First President of the Supreme Court: It is not the judges who are destroying and anarchising the Polish State. It is the political power


brak opisu autora


The First President of the Supreme Court prof. Małgorzata Gersdorf in a powerful open letter asks Polish authorities that the hatred of judges and courts stops being used as a weapon in the struggle for power.

The statement in Polish


Warsaw, 17 December 2019


of the First President of the Supreme Court


A sad and symbolic date, one of the milestones in our collective memories: the 38th anniversary of the introduction of martial law, passed just a few days ago.


It is not my intention to make a holistic assessment of martial law at this point. I would like to draw attention to just one aspect that strictly applies to the law: this was not only an obvious breach of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Poland (which, unfortunately, in the absence of a constitutional court, was impossible to examine objectively), but worse, its introduction was contrary to the elementary principles of the law of civilised states. These include the requirement to duly enact and publish acts of law, the lack of non-retroactivity (non-retroaction) and, finally, the universal right of all people to a fair and public consideration of their case by a competent, independent and impartial court, which has been formed by statute. These rights were formally known in the so-called People’s Poland and were applicable in the legal system. After all, in 1977, the authorities of the People’s Republic of Poland ratified the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, agreeing to guarantee it.


However, I would like to reiterate that martial law created a dilemma for judges as to what to do. Should they succumb to a law that is seemingly such, even though it breaches higher standards? Should they go against natural law, against their own conscience and justice?


Only a handful of opportunists had no dilemmas – they put themselves to shame; their names are well known today.[1] Today, we consider the few who openly opposed the conduct of the communist authorities, refusing to breach human and fundamental rights, to be true heroes. And the price of their courage was high – intimidation by the party and the security services, ostracism, transfer between divisions, the risk of dismissal from office by the State Council and frequently also the application of disciplinary proceedings.


38 years have passed. And it was precisely on 13 December 2019, that the public was informed about the submission of a bill by a group of MPs, which can only be described in one way: the elimination of the independent judicial authority. Sejm form no. 69 of the Sejm of the ninth term contains a dignified continuation of the lawlessness of the 1980s. It contains everything: a ban on judges benefiting from freedom of speech, the establishment of an invigilation mechanism and a drastic reduction in their right to have profiles in social networks, the presentation of a list of disciplinary offences, which were dressed in the most vague wording possible and an attempt to end the validity of acts of judicial appointment by statute – after all, this is a prerogative of the president and not a right of the Sejm. However, first of all, it contains a prohibition to apply the law. Yes indeed. Because how else is it possible to refer to a situation in which the courts are restricted in the sphere of cognition, prohibiting them from analysing – to the detriment of the citizens – whether, in the light of the law, the powers of the authorities are being respected. The breach of the applicable Constitution, especially Articles 2, 9, 10 and 91 para. 3 are more than obvious here, although – as can be seen – not to everyone.


One thing should be reiterated in order to explain why this is about a law that poses a threat to us all, regardless of our worldview and beliefs: there are no free citizens without independent courts and impartial judges. There is also no fair, democratic state without a reliable parliamentary debate. It is not the judges who are destroying and anarchising the Polish State. It is the political power that is responsible for the destruction of the Constitutional Tribunal. It also undertook to conduct the so-called ‘reform’ of the Supreme Court in an attempt to remove its judges and governing bodies, in breach of the Constitution and international law and, when it failed – decided to fight with this institution using the ‘little steps’ method. The honourable name of a judge has been defiled by the words of a former prosecutor and member of the Polish United Workers’ Party about the ‘subservient mentality’ of judges which is desired by the authorities. Nothing is as it seems any longer: the Constitutional Tribunal is not a Constitutional Tribunal, the National Council of the Judiciary is not a National Council of the Judiciary, and shortly also the courts may not be courts, but purely a silent extension of the will of the executive.


Lies repeated many times do not become the truth. We do not and do not want to live as free citizens of a proud Republic of Poland in an authoritarian state. We rejected this in 1981 and we disagree with it in 2019. Poland is a Member State of the European Union, where high requirements are set for the authorities; in which any court can ask a question of the Court of Justice of the European Union, because this arises directly from Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – a Treaty that is today embodied in the Treaty of Lisbon, which was accepted by the Nation in a referendum and to the amendment of which the late President of the Republic of Poland, Lech Kaczyński, was instrumental. In such a state, judges, who are allowed not only to have views on social life, but are even allowed to express them in public – this is an international standard that is binding on Poland – cannot be silenced.[2] Judges, obviously, exercise this right in a dignified and balanced way, and will take advantage of this because they are citizens and people.


I would also like to remind all Members of Parliament and Senators of the Republic of Poland that CJEU judgments are binding not only in one case, but can be applied in the same way in every subsequent case in which the same problem arises.[3] Polish and European law are flowing in the same stream; for us, Polish and European judges, because that is what we are, there is no conflict between the Constitution and the Treaty. The courts cannot be muzzled by judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal, which will limit the institution of questions referred for a preliminary ruling, because its decisions can never close the door to the Court of Justice for the courts of the Member States.[4] Such a solution will lead directly to Poland’s exit from the European Union. Therefore, there will be no consent for the interpretation of the Constitution, statutes and treaties that judges are allowed to apply to be forged in the privacy of party offices. This will not be changed by any law. This is not a matter that can be negotiated in any way. I believe that, just as the court of history has admitted that the people of Solidarity called ‘brawlers’ and ‘troublemakers’ were right, it will admit the same tomorrow that those who judge on behalf of the Republic of Poland were right.


I would therefore ask that the hatred of judges and courts stops being used as a weapon in the struggle for power, especially since repression, as in 1981, would be a sad expression of powerlessness rather than a manifestation of strength. I call upon the government and parliament to exercise restraint and honestly discuss how to put the state of affairs, which has arisen through the fault of these authorities, right for the common good. I would ask that a real discussion is started on repairing the justice system in Poland. I finally appeal for the campaign of abusing and ridiculing those who have dedicated their lives and efforts to the service of the Republic of Poland – judges of the ordinary, administrative and military courts and the Supreme Court – to end.


Our independent country, and not the victory of one party or another in the next elections, is the highest good.



[1] Cf. M. Stanowska, Postawy sędziów i prokuratorów w procesach politycznych z lat osiemdziesiątych, [in:] M. Stanowska, A. Strzembosz, Sędziowie warszawscy w czasie próby 1981-1988, Warsaw 2005, pp. 223 et seq.

[2] Cf. Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary Adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders held at Milan from 26 August to 6 September 1985 and endorsed by General Assembly resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985], pages/independencejudiciary.aspx.

[3] Judgments of the Court of Justice: of 27 March 1963, Da Costa en Schaake NV i in., Joined cases 28 to 30-62, EU:C:1963:6; of October 1982, Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministero della Sanitd, case 283/81, EU:C:1982:335

[4] Judgments of the CJEU: of 22 June 2010, Aziz Melki and Sélim Abdeli, Joined cases C-188/10 and C-189/10, EU:C:2010:363; of 15 January 2013, Jozef Krizan et al. v Slovenská inspekcia zivotného prostredia, case C-416/10, EU: C: 2013: 8


brak opisu autora



December 17, 2019


Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional TribunalPolandjudgesdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroCourt of Justice of the EUNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionMałgorzata ManowskaAndrzej DudaCourt of JusticeIgor TuleyaEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary systemMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiMateusz MorawieckiCJEUmuzzle lawCommissioner for Human RightsNational Recovery PlanAdam BodnardemocracyWaldemar ŻurekPrzemysław Radzikcriminal lawpresidential electionselectionsKamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerPiotr Schabmedia freedomneo-judgeselections 2023judiciaryFirst President of the Supreme Courtpreliminary rulingsSupreme Administrative CourtHungaryelections 2020K 3/21Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaNational Council for JudiciaryharassmentJulia PrzyłębskaProsecutor 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 expressiondisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanMałgorzata GersdorfSejmMaciej Ferekfreedom of assemblyconditionalityLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeJustice FundNational ProsecutorPiSStanisław PiotrowiczAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPresident of the Republic of PolandIustitiacourtsTHEMISimmunityAnna 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 ŁętowskaStrategic 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 ZubikDidier ReyndersSLAPPOKO.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 Baszuk