Supreme Administrative Court: The Constitutional Tribunal has been infected with illegality


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


‘The whole of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal has lost its ability to adjudicate lawfully,’ held the Supreme Administrative Court.

The article was first published in Polish in Gazeta Wyborcza on December 6, 2022.


by Łukasz Woźnicki


The ruling, which was issued on 16 November by a three-member bench of the Supreme Administrative Court, was passed in a case regarding the inaction of the Chancellery of the Sejm. But the matter of the legality of the current Constitutional Tribunal also appeared in that case.


‘The presence of incorrectly appointed judges in the membership of the Constitutional Tribunal means that the whole of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal has been, so to speak, “infected” with illegality, and has therefore lost, in a material sense, its ability to adjudicate in accordance with the law,’ reads the justification to the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment.


Too great a risk to wait for the Constitutional Tribunal

The Constitutional Tribunal – referred to as ‘Julia Przyłębska’s tribunal’ – is today controlled by the ruling party and so-called ‘stand-in judges’, namely people who are not judges, adjudicate in it. For this reason, the Polish courts – including the Supreme Court – have acknowledged that the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal did not have any legal effects. In turn, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Constitutional Tribunal with a stand-in within its membership was not a legal court.


Now, the Supreme Administrative Court has spoken up in the case of the Constitutional Tribunal. The Chancellery of the Sejm gave it the opportunity. It applied for a stay on the proceedings in which the Supreme Administrative Court was handling in connection with its failure to provide the lists of support for candidates to the new National Council of the Judiciary. It invoked the fact that the regulations allowing for the release of these lists are also being examined in parallel by the Constitutional Tribunal.


In such a situation, the Supreme Administrative Court could have stayed the proceedings to wait to see what the Constitutional Tribunal would say. But the bench (adjudicating in the composition of Judges Olga Żurawska-Matusiak, Przemysław Szustakiewicz and Sławomir Pauter) did not do this. ‘This is because it should be pointed out that the Constitutional Tribunal contains people appointed as judges in breach of the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland,’ it stated.


These people are the three stand-ins: Mariusz Muszyński, Justyn Piskorski and Jarosław Wyrembak – elected to the Constitutional Tribunal by PiS MPs. They took the correctly filled places of three judges from whom President Andrzej Duda refused to take the oath. The decision of the head of state allowed PiS to introduce people who are not judges into the Constitutional Tribunal. Meanwhile, the stand-ins later helped Julia Przyłębska assume control of the Constitutional Tribunal.


‘They took up their positions in place of correctly appointed judges,’ emphasised the Supreme Administrative Court. In doing so, it noted that the illegality of the occupation of the places by the stand-ins arises from the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 3 December 2015, as well as from last year’s judgment of the Court in Strasbourg. That is why the Supreme Administrative Court decided that it could not wait for the Constitutional Tribunal to rule on the release of the lists of support.


‘There is a high degree of probability that there will be at least one of the so-called stand-ins in the panel. In such a situation, it is too risky to make a stay on the proceedings and to rely on ‘blind luck’ that there might not be one of the ‘stand-ins’ in the panel,’ it stated.


Supreme Administrative Court: Exceptional sluggishness of the Constitutional Tribunal

On the side-line, the Supreme Administrative Court noted that it is obliged to settle cases as quickly as possible.


‘Meanwhile, it is a matter of common knowledge, which is also confirmed in the annual reports of the Constitutional Tribunal, that the Polish Constitutional Tribunal is currently examining cases extremely sluggishly, with some applications waiting for a ruling for more than five years,’ it added.


The case which was being settled by the Supreme Administrative Court had already been pending before the administrative courts for four years. The request for the provision of public information was made to the Chancellery of the Sejm by a person described by the initials K.G. in January 2018.


‘In the situation of a lack of efficiency of the Constitutional Tribunal, a stay on the proceedings will result in an even longer wait for the application to be settled,’ accepted the Supreme Administrative Court. ‘This can essentially lead to a situation in which even if the request is fulfilled – the information that is disclosed will become worthless,’ it added.


Lists of signatures of support

In a judgment of 16 November, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the cassation appeals of the Chancellery of the Sejm, as well as K.G. against the judgment of the Voivodship Administrative Court in Warsaw in 2019. This resulted in the Voivodship Administrative Court’s judgment becoming final. According to that judgment, the Chancellery of the Sejm must examine K.G.’s request to provide the lists of support for the new NCJ signed by judges within 14 days.


These lists have long been kept secret by the ruling party. This was almost certainly the objective of the application submitted to the Constitutional Tribunal by the PiS MPs. The MPs challenged the constitutionality of the provisions enabling the disclosure of the data of judges in 2019.


The Constitutional Tribunal has not addressed the matter to this day. This is almost certainly because the Chancellery of the Sejm decided to publish the lists in 2020. This happened after ‘Wyborcza’ revealed one of the lists. After the publication of the lists, it transpired that candidates for the NCJ which was politicised by PiS were supported, among others, by employees of the Ministry of Justice or court presidents nominated by the Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro, while one member of the NCJ supported himself.


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



December 7, 2022


Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandZbigniew Ziobrorule of lawEuropean CommissionjudgesCourt of Justice of the EUNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaCourt of JusticeMałgorzata ManowskaIgor TuleyaEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary systemMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiWaldemar Żurekmuzzle lawdemocracypresidential electionsKamil ZaradkiewiczNational Recovery Plandisciplinary commissionerPiotr SchabPrzemysław RadzikjudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme CourtAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsSupreme Administrative CourtK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020Beata MorawiecprosecutorsŁukasz Piebiakneo-judgeselectionsNational Council for JudiciaryMichał LasotaEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiPrime MinisterJulia PrzyłębskaPresidentmedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19Małgorzata GersdorfPaweł Juszczyszynfreedom of expressionCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawDagmara Pawełczyk-Woickadisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPresident of the Republic of PolandSejmimmunityAnna DalkowskaNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal 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 PlanProfessional Liability ChamberPresident of PolandLGBTMaciej FerekXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. Polandmedia independenceIustitiaJarosław DudziczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczArticle 6 ECHRTHEMISEAWUrsula von der LeyenChamber of Professional LiabilityTVPmedia2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaPiotr GąciarekRegional Court in KrakówRecovery FundP 7/20Justice FundPiSC-791/19National Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Piotr PszczółkowskiPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikorasuspensionJarosław GowinLGBT ideology free zonesparliamentUkraineKrystian MarkiewiczKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczDariusz DrajewiczRafał PuchalskidefamationcourtsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsharassmentMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekEwa WrzosekEU law primacyLex Super OmniaAdam Tomczyńskielections 2023BelgiumNetherlandsBogdan 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 Laskowskiintimidation of dissentersMarek PietruszyńskitransferKrystyna 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 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 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 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 measuresPiotr PrusinowskiLabour and Social Security ChamberDariusz Dończykautocratizationtest of independenceMultiannual Financial FrameworkTomasz Koszewskipublic mediaJakub Kwiecińskiabortion rulingdiscriminationequal 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 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 WawrzykharrassmentMarian BanaśAlina CzubieniakSupreme Audit OfficeTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediapostal voteRzeszówborderpostal vote billprimacy