The Constitutional Tribunal with Święczkowski, Pawłowicz, and Piotrowicz instructs on how to more effectively challenge Bodnar’s reforms.


Journalist at


A case is currently being heard before Julia Przyłębska's Constitutional Tribunal, initiated by the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS). The KRS is attempting to prevent the Minister of Justice from having the authority to dismiss presidents and vice-presidents of common courts.

Within half a year of his tenure at the Ministry of Justice, Minister Adam Bodnar initiated appeal procedures against more than 100 appointees of the previous administration and appointed over 110 new court presidents.


The original KRS (National Council of the Judiciary) application challenged only two provisions of Article 27 of the Act on the Organization of Common Courts. The first provision states that a positive opinion from a court’s board authorizes the minister to dismiss the president, and the absence of such an opinion within 30 days allows the minister to ignore the board. The second provision stipulates that if the board gives a negative opinion, the KRS must issue an opinion, and for a negative opinion to be binding, a resolution must be passed by a two-thirds majority of the Council.


On Thursday, June 20, during a hearing before the Przyłębska Constitutional Tribunal (CT), the judges harshly criticized the applicants, directly suggesting that the application was incomplete and indicating which additional provisions should be challenged.


Allegations from the Neo-KRS



During the June 20 hearing, the neo-KRS was represented by Maciej Nawacki, Joanna Kołodziej-Michałowicz, and Anna Dalkowska. The adjudicating panel of the CT included Bogdan Święczkowski, Krystyna Pawłowicz, Stanisław Piotrowicz, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski, and Rafał Wojciechowski. No representatives from the Sejm or the Prosecutor General were present.



“The constitutional issue pertains to the regulations contained in Article 27, paragraphs 5 and 5a, which, under certain circumstances, effectively exclude the participation of the National Council of the Judiciary in the procedure for dismissing court presidents and vice-presidents, leaving this competence exclusively to the Minister of Justice, who is known to be the supreme central administrative body of the government, which clearly violates the principles of the separation of powers and the independence of courts and tribunals as a distinct judicial authority,” argued Kołodziej.


The same concerns, according to him, apply to the fact that the dismissal of presidents and vice-presidents under this statutory procedure constitutes a breach of the generally protected tenure of their functions.


“We had glaring examples, such as the dismissal of the President of the Warsaw Court of Appeal, where the court board negatively opined on the Minister of Justice’s request,” said Maciej Nawacki, one of the faces of the judicial changes implemented during the PiS government’s tenure by Minister Zbigniew Ziobro.


The “glaring” case mentioned by Nawacki referred to the dismissal of Piotr Schab, a neo-judge and disciplinary spokesman nominated during Ziobro’s term, who pursued judges fighting for the rule of law. He was dismissed by Adam Bodnar on February 22 but resisted this decision and occupied the president’s office for several weeks.


Nawacki: It is a Political Purge


“Since December 13, 2023, the Ministry of Justice has been pursuing an illegitimate goal, expressed repeatedly in requests for the dismissal of court presidents and vice-presidents, articulated in numerous statements by the minister and deputy ministers, and visible on the Ministry of Justice’s website. This goal was also served by the issuance of the notorious regulation, which the CT reviewed on May 16 and found to grossly violate several constitutional standards,” argued Nawacki.


The regulation in question advised judges to follow the jurisprudence regarding the neo-KRS. The application to the Tribunal was filed by the KRS itself, represented, as now, by Judge Maciej Nawacki.


“This goal, and I apologize for the term, is a purge. A purge in the judiciary, aimed at removing specific judges inconvenient for the political power from their functions and ultimately from their judicial office. Such declarations are continuously made, among others, by the deputy minister. These are goals that the Minister of Justice does not hide, but which indicate that judges who took office, whether their first or in higher courts, from 2018 onwards, are to be removed from the judiciary. Initially removed from all administrative functions, and then removed from adjudication following the announced legislative changes, whose constitutionality I will not comment on as they are fortunately still only distant projects,” declared Nawacki.


Nawacki Defines the “Moment of Illegality”


The neo-KRS also requested the CT to address the retroactive effect of its judgments concerning the constitutionality of the provisions. These provisions have been in effect since Zbigniew Ziobro’s tenure. However, the applicants were not interested in challenging the dismissals and appointments made during Ziobro’s time.


“Analyzing the situation, analyzing the provisions not statically but as they have functioned, we tried to determine the moment of constitutional illegality, that is, the moment when the law was broken (…)” said Nawacki.


What is this moment? According to the neo-KRS, it is when the new government began using the provisions for a purpose that lacks constitutional legitimacy.


In other words, according to Nawacki, the provisions became unconstitutional when the new government began using them.


The neo-KRS proposed two dates to serve as the CT’s marker of the unconstitutionality of the provisions:


– December 13, 2023, when the new government was appointed;
– January 18, 2024, when the first dismissal of the President of the Poznań District Court occurred.


“Capturing such a clear date from which we can speak of constitutional illegality is the time frame between December 13 and January 18. We lean towards adopting the clear temporal cut-off date of December 13, 2023, due to the constitutionally unprotected, beyond the scope of power, articulated by the Minister of Justice, purpose of using the challenged provisions,” Nawacki said.


Przyłębska Tribunal… Grills Neo-KRS


However, the judges adjudicating the case asked a series of questions to the neo-KRS applicants. They were particularly concerned about why only two paragraphs were challenged.


“Why did you not challenge the entire procedure in Article 27? The application only challenges fragments, elements, bricks of this procedure,” asked Krystyna Pawłowicz.


Bogdan Święczkowski pointed out additional provisions of Article 27, adding comments that “they beg to be challenged.”


“The National Council of the Judiciary considered challenging the broader scope of this dismissal procedure, including paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the Act on the Organization of Common Courts. Analytical work was also done towards challenging the entire model, which nevertheless gives the Minister of Justice the competence to initiate this procedure and effectively dismiss,” said Anna Dalkowska.


Why then did the neo-KRS file a limited application?


Dalkowska explained: “Applications take a long time to write. The application regarding the regulation, which was considered on May 16, was written by me immediately after the regulation was published in the Journal of Laws, for three days, including nights. So, that’s how it looks more or less in terms of the time spent.”


What Next?


The Przyłębska Tribunal did not issue a judgment and adjourned the hearing until July 25, 2024, suggesting that the Tribunal wanted to give the KRS time to supplement the application. This is what happened.


On June 28, the Council announced that it had adopted a resolution to supplement the application. Additionally, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 of Article 27 of the Act on the Organization of Common Courts were challenged. This includes the entire dismissal procedure, from the grounds for dismissal (e.g., gross or persistent failure to perform official duties; when performing the function is incompatible with the good of the judiciary), the possibility of suspending a president under procedure, to the possibility of dismissing presidents without consulting the board if the president resigns.


Regardless of the course and outcome of the hearing scheduled for July 25, it is almost certain that the judgment issued by the CT will not be published in the Journal of Laws. To date, no judgment issued by the Przyłębska Tribunal after March 6, 2024, has been published, following the Sejm’s resolution on the Tribunal’s rectification.



This text by Dominika Sitnicka appeared in on July 1, 2024.


Journalist at



July 1, 2024


Supreme CourtConstitutional TribunalDisciplinary ChamberPolandjudgesdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of Justice of the EUjudicial independenceEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaCourt of JusticeEuropean Court of Human RightsMinister of JusticeIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemAdam Bodnarmuzzle lawJarosław KaczyńskiNational Recovery PlanCJEUMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human Rightsneo-judgesCourt of Justice of the European UniondemocracyPrzemysław RadzikWaldemar ŻurekNational Council for Judiciarypresidential electionselectionselections 2023disciplinary commissionercriminal lawJulia PrzyłębskaPiotr SchabKamil Zaradkiewiczmedia freedomharassmentpreliminary rulingsHungarySupreme Administrative Courtelections 2020K 3/21Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickajudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme CourtŁukasz PiebiakprosecutorsPresidentRecovery FundBeata MorawiecPaweł JuszczyszynProsecutor GeneralMichał Lasotafreedom of expressionMaciej NawackiEuropean Arrest WarrantSejmprosecutionCOVID-19Regional Court in KrakówCriminal ChamberNational ProsecutorConstitutionPrime MinisterMinistry of JusticecourtsMałgorzata GersdorfMarek SafjanEU budgetdisciplinary liability for judgesMaciej FerekOSCEWojciech HermelińskiExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberIustitiacriminal proceedingsWłodzimierz WróbelVenice Commissionconditionality mechanismAleksander StepkowskiTHEMISLabour and Social Security ChamberStanisław BiernatPiScommission on Russian influenceStanisław PiotrowiczPresident of the Republic of PolandNCJimmunityconditionalityAnna DalkowskaJustice FundcorruptionLaw and JusticeNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europefreedom of assemblyKrystian MarkiewiczreformsReczkowicz and Others v. PolandKrzysztof Parchimowiczacting first president of the Supreme Court2017policeSenateAndrzej Zollmedia independenceSLAPPdefamationStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationLGBTJustice Defence Committee – KOSEwa ŁętowskaDidier ReyndersFreedom HouseAmsterdam District CourtMay 10 2020 electionsXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandOrdo IurisPresident of PolandAndrzej StępkaBroda and Bojara v PolandSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramPiotr GąciarekJarosław WyrembakPM Mateusz MorawieckiArticle 7Next Generation EUConstitutional Tribunal PresidentUrsula von der LeyenLex DudaTVPmediaLex Super OmniaProfessional Liability ChamberreformJarosław DudziczK 7/21National Reconstruction PlansuspensionparliamentChamber of Professional LiabilityEAWArticle 6 ECHRP 7/20Supreme Court PresidentLech GarlickiMichał WawrykiewiczabortionPiotr PrusinowskiNational Electoral Commissionelectoral codeJanusz NiemcewiczTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaStanisław RymarMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaKazimierz DziałochaBogdan ŚwięczkowskiNetherlandsAndrzej MączyńskiMarek MazurkiewiczvetoStefan JaworskiMirosław GranatOLAFBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaViktor OrbanJózef IwulskiMaciej MiteraSLAPPsjudcial independenceWojciech ŁączkowskiAdam JamrózPATFoxFerdynand RymarzKonrad WytrykowskiRafał Puchalskismear campaignmilestonesKrakówMarzanna Piekarska-Drążekstate of emergencyUkraineelectoral processBelaruscourt presidentsAdam SynakiewiczXero Flor v. PolandAstradsson v Icelandright to fair trialEdyta BarańskaJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraCentral Anti-Corruption BureauJakub IwaniecsurveillancePegasusDariusz DrajewiczJoanna Misztal-KoneckaCivil ChamberK 6/21Wojciech MaczugaSzymon Szynkowski vel SękDariusz ZawistowskiOKO.presselections integrityelections fairnessMarek ZubikBohdan ZdziennickiMirosław WyrzykowskiSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczPiotr TulejaJerzy StępieńAndrzej RzeplińskitransparencyMariusz KamińskiMaciej Taborowskiinsulting religious feelingsPaweł Filipekpublic mediaMariusz MuszyńskiKrystyna PawłowiczlexTuskcourt changesMarek PietruszyńskiMichał LaskowskiSupreme Audit Officeabuse of state resourcesLaw on the NCJEuropean ParliamentJarosław GowincoronavirusRussiaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczFree Courts11 January March in WarsawCCBEPiebiak gatehuman rightsrecommendationC-791/19Human Rights CommissionerMarcin WarchołLGBT ideology free zonesreportEuropean Association of JudgesPiotr Pszczółkowskiretirement agedecommunizationGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgesintimidation of dissentersdemocratic backslidingpublic opinion pollZiobroEU law primacyMarian BanaśThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europecriminal codeBelgiumlex NGOEwa Wrzosekcivil societytransferAdam Tomczyńskimedia pluralismBohdan Bieniek#RecoveryFilesFrans TimmermansLIBE Committeerepairing the rule of lawUS Department of StateMarcin KrajewskiKarolina Miklaszewska2018NGOFull-Scale Election Observation MissionODIHRNations in TransitStanisław ZabłockiPetros TovmasyanJerzy KwaśniewskiPiotr MazurekGrzegorz PudaNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeWiesław KozielewiczChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakCouncil of the EURafał LisakMichał DworczykWojciech Sadurskidefamatory statementsRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtC-619/18Rights and Values Programmejudgepress releaseAntykastalex WoślegislationCourt of Appeal in KrakówPutinismKaczyńskiPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderekct on the Protection of the PopulatioWorld Justice Project awardStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiEmilia SzmydtTomasz SzmydtE-mail scandalAndrzej SkowronKasta/AntykastaKatarzyna Chmuraadvocate generalGrzegorz FurmankiewiczMarek JaskulskiEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaSwieczkowskiDworczyk leaksMałgorzata FroncHater ScandalAleksandra RutkowskaGeneral Court of the EUArkadiusz RadwanLech WałęsaWałęsa v. Polandright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawpilot-judgmentDonald Tusk governmentRafał WojciechowskiDobrochna Bach-Goleckalex RaczkowskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActdisinformationCT Presidentfundamental rightsNational Broadcasting Councilelection fairnessequal treatmentcivil lawMarcin MatczakDariusz KornelukNational School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (KSSiP)codification commissiondelegationsWatchdog PolskaDariusz BarskiLasotapopulismState TribunalRadosław BaszukAction PlanJustice MinistryVěra JourováDonald Tuskjustice system reformAnti-SLAPP Directiveinsultgag lawsuitsstrategic investmentinvestmentlustrationJakub KwiecińskidiscriminationAct on the Supreme Courtelectoral commissionsEuropean Court of HuKrzysztof RączkaPoznańTomasz Koszewskitest of independenceSebastian MazurekElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikJoanna Scheuring-WielgusoppositionThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentAdam Gendźwiłłtransitional justiceDariusz DończykKoan LenaertsKarol WeitzZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaCourt of Appeal in WarsawOsiatyński'a ArchiveEUUS State DepartmentAssessment Actenvironmentextraordinary commissionWhite PaperKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiREuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFJustyna WydrzyńskaAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszJoanna KnobelCrimes of espionageJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiMarek Piertuszyńskihate speechhate crimesmedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandPrzemysław CzarnekJacek CzaputowiczMarcin RomanowskiElżbieta KarskaPrzemysła Radzikmedia lawRafał TrzaskowskiSobczyńska and Others v PolandTelex.huJelenForum shoppingFirst President of the Suprme CourtEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian KaletaOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeC-156/21C-157/21foreign agents lawArticle 2Rome IIJózsef SzájerChamber of Extraordinary VerificationKlubrádióequalityGazeta WyborczaLGBT free zonesPollitykaBrussels Ilegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekAK judgmentautocratizationMultiannual Financial FrameworkOpenbaar MinisterieRegional Court in Amsterdamabortion rulingArticle 10 ECHRprotestsinterim measuresLeszek MazurIrena MajcherAmsterdamLMmutual trustthe Regional Court in Warsawpublic broadcasterUnited NationsForum Współpracy Sędziówthe NetherlandsDenmarkact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsNorwegian fundsNorwayKraśnikOmbudsmanKarlsruheAusl 301 AR 104/19SwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońC-487/19GermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUIrelandMarek AstLSOright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman Giertychtrans-Atlantic valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinancelawyersMirosław Wróblewskirepressive actborderprimacyEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej RutkiewiczAct of 20 December 2019Amnesty InternationalJacek SasinEvgeni TanchevKochenovPechPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryFreedom in the WorldECJErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitFrackowiakDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandRzeszówKoen LenaertsharrassmentOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeinfringment actionHudocPKWKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr BurasLeon KieresIpsosEU valuesNational Prosecutor’s OfficeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOlsztyn courtPrzemysła CzarnekEducation MinisterENCJauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258postal voteTVNjournalistslexTVNEwa MaciejewskaGerard BirgfellerPolish mediaAlina CzubieniakSimpson judgmentpostal vote billclientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officeresolution of 23 January 2020Polish National FoundationLux VeritatisMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykIsrael