The ‘good change’ is going for the Supreme Administrative Court


Journalist covering law and politics for Previously journalist at Gazeta Wyborcza, Rzeczpospolita, Polska The Times, Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.


The current authority will have increasingly greater control over the Supreme Administrative Court, which is at the same level of importance as the Supreme Court. This is because judges and lawyers who have decided to cooperate with the authorities and Minister Ziobro’s ministry are applying for positions in that court.

A dozen or so people close to the ruling camp are applying for 17 vacancies in the Supreme Administrative Court. They include members of the new NCJ, which will decide who will be selected for the Supreme Administrative Court. Maciej Nawacki from Olsztyn, who is known for tearing up resolutions of the Olsztyn judges, for which he heard disciplinary charges, is one of the candidates. The landing of the ‘good change’ in the Supreme Administrative Court was revealed by Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.


Why the Supreme Administrative Court is important

The Supreme Administrative Court has a similar status to the Supreme Court. It is in the media less and is less recognizable among the public. But cases of importance to the citizens and the authorities are heard there. Because it is this court and the voivodship administrative courts subordinated to it which hear complaints from citizens, companies and social organizations against decisions made by officials or ministers.


Voivodship administrative courts check compliance of tax decisions, building permission and decisions regarding restitution, as well as the provision of public information with the provisions of the law. They also check the legality of local government resolutions, pension matters and many other administrative decisions. The Supreme Administrative Court also reviews cassation complaints against judgments of voivodship courts.


The Supreme Administrative Court has now become particularly important, because it is the one that watches the authorities by reviewing administrative decisions. In recent years, the Supreme Administrative Court has been asking questions of the CJEU, requesting a preliminary ruling on issues related to the rule of law, while its judges were involved in the defence of the rule of law, although perhaps not as actively as the judges of the ordinary courts and the Supreme Court.


Administrative courts also issue rulings that are critical of the authorities. The Voivodship Administrative Court in Warsaw recently issued a verdict that was highly publicized and devastating for Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki. The court ruled that his order to prepare presidential elections by correspondence was in gross breach of the law.



Furthermore, the Supreme Administrative Court is simply a good place to work, because the status of a Supreme Administrative Court judge means prestige and a high income. It also gives a guarantee of a high pension. That is why lawyers and judges, including those who support the ‘good change’, apply for positions in that court.


Who in the ‘good change’ environment wants to become a Supreme Administrative Court judge


Dziennik Gazeta Prawna revealed that over 100 candidates applied for 17 vacancies in three recruitments that are ongoing before the new NCJ. The candidates include a dozen or so people associated with the ‘good change’ and they have a good chance of winning. These are:


Maciej Nawacki, member of the new NCJ and president of the District Court in Olsztyn (nominated by Minister Ziobro). His candidacy is surprising because he has just received a nomination from the new NCJ to the Regional Court in Olsztyn, but has not yet been appointed by the President.


Nawacki, as the president of the court, entered into a fierce dispute with independent judges from Olsztyn and pushed for the suspension of Judge Paweł Juszczyszyn, who wanted to check the lists of support for the candidates applying for membership of the new NCJ – including Nawacki – for which he was repressed. Nawacki became known throughout Poland for publicly tearing up resolutions of the Olsztyn local judicial association. He heard disciplinary charges for this from the disciplinary commissioner from Białystok, but the case was quickly taken over by Ziobro’s chief disciplinary commissioner.


– Rafał Sura, who was elected to the Monetary Policy Council with the votes of the PiS Senators, a member of the Tribunal of State in 2015–2016, legal counsel, professor of the Catholic University of Lublin.


– Waldemar Gontarski, attorney at law, who represented the PiS government before the CJEU and took part in the preparation of the presidential elections by correspondence.


– Zbigniew Łupina, judge at the District Court in Biłgoraj, member of the new NCJ.


– Teresa Kurcyusz-Furmanik, judge of the Voivodship Administrative Court in Gliwice, member of the new NCJ. She was the only judge to run for membership of the Council with the support of the citizens.


– Łukasz Piebiak, former deputy minister of justice, district court judge in Warsaw. He was Ziobro’s deputy minister until last year after the outbreak of the hate scandal, in which he was mixed up. As a judge, Piebiak applied many times to the old, legal NCJ for promotion to higher instance courts, but his candidacy was dropped because he had been punished on disciplinary charges. He currently works at the Institute of Justice, which reports to Ziobro’s ministry.


– Rafał Terlecki, President of the Regional Court in Gdańsk, nominated by Minister Ziobro.

– Paweł Mroczkowski, judge of the District Court in Janów Lubelski, signed Maciej Mitera’s (press officer of the new NCJ) list of support for membership of the NCJ. Mroczkowski has been posted to the ministry of justice and is the director of the Civil Law Legislation Department.


– Mirosław Baranowski, judge of the District Court in Zamość. He signed Zbigniew Łupina’s list of support for membership of the new NCJ.


Transfers from the ‘good change’ camp to the Supreme Administrative Court are already in progress

The new NCJ has already filled vacancies in the Supreme Administrative Court. Nominations have already been received by


– Gabriela Zalewska-Radzik, legal counsel and, primarily, wife of Przemysław Radzik, one of the symbols of the ‘good change in the courts.’ It is Radzik, as a disciplinary commissioner, who prosecutes independent judges who defend the free courts. He himself was recently promoted by the new NCJ to the Court of Appeal in Warsaw.


– Anna Dalkowska, judge of the District Court in Gdynia, deputy minister of justice.


– Rafał Stasikowski, judge of the Katowice District Court and former president of the Katowice Regional Court nominated by Ziobro. The President appointed him judge of the Supreme Administrative Court in March 2019.


Like the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court should be the peak of a judge’s career. The most experienced and talented judges should end up here. Anyone who has opted to cooperate with PiS can get into these courts under the current authority.


This can be seen from the appointments made by the new NCJ. For example, Przemysław Radzik’s wife beat the experienced president of the Voivodship Administrative Court in Białystok by one vote.


There is also no need to go through successive levels of courts in a judicial career to get into the Supreme Administrative Court. This can be seen by the example of Anna Dalkowska, who jumped into the Supreme Administrative Court from the District Court in Gdynia. The fact that she is Ziobro’s deputy minister almost certainly helped. The candidates to the Supreme Administrative Court, who were revealed by Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, also have a good chance of being nominated by the new NCJ.


All the more so that the Council is divided into two groups. One comprises the so-called hawks, namely members of the Council associated with Minister Ziobro and his former deputy, Łukasz Piebiak. The other group is made up of so-called doves, namely members of the Council who want to work independently and critically assess candidates for judicial promotions. This group includes the head of the new NCJ, Leszek Mazur, and the press officer of the new NCJ, Maciej Mitera.


The group of hawks has so far won the voting on the controversial candidates for promotions. It is helped by the fact that Ziobro’s disciplinary commissioner is handling several proceedings against members of the NCJ, and for this reason Leszek Mazur is among those who are excluded from voting.


106 judges ruled in the Supreme Administrative Court in 2019; the target is to be 127 judges.


Translated by Roman Wojtasz



Journalist covering law and politics for Previously journalist at Gazeta Wyborcza, Rzeczpospolita, Polska The Times, Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.



November 21, 2020


Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandZbigniew Ziobrorule of lawEuropean CommissionjudgesCourt of Justice of the EUjudicial independenceNational Council of the JudiciaryEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaIgor TuleyaEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary systemMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiWaldemar Żurekdemocracymuzzle lawpresidential electionsPiotr SchabjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020Kamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerBeata MorawiecPrzemysław RadzikFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsMichał LasotaEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiPrime MinisterJulia Przyłębskamedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19electionsNational Recovery PlanNational Council for JudiciaryPresidentfreedom of expressionŁukasz PiebiakCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawdisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanMałgorzata GersdorfAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynAnna DalkowskaNational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetWłodzimierz WróbelCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorDagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaStanisław PiotrowiczJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisK 7/21May 10 2020 electionsLex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandSejmXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v Polandmedia independenceIustitiaJarosław DudziczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczArticle 6 ECHRTHEMISEAWUrsula von der LeyenChamber of Professional LiabilitymediaimmunityCouncil of Europe2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaRecovery FundP 7/20Justice Fundneo-judgesPiSC-791/19National Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Piotr PszczółkowskiPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaProfessional Liability ChamberJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikorasuspensionJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesReczkowicz and Others v. PolandUkraineKrystian MarkiewiczKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczDariusz DrajewiczRafał PuchalskidefamationcourtsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekEwa WrzosekEU law primacyTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan 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 LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskitransferPiotr GąciarekKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiRegional Court in KrakówPiebiak gatehuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencycoronavirusXero 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 AstMaciej FerekChamber 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 PopulatioparliamentlegislationRafał 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 lawharassmentOpenbaar 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 presidentsLMelections 2023ODIHRIrelandFull-Scale Election Observation MissionNGOIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited NationsLeszek Mazurpopulisminterim measuresautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingequal 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 Officeintimidation of dissentersWojciech 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 voteKrakówRzeszówborderpostal vote billprimacy