Constitutional Tribunal ruled: CJEU interim orders do not apply in Poland


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


The Constitutional Tribunal presided over by former PiS MP Stanisław Piotrowicz ruled that the CJEU’s interim orders on the structure of courts in Poland are inconsistent with the Polish constitution. During the hearing, the CJEU suspended the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court with such a ruling.

What happened? The hearing in case P 7/20 filed by Małgorzata Bednarek from the Disciplinary Chamber in the Supreme Court took place in the Constitutional Tribunal on 14 July from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. The panel of the Constitutional Tribunal was presided over by Judge Stanisław Piotrowicz, formerly a PiS MP.


The case applied to whether the enforcement of interim orders of the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the structure and jurisdiction of Polish courts in Poland is compliant with the Polish constitution.


Why did the Disciplinary Chamber file the motion with the Constitutional Tribunal? The Disciplinary Chamber’s motion was filed with the Constitutional Tribunal on 9 April 2020, the day after the Court of Justice of the EU issued an interim order ‘suspending’ the operation of the Disciplinary Chamber in disciplinary cases of judges on the basis of the European Commission’s complaint against the Polish government regarding the system of disciplining judges.


What happened during the Constitutional Tribunal’s proceedings? During the hearing, at 3 p.m., the Court of Justice of the European Union announced that, by order of CJEU Vice-President Judge Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court cannot operate in cases of judges until the CJEU issues a ruling in the case regarding the European Commission’s complaint against the Polish government over the so-called ‘muzzle act’. The Commission filed the complaint at the end of March, together with a request for an interim measure to ‘suspend’ the activities of the Disciplinary Chamber.


At 4.30 p.m., the Constitutional Tribunal accepted the motion filed by Małgorzata Bednarek of the Disciplinary Chamber and ruled that the validity of such provisions of the CJEU in Poland is incompatible with the Polish Constitution.


At the hearing, this ruling was supported by representatives of other participants of the proceedings: the President, the Sejm, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prosecutor General.


The position of the Minister of Foreign Affairs was presented, among others, by Piotr Wawrzyk, a former PiS candidate for the office of the Ombudsman. The Sejm’s position was represented by PiS MPs Arkadiusz Mularczyk and Marek Ast.


Only the Ombudsman objected to it.  The position of the Ombudsman at the hearing was presented by the Ombudsman, Dr Hab. Adam Bodnar, the Deputy Ombudsman, Dr Hab. Maciej Taborowski, and a specialist from the Ombudsman’s Office, Dr Paweł Filipek. Just like on the previous day, the lawyers from the Ombudsman’s Office were bravely defending Poland remaining in the EU legal order.


What does the CJEU ruling change? Under the CJEU’s 14 July ruling, the Disciplinary Chamber cannot operate not only in disciplinary cases of judges – which it could already not do under an earlier CJEU ruling of 9 April 2020 – but in all cases regarding judges, including immunity cases.


The authorities circumvented the CJEU’s ruling of April 2020 by handling criminal, rather than disciplinary proceedings against judges defending the rule of law in Poland. The Disciplinary Chamber settled the issues of immunity of Judge Beata Morawiec, Judge Igor Tuleya, and Supreme Court Judge Włodzimierz Wróbel.


What else happened recently? On Thursday 15 July the Court of Justice of the European Union announced the long-awaited judgment in the case filed by the European Commission regarding a complaint against the Polish government of October 2019 on the model of disciplinary liability of judges (which was in force before 14 February 2020, when the muzzle act, which was challenged by the EC in March 2021, entered into force), as amended by PiS. The CJEU ruled that this system, including the Disciplinary Chamber, is in conflict with EU law.


What the Constitutional Tribunal will decide next? On the 3rd of August, after an adjournment, the Constitutional Tribunal, presided over by President Julia Przyłębska, will decide on the case filed by Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki. It may announce that rulings of the Court of Justice of the EU on the independence of courts are not applicable in Poland.


Are we facing a legal PolExit? Ombudsman Adam Bodnar explained at the hearing that a judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal banning the application of CJEU rulings in Poland would strike at the very heart of EU law and could lead to the exclusion of Polish courts from the EU requirements of the independence of the courts, as well as the independence and impartiality of judges. In turn, this will lead to a breach of the EU principles of effective court protection and the rule of law. Which will be irreparable.


If we are distancing ourselves from the EU, where are we heading? Such a judgment by the Constitutional Tribunal would mean that Polish constitutionalism is developing in a direction that is similar to Putin’s Russia. A provision was written into the constitution there in 2020 that if the Russian constitutional court rules that a ruling of an international court is in conflict with the Russian constitution, it is not applicable in Russia.


What was the hearing on 14 July like? Similar to the atmosphere with which former PiS MP Piotrowicz was familiar in the Sejm. Namely, tense.


Other than Piotrowicz, the Constitutional Tribunal panel included Constitutional Tribunal Judge Bartłomiej Sochański (rapporteur), Constitutional Tribunal Judge Zbigniew Jędrzejewski, Constitutional Tribunal Judge Jakub Stelina and Constitutional Tribunal ‘stand in’ Justyn Piskorski.


Ombudsman Adam Bodnar unsuccessfully requested Piskorski’s removal from the bench. The ombudsman referred to the famous judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 7 May 2021 in the case of Xero Flor v Poland. The ECtHR ruled that a panel of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal containing a person appointed to a place already properly filled (a so-called ‘stand-in’), does not meet the criteria of a court established by statute in the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights.


Perhaps this conclusion was one of the reasons why Justyn Piskorski attacked Adam Bodnar, Deputy Ombudsman, Dr Hab. Maciej Taborowski, and the specialist from the Ombudsman’s Office, Dr Paweł Filipek, during the hearing. Stanisław Piotrowicz encouraged him to do so by his earlier behaviour, who, after a 1.5 hour session, irritated, interrupted the (excellent!) speech delivered by Dr Filipek and ordered a break. The excellent part of the hearing applied not to the merits of the case, but the attacks on lawyers from the Ombudsman’s Office, which were carried out one by one by the representatives of the parties. 


The recordings of the hearing in the Constitutional Tribunal can be viewed on the Video-KOD website: part 1part 2, as well as the announcement of the sentence and the oral justification of the ruling.


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



July 16, 2021


Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsjudgesZbigniew ZiobroPolandCourt of Justice of the EUrule of lawEuropean CommissionNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceMałgorzata ManowskaEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaCourt of JusticeIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemEuropean Court of Human RightsMateusz MorawieckiMinister of Justicemuzzle lawCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUJarosław KaczyńskiNational Recovery PlanWaldemar ŻurekPrzemysław RadzikKamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerPiotr Schabdemocracyneo-judgespresidential electionselectionsharassmentjudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme CourtAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsSupreme Administrative CourtK 3/21Hungarycriminal lawelections 2020National Council for JudiciaryMichał LasotaBeata MorawiecJulia PrzyłębskaprosecutorsŁukasz PiebiakDagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiPaweł JuszczyszynPrime MinisterPresidentmedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCriminal ChamberRegional Court in KrakówCourt of Justice of the European UnionCOVID-19disciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMałgorzata GersdorfSejmMaciej FerekExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberEU budgetfreedom of expressionStanisław PiotrowiczMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPresident of the Republic of PolandimmunityAnna Dalkowskaelections 2023National Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsLabour and Social Security Chamberfreedom of assemblyStanisław Biernatconditionality mechanismconditionalityWłodzimierz WróbelLaw and JusticeprosecutionRecovery FundNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorNational Electoral CommissionJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisK 7/21May 10 2020 electionsLex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanProfessional Liability ChamberPresident of PolandsuspensionLGBTXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. Polandparliamentmedia independenceIustitiaJarosław DudziczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczArticle 6 ECHRTHEMISEAWUrsula von der LeyenChamber of Professional LiabilityTVPmediaPiotr Prusinowski2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaPiotr GąciarekcorruptionP 7/20Justice FundPiSC-791/19Astradsson v IcelandK 6/21Piotr PszczółkowskiCivil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaPegasusMariusz KamińskisurveillanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraJarosław GowinLGBT ideology free zonesEdyta Barańskacriminal codeUkraineKrystian MarkiewiczKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecSenateZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczMarcin WarchołDariusz DrajewiczRafał Puchalskidefamationcourtssmear campaignMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekEwa WrzosekEU law primacyLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsWojciech MaczugaBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej Miterademocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetoabortionJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJrecommendationcommission on Russian influenceTeresa 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.pressZiobroDariusz ZawistowskiMichał Laskowskiintimidation of dissentersMarek PietruszyńskitransferKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiPiebiak gatehuman rightsEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiMarian BanaśSupreme Audit OfficeAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyKrakówcoronavirusXero Flor v. PolandEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej Rutkiewiczresolution of 23 January 2020Mirosław WróblewskiLeon Kieresright to protestSławomir JęksaPKWWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman Giertychinfringment actionEU valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinanceENCJJacek 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 Verificationhate crimesCourt of Appeal in Krakówhate speechPutinismKaczyńskiGrzęda 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 RadzikAntykastaStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczKatarzyna ChmuraElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiGrzegorz FurmankiewiczJacek CzaputowiczMarek JaskulskiPrzemysław CzarnekJoanna Kołodziej-Michałowiczlegislative practiceEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaENAPaweł StyrnaZbigniew BoniekKasta/AntykastaAndrzej SkowronŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoOmbudsmanMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiKraśnikEmilia SzmydtNorwayTomasz SzmydtNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał DworczykC-487/19media pluralism#RecoveryFilesArticle 10 ECHRRegional 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 MajcherAmsterdamKarolina MiklaszewskaRafał LisakMałgorzata FroncJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiSebastian Mazurekthe Regional Court in WarsawElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikSzymon Szynkowski vel SękUnited NationsJoanna Scheuring-Wielgusinsulting religious feelingsLeszek Mazuroppositionelectoral codeAdam Gendźwiłłpopulisminterim measuresDariusz Dończykautocratizationtest of independenceMultiannual Financial FrameworkTomasz Koszewskipublic mediaJakub Kwiecińskiabortion rulingdiscriminationequal treatmentAct on the Supreme Courtprotestselectoral commissionsfundamental rightsthe NetherlandsEuropean Court of HuDenmarkKrzysztof RączkaSwedenPoznańFinlandKoan LenaertsMariusz KrasońKarol WeitzCT PresidentKaspryszyn v PolandGermanyNCR&DCelmerNCBiRC354/20 PPUThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentC412/20 PPUEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFAusl 301 AR 104/19Justyna WydrzyńskaKarlsruheAgnieszka Brygidyr-Doroszact on misdemeanoursJoanna KnobelCivil Service ActCrimes of espionageParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeEUextraordinary commissionZbigniew KapińskiWhite PaperAnna GłowackalustrationCourt of Appeal in Warsawtransitional justiceOsiatyński'a Archive2018Nations 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 generaltransparencyEuropean 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 WawrzykharrassmentAlina CzubieniakTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediapostal voteRzeszówborderpostal vote billprimacy