Judiciary in Poland: an ongoing decay of the rule of law 


Professor, Institute of Legal Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Deputy Ombudsman (2019-2022).


If you are a Polish judge and you intend to apply European standards on judicial independence, think twice. You are facing suspension, as well as disciplinary and criminal proceedings. Either the end of your career or, at best, a long and unpleasant break. This is the situation in Poland, a European Union Member State, at the dawn of the 21st century.

Over thirty years after the collapse of communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall, there is a renewed struggle today in Poland for one of the fundamental values of a democratic constitutional state, namely the independence of courts. The interventions of the European Union to date, serving the protection of Polish judges, pour sand into the machinery of power of the Law and Justice (PiS) government. But judges are more and more under pressure. For now, however, the authorities are not changing direction. 


How to have your cake and eat it 

The “reform” of the judiciary, which has been carried out by the PiS government for several years, is aimed solely at changing the staffing of the judiciary. The process of appointing judges has been changed so that the political authorities can nominate “their” judges without scrutiny, especially to the Polish Supreme Court (SC). To this end, the Constitutional Tribunal (CT) was first attacked and “packed”. Then the composition of the National Council of the Judiciary, which proposes judges for nomination to the President, coming also from the PiS camp, was changed. From a body that was supposed to safeguard the independence of judges, it became a body nominated by politicians. Judicial control over the process of appointing SC judges was also practically removed. Presidents of courts throughout Poland have been changed and subordinated to the minister of justice.


With the activity of the European Commission (EC) and Polish judges referring preliminary questions to Luxembourg as well as citizens complaining to Strasbourg, virtually every element of this “reform” has already had its own international court ruling. All of them point at material contradictions with European standards. Yet despite these rulings, but also precedent-setting temporary injunctions or multi-million Euro fines, the breakdown of the judicial system continues. From the perspective of investors and citizens, court cases are taking longer and longer, legal certainty is decreasing. 


The authorities, whose only goal seems to be that the EC finally releases the money from the EU Covid Recovery Fund, are only creating sham solutions, trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the EC. PiS wants to get the money, but at the same time it does not want to give back a single piece of the field it has already won. The “new” judges are to stay at the SC. It wants to have its cake and eat it too. Meanwhile, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) ruled in February 2022 that tinkering with the independent judiciary is an intrusion into the very identity of the European legal order, which is determined by EU values such as the rule of law. Thus the stakes in the game are getting higher.


The disintegration of the judicial system

One may wonder how a State can function in the European Union where more than half of the SC, including the person holding the position of its president, and the entirety of two chambers: the Disciplinary Chamber (DC) and the Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamber (ECPAC), do not meet the European requirements of a court established by law. This was confirmed by the ECHR in cases such as Reczkowicz, Dolińska Ficek, or Advance Pharma. This means no more, no less, that these judges cannot rule on matters that are covered by EU law or the ECHR. And they do rule, so these rulings of the highest national court are flawed from the start. Also within the ECPAC, which can overturn even 20-year-old rulings of other courts at the request of a politician, the minister of justice. A Danish investor, who won a lawsuit against a company owned by the Polish state, found this out. The joy of winning did not last long. 


The situation is not better in the CT, now composed exclusively of judges nominated by the PiS party. The CT is no longer trusted by anyone but the representatives of the government. The ultimate proof: no citizen, recently confronted with patently unconstitutional Covid restrictions, has gone to the CT. Only representatives of the authorities willingly file motions asking the CT to invoke Polish constitutional identity and to restrict the effects of the principle of primacy of EU law, or to eliminate from application in Poland particular ECHR and CJEU judgments indicating violation of European standards concerning the judiciary. And the CT gives the authorities exactly what they want. That is also one of the reasons why for the first time in history, the EC initiated an infringement procedure, claiming that the CT is partially not a court established by law, and that it does not guarantee effective and independent control of the constitutionality of the law and that it undermines the primacy and effectiveness of the EU legal order.  


Polish judges live on the edge

An additional element of this “reform” is a program of regular intimidation of Polish judges. A law was created that forbids the application of the judicial independence case law of the European courts under disciplinary and penal sanctions. This was felt, for example, by Judge Niklas-Bibik, who dared to claim that a lower court had been staffed in breach of EU law and the ECHR. This brought many changes in her life. After 20 years, the court directors, nominated by the Minister of Justice, transferred her to a lower division of the court, took away all her cases, closed her access to files and refused to allow her to set up an E-curia account to ask a preliminary reference to the CJEU. She herself has been suspended. Now she faces disciplinary and criminal sanctions. This will be decided, among others, by the DC, which is entirely packed with defective “new” judges. According to Strasbourg and Luxembourg the DC is not a court and should have been liquidated long ago. But it still works. It is costing Poland 1 million euros a day, for now more than 200 million in total. The Commission is already deducting the unpaid fines from the funds due to Polish citizens. 


The (rather grey) perspectives…. 

To sum up, today Poland does not obey the verdicts of the European courts regarding the identity of the EU legal order, intimidates its judges implementing European standards, and pays high fines every day. Recently, the CJEU even stated that a ruling by one of the “new” judges could be disregarded as non-binding, and that those “new” judges, explicitly covered by an ECtHR ruling (that they do not meet European standards of a court), would not be able to refer preliminary questions to the CJEU. One can imagine what chaos this will cause in the Polish, and European system of legal protection. This red warning light will not get any redder.


Meanwhile, the PiS government is planning another reform. It wants to “flatten” the structure of courts and centralize power over them in the hands of the minister. That move will increase chaos and contradiction with European standards. In this situation the EC is closer and closer to releasing money from the Covid Recovery Fund. We have to wait and hope that even when the EC loses that instrument of pressure on the Polish Government, the EC, as guardian of the European treaties, will still have enough determination and possibilities to stop the ongoing decay of the Polish judicial system. For now, the prospects for this are rather poor. 


A shortened version of this article appeared in German in Internationale Politik.


Professor, Institute of Legal Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Deputy Ombudsman (2019-2022).



June 29, 2022


Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandZbigniew Ziobrorule of lawEuropean CommissionjudgesCourt of Justice of the EUNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaIgor TuleyaEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary systemMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiWaldemar Żurekdemocracymuzzle lawpresidential electionsPiotr SchabjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020Kamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerBeata MorawiecPrzemysław RadzikFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsMichał LasotaEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiPrime MinisterJulia Przyłębskamedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19electionsNational Recovery PlanNational Council for JudiciaryPresidentSupreme Administrative Courtfreedom of expressionŁukasz PiebiakCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawDagmara Pawełczyk-Woickadisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanMałgorzata GersdorfAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynAnna DalkowskaNational Public Prosecutorcriminal 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 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 LeyenChamber of Professional LiabilitymediaimmunityCouncil of Europe2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaRegional Court in KrakówRecovery 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 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 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 KrajewskiForum Współpracy SędziówMałgorzata Dobiecka-Woźniakelectoral processChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairspublic broadcasterWiesław KozielewiczNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeGrzegorz PudaPiotr MazurekJerzy Kwaśniewskimutual trustPetros Tovmasyancourt presidentsLMelections 2023ODIHRIrelandFull-Scale Election Observation MissionNGOIrena MajcherWojciech MaczugaAmsterdamKarolina MiklaszewskaRafał LisakMałgorzata FroncJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiSebastian Mazurekthe Regional Court in WarsawElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikUnited 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 voteRzeszówborderpostal vote billprimacy