CJEU: the Disciplinary Chamber of the Polish Supreme Court may not conduct disciplinary proceedings against judges


Co-founder and editor of Rule of Law in Poland and coordinator of The Wiktor Osiatyński Archive, a rule of law…


The CJEU has ruled that the Disciplinary Chamber of the Polish Supreme Court may not conduct disciplinary proceedings against judges or refer them to courts which do not meet the criterion of independence under Union law. The ruling is in force until the CJEU renders final judgment on the European Commission's complaint against the Polish government. The judgment will be handed down in the second half of 2020.

The Court of Justice of the EU ruled on interim measures in a case from the European Commission’s complaint against the Polish government about the model of disciplinary liability for judges (case C-791/19).


The Commission filed the complaint in October 2019, and in January 2020 – additionally concerned about the “Muzzle Law” in the Polish parliament, which further tightened the disciplinary liability system – it applied for interim measures.


On 8 April 2020, in response to this filing by the European Commission, the Luxembourg Court ruled that:


“The Republic of Poland shall be required, immediately and pending the judgment in Case C 791/19, to

– suspend the application of the provisions of Article 3(5), Article 27 and Article 73(1) of the Supreme Court Act of 8 December 2017 (OJ L 2018, item 5), as amended, which constitute the basis for the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court in both the first and second instance, in disciplinary cases of judges;

– refrain from referring cases pending before the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court for consideration by a panel which does not meet the requirements for independence indicated in particular in the judgment of 19 November 2019, A.K. and others (Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court) (C 585/18, C 624/18 and C 625/18).”


Polish state authorities must comply with the ruling without undue delay.


The Polish government must notify the European Commission within one month of notification of the CJEU order on interim measures of all measures it has taken to comply fully with that order.


CJEU in the defense of judges


In March 2020, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice, in the explanatory memorandum to the decision on preliminary questions by Judges Igor Tuleya and Ewa Maciejewska – which it could not review for procedural reasons – expressed concern about the system of disciplinary responsibility for judges in Poland. The Grand Chamber stressed that disciplinary proceedings against judges in EU countries for submitting questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling are unacceptable.


The CJEU clarified in its decision of 8 April that the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court is “a second instance disciplinary court and in some cases a court of first instance for judges of common courts, whereas for judges of the Supreme Court it is a disciplinary court of first and second instance”. Therefore, its operation is an element of the model of disciplinary responsibility for judges in Poland, developed under the rule of the PiS-led governing coalition.


Final judgment to come later in 2020


In the context of the COVID-19 epidemic, the EU Court of Justice is still working, albeit remotely. The hearings, which were due to take place by 30 April, were postponed to a later date. The Court decided to give priority to particularly urgent cases (such as urgent and expedited cases and proceedings for interim measures). Other proceedings are still pending.


The purpose of the proceedings on interim measures is to ensure that the future final judgment is fully effective so as to avoid a gap in the legal protection provided by the Court.


Advocate General Evgeni Tanchev will render an opinion on the European Commission’s complaint about the model of disciplinary responsibility for judges, followed by a final and binding judgment for all Polish state authorities. This will happen in the second half of 2020.


The European Commission has outlined its complaint very broadly, covering essentially all the main elements of the system of disciplinary responsibility, including in particular the Disciplinary Chamber and the activities of the disciplinary officer. The Commission considers that the whole structure impacts judicial independence.


The CJEU is just beginning to assess judicial “reforms”

In June and November 2019, the CJEU ruled on two Commission complaints against the Polish government concerning changes in the retirement age of Supreme Court and common courts judges. In both cases, it ruled that the changes proposed by the PiS-led ruling majority constituted a breach of EU law.


Now, a new complaint – long awaited – by the European Commission against the Polish government to the CJEU against the “Muzzle Law” is likely.


The CJEU will consider a number of questions submitted by Polish courts in connection with elements of the judicial “reforms” instituted by the governing coalition.


CJEU judgments are pending in:

  • CaseC-487/19 –the Supreme Court asks about the status of the Disciplinary Chamber at the Supreme Court and the status of the neo-National Council of the Judiciary on the basis of the case of Judge Waldemar Zurek
  • Case C-508/19– The Supreme Court also asks about the status of the Disciplinary Chamber – whether a court, for the purposes of European law, is a court in which a judge nominated by procedures infringing EU law sits,
  • Case C-824/18– The Supreme Administrative Court asks about the Supreme Court nomination process with the participation of the newly constituted National Council of the Judiciary (neo-Council),
  • Cases C-754, 753, 752, 751, 750, 749, 748/19The District Court in Warsaw asks about the delegation of a judge to the Ministry of Justice (questions were asked by Judge Anna Bator-Ciesielska),
  • Case C-55/20– The Disciplinary Court of the Bar Association in Warsaw asks about the status of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court and its understanding of the notion of a court under EU law regarding the Disciplinary Court of the Bar.


Additionally, in Case C-132/20, Kamil Zaradkiewicz, a judge of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court on the recommendation of the neo-National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ), asked the CJEU about the status of judges appointed by the State Council in the People’s Republic of Poland. This case, although seemingly thematically distant from the assessment of elements of the judicial “reform” pursued by PiS, may prove crucial. It is possible that the CJEU, considering that it cannot take up the question, will assess the status of the questioning court, which includes a judge appointed on a recommendation of the neo-NCJ.


CJEU a key actor in the fight over courts

On 19 November 2019, a landmark ruling was issued in response to questions from the Supreme Court, which was the basis for the ruling by Supreme Court judges in December that the neo NCJ is not independent and the Disciplinary Chamber in the Supreme Court is not a court within the meaning of EU law. The courageous judge Pawel Juszczyszyn also decided to implement the CJEU’s ruling, for which he was met with reprisals by the authorities, including the decision by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court to suspend him from the bench.


After the CJEU judgment in November and the December ruling of the Supreme Court, the governing majority revealed its draft “Muzzling Law”. In January 2020, the three chambers of the Supreme Court issued a resolution – enjoying the force of a legal rule – which indicates that, in light of the CJEU’s November ruling and the Supreme Court’s December resolution, the decisions of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court are invalid, and judges in Poland should apply an “independence test” to common court judges who have been nominated by the president at the request of the neo-NCJ.


Translated by Matthew La Fontaine


Co-founder and editor of Rule of Law in Poland and coordinator of The Wiktor Osiatyński Archive, a rule of law…



April 8, 2020


Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroEuropean CommissionCourt of Justice of the EUjudgesjudicial independenceNational Council of the JudiciaryEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemEuropean Court of Human RightsMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiWaldemar Żurekdemocracymuzzle lawpresidential electionsjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020Kamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerBeata MorawiecPiotr SchabPrzemysław RadzikFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiPrime MinisterJulia Przyłębskamedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19National Council for JudiciaryMichał LasotaPresidentfreedom of expressionŁukasz PiebiakCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawdisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiNational Recovery PlanOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynAnna DalkowskaNational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetWłodzimierz WróbelCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorDagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaelectionsStanisław PiotrowiczJarosław WyrembakAndrzej ZollMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisK 7/21May 10 2020 electionsLex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandSejmXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v Polandmedia independenceIustitiaJarosław DudziczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczArticle 6 ECHRTHEMISEAWUrsula von der LeyenmediaimmunityCouncil of Europe2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaRecovery FundP 7/20Justice Fundneo-judgesPiSC-791/19National Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Piotr PszczółkowskiPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaProfessional Liability ChamberJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikorasuspensionJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesReczkowicz and Others v. PolandUkraineKrystian MarkiewiczKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczDariusz DrajewiczRafał PuchalskidefamationcourtsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekEwa WrzosekEU law primacyTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan 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 LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskitransferPiotr GąciarekKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiRegional Court in KrakówPiebiak gatehuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencycoronavirusXero 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 AstMaciej FerekChamber 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 PopulatioparliamentlegislationRafał 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 lawharassmentOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentBohdan BieniekSimpson judgmentMarcin KrajewskiChamber of Professional LiabilityForum Współpracy SędziówMałgorzata Dobiecka-Woźniakpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited NationsLeszek Mazurpopulisminterim measuresautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingequal 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 Officeintimidation of dissentersWojciech 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 voteKrakówRzeszówborderpostal vote billprimacy