Safjan on Constitutional Tribunal ruling: an extreme scenario, but even EU exit seems possible


Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland


The Constitutional Tribunal, by a decision of its full bench, ruled that the resolution of the three combined chambers of the Supreme Court is incompatible with the constitution and international law. According to Professor and CJEU Judge Marek Safjan, this ruling by the Constitutional Tribunal is “highly disturbing” and can even threaten Poland’s membership in the European Union.

By Magdalena Gałczyńska


The text was originally published in Polish at, April 20.


The Constitutional Tribunal addressed the matter of constitutionality of the resolution of the three Chambers of the Supreme Court of 23 January 2020 on the motion of Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki.


  • The Constitutional Tribunal held that the resolution is incompatible with numerous articles of the Polish constitution, as well as the Treaty on European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights.
  • Judges Leon Kieres, Piotr Pszczółkowski and Jarosław Wyrembak submitted dissenting opinions. They stated that the Constitutional Tribunal did not have the authority to review resolutions of the Supreme Court.
  • In an interview with Onet, a judge of the Court of Justice of the European Union professor Marek Safjan pointed out that the decision of the Constitutional Tribunal does not have any legal effects on the Supreme Court’s resolution .
  • In his opinion, the Constitutional Tribunal placed itself in the role of a “super court,” which it had no right to do. “The Constitutional Tribunal’s decision is hugely surprising and arouses great anxiety, because it shows that attempts can be made to block CJEU judgments. And that would threaten Poland’s place in the Union,” says the former President of the Constitutional Tribunal, today a judge of the CJEU.



The Constitutional Tribunal considered the case with its full bench, but in exceptional circumstances. Neither the public nor the media were allowed into the courtroom, the judges sat at the prescribed distances from each other, and they were wearing masks and gloves. The President of the Constitutional Tribunal removed her mask during her speech and spoke without it. In this case, the rapporteur was a new member of the Constitutional Tribunal –former PiS MP Stanisław Piotrowicz.


The prime minister’s representatives argued that in the resolution of the three chambers, the Supreme Court exceeded its authority: it created a new legal norm and new provisions, which the Supreme Court is not authorised to do.  The Supreme Court held in January that judges appointed by the new NCJ did not satisfy the standard of independence and impartiality of the executive authority, so they should not continue to adjudicate. This resolution has the force of a legal principle and is applicable to all courts in Poland. But the Constitutional Tribunal has tried to deprive it of that force, ruling the findings of the Supreme Court judges as being incompatible with the constitution and international law.


Professor Safjan: the Constitutional Tribunal’s decision has no legal effects on the validity of the Supreme Court’s resolution


“I find a judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of this type and of such content incredible,” Marek Safjan, Judge of the CJEU and former President of the Constitutional Tribunal, said to Onet.


“The Tribunal does not have the competence to examine compliance of judgments of common courts or the Supreme Court with the constitution. The resolution by the Supreme Court did not create any legal norm that could be examined by the Constitutional Tribunal, whereas the Constitutional Tribunal only examines norms and not their application. The resolution of the three chambers from January this year was precisely the application of the criteria that were also formulated by the EU Court of Justice in its notorious judgment of 19 November 2019,” he emphasises.


“The Supreme Court relied on the criteria specified by the CJEU when assessing whether judges from the Disciplinary Chamber and others also recommended by the new National Council of the Judiciary guarantee independence and impartiality of adjudication,” explains Safjan.


He points out that the Constitutional Tribunal’s decision has no legal effects on the Supreme Court’s resolution. “This resolution is a fully proper act. Furthermore, it is precisely the decisions and rulings of the Supreme Court that previously applied these criteria that are referred to by the EU Court of Justice in its decision of 8 April. Almost two weeks ago, the CJEU pointed out that the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court does not guarantee independence and its activities should be suspended.


“A huge surprise and great anxiety about Poland’s place in the EU”


Professor Safjan points out that no national court in any EU Member State has the power to review judgments of the EU Court of Justice.


“The Constitutional Tribunal ignored the principle established a long time ago in the CJEU case-law that judgments of the Court of Justice of the EU are universally binding and must be implemented. This is the duty of every court. And no court, including a constitutional court, can prohibit the application of the criteria specified in Luxembourg,” he emphasises.


“The Constitutional Tribunal cannot examine compliance with EU law and this is precisely what it was trying to do. This is a form of censorship of the judgment of the CJEU, which the Supreme Court is correctly and fully implementing in the above resolution of the three chambers. Such attempts by a national court to examine decisions of the CJEU can lead to complete anarchy. Such an approach would be the end of the legal order of the EU and would have to cause its disintegration,” emphasises Prof. Safjan.


“I consider the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal hugely surprising, and it gives rise to great anxiety. Such an approach indicates that attempts may be made to block the implementation of CJEU’s decision of 8 April 2020,” he says.


“And this decision arises from the same premises as the resolution of the three chambers of the Supreme Court. Perhaps, as a consequence, a very dangerous collision may arise between the Polish legal system and EU law. This, in turn, could threaten Poland’s place in the EU legal system,” he adds.


Professor Safjan reiterates that it was precisely he who presided over the panel of judges in the Constitutional Tribunal which held in 2005 that the Polish constitution did not constitute an obstacle to Poland joining the European Community.


“This meant that Polish law does not prevent the application of the Treaties and EU law. It led to the acceptance of both the mechanism of requests for preliminary rulings and the primacy of EU law over national law,” he explains.


”Meanwhile, after the recent decision by the Constitutional Tribunal, the question arises as to whether Poland is going to renegotiate the accession treaty because of such an approach by this body to the norms set by the EU Court of Justice? Or maybe change the constitution? An extreme scenario, although unfortunately one that also comes to mind is Poland’s exit from the EU. That is why I repeat that I find the judgment by the Constitutional Tribunal to be deeply disturbing,” concludes Safjan.


Translated by Roman Wojtasz


Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland



April 27, 2020


Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandZbigniew ZiobrojudgesCourt of Justice of the EUrule of lawEuropean CommissionNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceMałgorzata ManowskaEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaCourt of JusticeIgor TuleyaEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary systemMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiWaldemar Żurekmuzzle lawKamil ZaradkiewiczNational Recovery Plandemocracypresidential electionsdisciplinary commissionerPiotr SchabPrzemysław RadzikjudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme CourtAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsSupreme Administrative CourtK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020neo-judgeselectionsBeata MorawiecJulia PrzyłębskaprosecutorsŁukasz PiebiakNational Council for JudiciaryMichał LasotaEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiPrime MinisterPresidentmedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawCOVID-19Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaMałgorzata GersdorfSejmharassmentPaweł JuszczyszynEU budgetfreedom of expressiondisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiStanisław PiotrowiczMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPresident of the Republic of PolandMaciej FerekimmunityAnna DalkowskaNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamberconditionality mechanismconditionalityWłodzimierz WróbelCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeRegional Court in KrakówprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisK 7/21May 10 2020 electionsLex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanProfessional Liability ChamberPresident of PolandLGBTXero 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 LiabilityTVPmediaelections 2023Labour and Social Security Chamber2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaPiotr GąciarekcorruptionRecovery FundP 7/20Justice FundPiSC-791/19National Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Piotr PszczółkowskiJoanna Misztal-KoneckaPegasusMariusz KamińskisurveillanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikorasuspensionJarosław GowinLGBT ideology free zonesUkraineKrystian MarkiewiczKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecSenateZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczDariusz DrajewiczRafał PuchalskidefamationcourtsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsConstitutional Tribunal PresidentMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekEwa WrzosekEU law primacyLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej Miterademocratic backslidingPiotr PrusinowskiViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetoabortionJózef 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.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 WróblewskiCivil ChamberLeon 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 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 PopulatiolegislationRafał Trzaskowskilex Wośmedia lawRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtPrzemysła RadzikAntykastaStanisław 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 ECHRmilestonesRegional 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 MajcherWojciech MaczugaAmsterdamKarolina 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 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 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