Poles agree: EU Court of Justice has the right to stop illegal judiciary reform [POLL]


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


According to the latest poll, majority of Poles believe that the Court of Justice of the EU is entitled to stop Law and Justice's judiciary reform if it concludes that the EU rules have been violated. The Polish people widely support firm actions by the Court against the right-wing government

Two thirds of the Poles who do not support Law and Justice party (PiS) believe that we have witnessed an unacceptable attempt against the nation’s judiciary; three quarters think that the Court of Justice of the European Union does have the right to stop the “judiciary reform”. The PiS electorate’s views are quite reverse though: two thirds approve of the reforms, three quarters are against the EU’s intervention. Yet even among Kaczyński’s voters second thoughts are on the rise.






As the latest IPSOS poll for OKO.press reveals, it seems that PiS has lost the propaganda “battle for courts”.


The continually spread arguments that the present judges have formed a privileged caste –  an evil elite of the previous political order, whose omnipotence needs to be restricted – are supported mainly by Kaczyński’s electorate – and even then only in 62 percent. Among the non-PiS voters two thirds believe that PiS has committed an unacceptable attempt against the rule of law:


In your opinion, the government’s policy towards the judiciary and judges constitutes:


All respondents Law and Justice electorate Remaining respondents
All respondents                                           Law and Justice electorate                         Remaining respondents


We asked the very same question through an IPSOS poll already in April 2017. 16 months have passed since then, during which PiS, step by step, was taking over the judiciary, while the government, along with its subordinate media, has been constantly trying to convince the public that – as Prime Minister Morawiecki has put it – “[Justice] Minister Ziobro’s reform is good, it promotes judicial autonomy. Decreases it?! It’s just stories that you’re telling” – and so far there has been no effect. Half of the respondents (51%) were against the “reform” then and just as many (49%) are still speaking out against it today, while the number of its proponents has slightly decreased (from 39% to 35%).


There has been a sharp drop in support for the “judiciary reform” among the PiS electorate: it used to be favoured by 74 percent, now it stands at 62. Another 22 percent do not know what to think of their government’s actions.


Majority of Poles support the Court of Justice


The authorities have also failed to convince Poles that the European Union should stay away from Law and Justice’s “reforms”, for it has no reason, nor any legitimation to impose its will on the “sovereign nation” and its party.


54 percent of Poles agree that the Court of Justice of the European Union is entitled to stop Law and Justice’s judiciary reform if it concludes that the EU rules have been violated; 41 percent are against.


In this case, the PiS voters have shown more discipline and as many as 77 percent of them have expressed the view that the Court of Justice of the EU has no power to stop the “judiciary reforms”. However, the responses of the Poles who would not vote for Kaczyński are extremely pro-European: as many as 73 percent believe that the Court of Justice does hold the right to halt the “judiciary reform”.


Is the Court of Justice of the European Union entitled to stop Law and Justice’s judiciary reform if it concludes that the EU rules have been violated?


All respondents Law and Justice electorate Remaining respondents
All respondents                                          Law and Justice electorate                        Remaining respondents


It means that when it comes to the “battle for courts”, Poles generally seem to share the opposition’s and European institutions’ views more often than those of the authorities. It is almost exclusively the PiS electorate that shares the PiS narrative, and even there the opinions fluctuate more than usual.


Who’s with PiS, who’s against


The differences are even more apparent among the voters of particular parties. Law and Justice’s policy towards the judiciary is considered an “unacceptable violation of the rule of law” by:


  • 91 percent of the .Modern (.Nowoczesna) electorate;
  • 89 percent of the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD);
  • 83 percent of the Civic Platform (PO);
  • 83 percent of Robert Biedroń’s (hypothetical) party;
  • 72 percent of the Together party (Razem);
  • 53 percent of the Polish People’s Party (PSL);
  • 49 percent of Kukiz’15;
  • 48 percent of the Liberty party (Wolność);
  • 16 percent of Law and Justice (PiS).


Meanwhile, the idea of the Court of Justice of the EU stopping the “judiciary reforms” is approved by:


  • 95 percent of the .Modern electorate;
  • 94 percent of the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD);
  • 94 percent of the Civic Platform (PO);
  • 93 percent of the Together party (Razem);
  • 89 percent of Robert Biedroń’s (hypothetical) party;
  • 68 percent of the Polish People’s Party (PSL);
  • 59 percent of the Liberty party (Wolność);
  • 55 percent of Kukiz’15;
  • 19 percent of Law and Justice (PiS)


The differences are clearly visible also in specific socioeconomic groups. There are similar dependencies for both questions, we will illustrate them with the example of the question about the attempt against the judiciary.


Assesment of the government’s policy towards the judiciary and judges with regard to the respondents’ age



The age profile here resembles one encountered in numerous other surveys: violation of democratic rules is accepted by the youngest Poles (more often supporters of Kukiz’15 than PiS), but they grow out of that tendency quite quickly. On the other hand, approval for PiS policy appears to reemerge among the oldest Poles.


The education level profile is just as clear: those better educated prove more sensitive to violation of law and more often prone to approve of the Court of Justice of the EU’s intervention.


Assessment of the government policy towards the judiciary and judges with regard to education


from left: Basic and lower secondary education, Professional training, Secondary education, Higher education
from left: Basic and lower secondary education, Professional training, Secondary education, Higher education


Even in rural areas, where there is generally more followers of the PiS narrative, the view that PiS policy is an attempt against the rule of law (43 percent) outweighs the argument about the “judicial caste” (37 percent), while as many as 52 percent believe that the Court of Justice of the EU has the right to stop the “judiciary reforms” (41 percent oppose this view). In major cities the approval for such an intervention reaches 57 percent.


It is only among the poorest group (with net income below 1500 zł [~ €350]) that the PiS narrative has slightly more proponents.




OKO.press is a non-profit, investigative journalism and fact-checking project created to preserve freedom of speech and secure availability of information in Poland.




  • We investigate and evaluate statements made by politicians.
  • We monitor public spending.
  • We fight for access to public information.
  • We publish our own analyses.
  • We carry out our own opinion polls.
  • We are a first in Poland to use a safe drop-box called Sygnał.


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



August 29, 2018


Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional TribunalPolandjudgesdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean CommissionNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceEuropean UnionMałgorzata ManowskaAndrzej DudaCourt of JusticeIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemEuropean Court of Human RightsJarosław KaczyńskiMateusz MorawieckiCJEUMinister of Justicemuzzle lawCommissioner for Human RightsNational Recovery PlandemocracyWaldemar ŻurekPrzemysław Radzikpresidential electionselectionsKamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerPiotr Schabmedia freedomneo-judgeselections 2023judiciaryFirst President of the Supreme CourtAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsSupreme Administrative CourtHungarycriminal lawelections 2020K 3/21Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaNational Council for JudiciaryharassmentJulia PrzyłębskaprosecutorsŁukasz PiebiakMichał LasotaBeata MorawiecPaweł JuszczyszynCourt of Justice of the European UnionPrime MinisterPresidentProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-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 PolandimmunityAnna 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 independenceIustitiaKrystian MarkiewiczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtcourtsKrzysztof ParchimowiczMichał WawrykiewiczArticle 6 ECHRTHEMISEAWUrsula von der LeyenTVPmediaLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaAndrzej 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 primacyLex Super OmniaAdam 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 BarańskaUkraineKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecDariusz DrajewiczRafał Puchalskismear campaignmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentMarzanna Piekarska-Drążekelectoral processWojciech Maczugapublic medialexTuskcourt changeselections integrityelections fairnessabuse of state resourcespopulismequal 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 SzájerKlubrádióStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationGazeta 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 KrakówPutinismKaczyńskiright to fair trialPaulina 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 Radwan