PiS Threatens to Take Over Courts, Liquidate Supreme Court, and Challenge CJEU


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


PiS is not hiding the fact that it wants to destroy the independent courts in Poland. It is admitting this in its election programme. It is promising the liquidation of the current courts and the establishment of new ones with ‘its own’ judges. Independent judges will be removed or retired

Conventions of the major parties and committees running in the elections were held on Saturday 9 September 2023. The Law and Justice Party (PiS) had its convention in Końskie, but little was said there about its plans for the courts. Which is a shame. Because it wants to finally deal with them, which will mean a total dispute with the EU, which could end with funds for Poland being blocked and the PolExit issue being raised.


However, PiS has revealed its plans for the courts in its election programme, which is on the party’s website. This is a 300-page document. The judiciary is addressed on pages 158–164. And it is clearly stated there that PiS is going for the courts.


PiS confirms there what Jarosław Kaczyński and Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro have already been repeatedly announcing. The party wants to liquidate the current courts, including the Supreme Court, and appoint new courts in their place, with ‘its own judges’. This means that independent judges will be removed. This will give PiS full power over Poland. The only thing left to take over will be the free media. PiS is even hoping to ‘reform’ the CJEU and send neo-judges to it.


PiS is going for the courts and for a collision with the EU


The ruling party is already making no secret of the fact that it will finally take control of the courts if it wins the elections. After all, its leader, Jarosław Kaczyński, recently announced this once again. He said at a rally in Sokołów Podlaski: ‘This time no one will stop us. We will change this’. And he said earlier that the courts are the last barricade to be overcome.


The party’s programme devotes several paragraphs to this. But this is enough to know what PiS will do with the courts if it wins the elections. Because draft laws, which Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro had prepared, have already been around for months. They have been waiting in the so-called freezer for the time being; because the government was holding negotiations with Brussels to unblock billions for the NRRP. It is now clear that PiS has already abandoned any plans to make concessions to the EU and is setting its sights on confrontation.


The programme is announcing the ‘reform’ of the Supreme Court: ‘It will become an elite court of law. It will focus on cases of special importance and extraordinary complaints when there are grossly unjust final court judgments.’ What does that mean? Minister Ziobro has a ready bill abolishing the current Supreme Court and establishing a small Supreme Court with 30 vetted judges who would only deal with legal issues and look after the uniformity of judgments (but only within the framework of the extraordinary complaint passed by PiS).


Such a ‘reform’ means the removal of all the current legal judges of the Supreme Court and the neo-judges of the Supreme Court and the reappointment – after vetting – of 30 of ‘their own’ judges. The current cassations and cassation complaints would go to the courts of appeal. But the authorities would only appoint 5 such courts for the whole of Poland.


The PiS programme also confirms the plan to liquidate the current ordinary courts. It states: ‘We will also consistently aim to reform the structure of the courts. Their structure will change and will become simple and transparent. This will shorten the route of citizens to court; they will be able to settle matters of importance to them closer to home.’


Minister Ziobro also has bills ready for that, which are waiting in the so-called freezer. This is the plan. The current courts of appeal, as well as the regional and district courts will be liquidated. New area and provincial/appeal courts will be established in their place. This reorganisation will open the door to the vetting of all judges in Poland. Because they will have to be reappointed to the new courts.


This means that there will be no place in the new courts for the independent judges who are fighting today for the rule of law. They will either be removed from them or sent on early retirement. And those who remain could end up working far away from home and they will continue to experience repression.


The reorganisation of the courts will give the authorities the control they desire, because they will be able to staff them with ‘their own’ judges, who they will not have to control.


If these changes are pushed through, this will mean war with the European Commission. Because independent courts are one of the values of the EU. And Brussels will have to react strongly to this.


What else PiS wants to do to the judiciary


Furthermore, in its programme, as if to sweeten the deal for the citizens, PiS is announcing:

  • A reduction in the jurisdiction of the courts. Fewer cases are to be submitted to them; 15 million cases are currently being filed with them each year. PiS wants to take registration and land and mortgage cases out of the courts. These are to be handled by notaries public. They will make entries in the land and mortgage registers and issue notarial payment orders for unpaid invoices.
  • Reinforcement of the separation of powers. This is a general slogan, which promises to further strengthen the authority and weaken the courts. It arises from the programme that PiS does not like the application of European law by judges, the undermining of the legality of the neo-NCJ or neo-judges and the refusal to apply unconstitutional laws. PiS writes about an anarchised judiciary. It wants to put an end to this. This could mean new repressions and a new Muzzle Act disciplining judges.
  • The abolition of immunity. It is only to apply to private indictments. However, it will not protect judges against the prosecutor’s office, which will be able to intimidate judges in this way, as has been the case under the current government. For example, the prosecutor’s office wanted to lift Igor Tuleya’s immunity for allowing journalists into the courtroom for the announcement of a ruling that was unfavourable to PiS.
  • Justices of the peace. This is Paweł Kukiz’s and President Andrzej Duda’s postulate. They are to handle minor cases. Only that the institution of magistrates may be in conflict with the Constitution. Ziobro previously also disagreed with these.
  • Fast-track trials for borrowers of franc denominated loans. The burden of proof is to be shifted to the banks.
  • Reform of court experts. This has been the biggest problem of the courts for years. There is a shortage of them. Opinions are often poor because the rates for experts are too low and the best experts do not want to be court experts. All the more so because PiS has passed a law punishing them for allegedly wrong opinions. PiS has done nothing about this for the past eight years. Its promises do not solve the problems either. The ruling party is only promising to introduce criteria that court experts are to satisfy. Not a word about whether it will increase the rates for them. And this is a problem.
  • Further digitization of the courts.
  • Merging of the associations of legal counsels (radca prawny) and attorneys-at-law (adwokat). Such ideas were already around during the PO-PSL [Civic Platform – Polish Peasants’ Party] government. They were also around during the tem of the current government. When implemented by the PiS government, this could be dangerous and could strike at both of the associations.
  • Audit of the contracts between the corporations and small businesses. This postulate smacks of the socialist times. PiS assumes that large companies are cheating small Polish companies. That is why it is planning audits at corporations.
  • Licences for debt collectors and allocation of cases to receivers by draw.


PiS is going for the CJEU

That is not all. PiS even has plans to ‘reform’ the EU. It is proposing the establishment of a Higher Chamber of the CJEU, in which half of the judges would come from the national Supreme Courts or Tribunals.


This means that PiS would like to send ‘its own’ neo-judges to the CJEU. It also wants to retain the right of veto in the EU’s decisions, to take the courts out of the EU’s hands with regard to the examination of whether they satisfy the criteria of independence. It also wants to examine the rule of law of EU institutions.


Not a word was mentioned in PiS’s programme about how the party wants to eliminate the huge backlogs and queues in the courts. It does not mention this because the authorities would have to admit that Minister Zbigniew Ziobro is responsible for the current collapse of the courts. Instead of reforming the courts over the past eight years, he has focused on staffing them with his own people.


Unprecedented repressions against independent judges have been unleashed. In its programme, PiS is blaming the independent judges and the EU institutions, which have challenged the legality of Ziobro’s ‘reforms’ for what is happening in the courts.


Translated by Roman Wojtasz


Published in Polish in OKO.press.


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



September 12, 2023


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