The Chamber of Extraordinary Verification repeals the resolution of the National Council of the Judiciary, citing EU law


Journalist at Graduated in law and philosophy from University of Warsaw.


The Chamber of Extraordinary Verification and Public Affairs (IKNiSP) has revoked a resolution by the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS) which recommended judge Dariusz Pawłyszcze, a judge associated with Zbigniew Ziobro’s Ministry of Justice, to sit on the Supreme Court. The National Council of the Judiciary justified its decision in terms of the “favourable opinion of the Minister of Justice”, among other things. Judge Waldemar Żurek has appealed against the KRS’s resolution.

The Chamber of Extraordinary Verification, one of two new judicial chambers established by the PiS government, handed down a judgement on 2 June concerning the competition procedure for the National Council of the Judiciary. The IKNiSP repealed the KRS’s resolution, and referred the case back to the Council for reconsideration.


This is not the first time this has happened. In May, the Chamber of Extraordinary Verification issued a judgement on a resolution by the National Council of the Judiciary promoting Maciej Nawacki to the District Court. Nawacki himself is a member of the National Council of the Judiciary, and is well known for the fact that he did not collect the required number of signatures during the competition procedure to join the National Council of the Judiciary. Now the Supreme Court has discovered while examining his promotion that the KRS made mistakes in assessing his work, and has withdrawn the resolution.


The IKNiSP’s latest judgement is even more interesting. The Chamber has not only questioned the promotion of the candidate into the circles of power, but by issuing its verdict, it has bypassed Polish law in favour of European regulations, a practice which the PiS government strongly contests.


The KRS recommends a ‘colleague’


In autumn 2019, eleven judges participated in the competition procedure for the post of Supreme Court judge in the Civil Chamber. These included the judges Waldemar Żurek and Dariusz Pawłyszcze.


Żurek is a former spokesman for the National Council of the Judiciary, and currently one of the faces of judicial resistance against PiS’s reforms of the system. Pawłyszcze is one of the group of judges which has been cooperating with the government. He has been working at the Ministry of Justice for three years, and acted as the representative of the committee supporting Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woicka, who is a member of the ‘neo-KRS’. They are also in a relationship together. Pawłyszcze has also signed letters to the KRS supporting Dariusz Drajewicz and Maciej Miter.


The law on the KRS is incompatible with EU law

The Chamber of Extraordinary Verification has decided that the verification of the KRN’s resolutions by the Supreme Court must be shaped in such a way as to ensure the full effectiveness of EU law. It was considered that Art. 44 of the Act on the National Council of the Judiciary, which blocks any appeals against the KRN’s resolutions in the case of applications for appointment to the post of Supreme Court judge, is incompatible with Art. 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which guarantees the right to an effective legal remedy and a fair court. Also, based on Art. 91, section 2 of the Constitution, the Polish provisions were incompatible with EU law were omitted, and the application of judge Żurek was examined.


The Chamber of Extraordinary Verification highlights a number of errors

The Supreme Court rejected Żurek’s arguments regarding the need to countersign the President’s announcement of the competition. Arguments that the National Council of the Judiciary was improperly staffed were also rejected, citing a verdict directed by Julia Przyłębska of the Constitutional Tribunal, which the Council ‘legalised’. But Żurek’s arguments questioning the assessment of his achievements were accepted.


The judges on the IKNiSP calculated that the KRS had wrongly compared how long both judges had been working. It was stated that Pawłyszcze had sat as a judge for 28 years and Żurek 22, which was supposed to be a significant disproportion. In fact, Pawłyszcze had included three years of his work at the Ministry of Justice and three years of his work as an assessor, which means that his time in jurisprudence is the same as Żurek’s.


The Council has also made a series of quite arbitrary statements. Pawłyszcze is the author of a number of professional articles, and Żurek is the author of a textbook on inheritance law. In the KRS’s opinion, the professional achievements of Pawłyszcze are more valuable because it directly translates into its jurisprudence, but the Supreme Court stated that this was not argued in any meaningful way.


The ‘favourable opinion of the minister’

The Supreme Court also pointed to other controversial arguments for Pawłyszcze’s candidacy which were put forward by the KRS.


The IKNiSP considered that the favourable opinion of the Minister of Justice and the performance of administrative tasks in the Ministry of Justice cannot be a factor in favour of a given candidate.


“In its justification, the Council attached too much importance to the opinion of the Ministry of Justice and the candidate’s knowledge of the organisation of common courts. Organisational and administrative supervision cannot be confused with judicial supervision. Supervising the process of ensuring the uniformity of case-law is different from the organisation of the judiciary. True, the opinion and its content are positive, but it cannot be decisive and considered the most important factor.”


The Chamber of Extraordinary Verification finally found that “the position expressed in the [KRS’s] resolution violates the law, because the Council derived logically incorrect conclusions from the facts known to it, and also omitted important circumstances that it should have considered. Accordingly, the complaint that the Council failed to consider the case comprehensively is well founded.”


Doubts about independence

But the IKNiSP did not only highlight the KRS’s incorrect reasoning; it was also stated that it is doubtful whether Pawłyszcze, due to his connections with the Ministry of Justice, is a good candidate to become a judge on the Supreme Court. In this connection, it mentioned the judgement of the CJEU from 19 November 2019.


“The Supreme Court stated that the independent basis for the Supreme Court to revoke a KRS resolution is the situation indicated by the CJEU in paragraph 125 of the judgement. It should be considered as disqualifying a candidate who takes office immediately after carrying out organisational and administrative tasks as part of a delegation to the Ministry of Justice. This would have a negative impact on the perception of his independence, and would thus indicate his real, or only potential, and on this occasion informal subordination to the body of executive power.”


The IKNiSP stated explicitly that it must take all circumstances into account, namely:

  • the fact that the judge making the appeal, Waldemar Żurek, is known for his public activities criticising the executive (i.e. the Ministry of Justice);
  • the judge appointed by the National Council of the Judiciary is directly linked to the executive branch, and is currently reporting to the minister;
  • there are allegations that the National Council of the Judiciary is subordinate to the Ministry of Justice.


All this means that “in relation to the recommended candidate, doubts may be raised as to his independence.”


In the last paragraphs, however, the IKNiSP takes aim at both candidates:


“The Council will have to consider in greater detail whether the persons who have been dealing with the organisation of the judiciary for a long time have also issued relatively few judgements, whether they have devoted themselves to broadly understood public activities, and can guarantee they will properly perform the duties of a Supreme Court judge.”


A position not in line with the government’s doctrine

It is not difficult to notice that the judgement by the IKNiSP is unlikely to please PiS. According to the government’s doctrine, the European Union has no competence to speak on the subject of the member states’ judicial systems.


Krystyna Pawłowicz, a former PiS MP and recently a judge on the Constitutional Tribunal, has articulated this emphatically. Reporting on a fictitious dispute over competences between the Sejm and the Supreme Court, she loosed off a tirade against the courts’ reference to EU law bypassing national law:


“The Supreme Court defined as its first duty the duty [sic.] of loyalty to EU law and the CJEU’s rulings, and has stated that this duty of loyalty cannot be released by the decisions of the Polish legislative and executive authority.”


Pawłowicz also directly stated that the CJEU judgements are not EU law within the meaning of the Treaty. She added that the CJEU has the right to adjudicate on matters of EU law arising from the Treaties, but since they do not confer jurisdiction on matters of the judiciary, it means that the CJEU has exceeded its powers, and thus its judgement of 19 November is not binding on Poland. Pawłowicz stated explicitly: “The judgement of 19 November 2019 bypasses the Polish constitutional order and is contrary to Polish law. Such a judgement cannot be the basis for the action of the interrogative court.”


From the KRS to the KRS

We thus find ourselves in an interesting situation, in which in some cases the IKNiSP recognises the authority of the Constitutional Tribunal dominated by PiS nominees (the judgement of the CT ‘settling’ the legality of the KRS), but in others it (rightly) ignores the Tribunal’s arguments aimed at ‘delegalising’ the judgement of the CJEU.


It is also hard not to notice the absurdity that, by repealing a resolution of the National Council of the Judiciary, whose unlawfulness derives directly from its own lack of independence, the Chamber of Extraordinary Verification has passed it on to the very same National Council of the Judiciary.


And finally, the fact that the Chamber of Extraordinary Verification has spoken about this procedure at all is due to the fact that President Andrzej Duda has not appointed Dariusz Pawłyszcze as a Supreme Court judge in the meantime. If he had done so, the path to reconsidering the KRS’s resolution would, according to the IKNiSP itself, have been permanently closed.


Translated from Polish by Jim Todd


Journalist at Graduated in law and philosophy from University of Warsaw.



June 23, 2020


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