil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaLeon Kieresright to protestSławomir JęksaPKWWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMariusz Kamińskiinfringment actionsurveillanceEU valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauENCJJacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiIsraelŁukasz Radkeforeign agents lawpolexitDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościLGBT free zonesAct sanitising the judiciaryequalityMarek AstChamber of Extraordinary VerificationEdyta Barańskahate crimesCourt of Appeal in Krakówhate speechPutinismcriminal codeKaczyńskiGrzęda v Polandright to fair trialPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasŻurek v PolandMałgorzata Wąsek-WiaderekSobczyńska and Others v Polandct on the Protection of the PopulatiolegislationRafał Trzaskowskilex Wośmedia lawRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtPrzemysła RadzikAntykastaSenateStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczMarcin WarchołKatarzyna ChmuraElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiGrzegorz FurmankiewiczJacek CzaputowiczMarek JaskulskiPrzemysław CzarnekJoanna Kołodziej-Michałowiczlegislative practiceEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaENAPaweł StyrnaZbigniew BoniekKasta/AntykastaAndrzej SkowronŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoOmbudsmanMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiKraśnikEmilia SzmydtNorwayTomasz SzmydtNorwegian fundssmear campaignNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał DworczykC-487/19media pluralism#RecoveryFilesArticle 10 ECHRmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentRegional Court in Amsterdamrepairing the rule of lawOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentBohdan BieniekSimpson judgmentMarcin KrajewskiForum Współpracy SędziówMałgorzata Dobiecka-Woźniakelectoral processChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairspublic broadcasterWiesław KozielewiczNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeGrzegorz PudaPiotr MazurekJerzy Kwaśniewskimutual trustPetros Tovmasyancourt presidentsLMODIHRIrelandFull-Scale Election Observation MissionNGOIrena MajcherWojciech MaczugaAmsterdamKarolina MiklaszewskaRafał LisakMałgorzata FroncJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiSebastian Mazurekthe Regional Court in WarsawElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikSzymon Szynkowski vel SękUnited NationsJoanna Scheuring-Wielgusinsulting religious feelingsLeszek Mazuroppositionelectoral codeAdam Gendźwiłłpopulisminterim measuresPiotr PrusinowskiLabour and Social Security ChamberDariusz Dończykautocratizationtest of independenceMultiannual Financial FrameworkTomasz Koszewskipublic mediaJakub Kwiecińskiabortion rulingdiscriminationequal treatmentabortionprotestsfundamental rightsthe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońCT PresidentGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justice2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUmedia taxStanisław Zabłockiadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióSLAPPLIBE CommitteeStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationFrans TimmermansGazeta WyborczaUS Department of StatePollitykaBrussels IRome IISwieczkowskiArticle 2Forum shoppingadvocate generalDariusz ZawistowskitransparencyEuropean Economic and Social Committeepress releaseSebastian KaletaRights and Values ProgrammeC-156/21C-157/21C-619/18Marek Piertuszyńskidefamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardNational Prosecutor’s OfficeWojciech SadurskiBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberjudgeTribunal of StatePechOlsztyn courtKochenovPrzemysła CzarnekEvgeni TanchevEducation MinisterFreedom in the WorldECJIpsosFrackowiakOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeretirement ageAmnesty InternationalHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr Bogdanowicztrans-Atlantic valuesPiotr BurasLSOauthoritarian equilibriumlawyersArticle 258Act of 20 December 2019clientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officerepressive actPolish National FoundationLux VeritatisKoen LenaertsMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykharrassmentMarian BanaśAlina CzubieniakSupreme Audit OfficeTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediapostal voteRzeszówborderpostal vote billprimacy