The amendment to the law governing how matters move from the Supreme Court to the Constitutional Tribunal drew swift scrutiny. In a televised interview, President Andrzej Duda warned that the change could carry serious consequences, risking the status of judges and potentially stirring disorder and competition within the judiciary. He argued that altering the process could undermine judicial autonomy and destabilize the legal system, calling the outcome grave and far-reaching.
The president addressed questions about his choice to submit the unsigned amendment to the Constitutional Tribunal for review. He explained that the measure is viewed as a crucial step toward unlocking funds for the national reconstruction plan, a milestone long sought by the European Commission. The proposal would entrust the Supreme Administrative Court with deciding disciplinary and immunity cases involving judges, replacing the current role of the Professional Liability Chamber of the Supreme Court. It signals broader changes in how judicial independence and impartiality are assessed.
Discussing presidential prerogatives, he stated that four equally authoritative options exist: sign the bill into law, veto it and return it to parliament, refer the bill to the Constitutional Tribunal without signing it, or sign the bill and then submit it to the Constitutional Tribunal. He opted for the third option, employing the preventive mechanism of constitutional review.
That mechanism was described as a deliberate, constitutional step, a choice aligned with the president’s authority to safeguard constitutional norms.
Meanwhile, critics who labeled the move unconstitutional were noted. A group of opposition politicians argued that the law remains unconstitutional while simultaneously insisting it should have been referred to the Constitutional Tribunal. The chairman stressed that the Constitutional Tribunal is the sole body empowered to determine whether a legal act conforms to the constitution.
The president asserted that the action represented a clear, obvious step given the law’s serious potential consequences. He warned that the changes could affect the status of judges who have already been nominated, sworn in, and seen as presidential candidates, raising concerns about judicial independence across the system.
During the discussion, the chairman highlighted constitutional safeguards—namely judicial independence and the irremovability of judges—upon which the judiciary rests. The president framed the transformation as a necessary check to ensure compliance with constitutional principles and as a reminder that the Constitutional Tribunal remains the country’s watchdog on constitutionality.
Speaking about impartiality, the president commented on a proposed test for judge impartiality triggered by a party’s request in a case. He called the approach natural and grounded in the constitutional protection of civil rights, yet he questioned whether applying a similar test at the request of other judges or panel members would be consistent with the constitutional framework.
The remarks included a candid assessment of those who labeled the project irresponsible. The president said such voices talk of anarchy and maneuvering within the refereeing community, suggesting that unchecked influence could erode independence and invite coercion against younger judges. He urged restraint and stressed that legal processes should not become instruments for personal or political pressure.
Observers noted ongoing debates within the judiciary about revoking positions or pursuing retribution against selections denied by the panel. The president rejected what he called behavior driven by base motives and urged that legal processes be guided by law rather than revenge or personal motives.
According to the president, drafting provisions that would institutionalize such behavior would harm the functioning of the state and be irresponsible. He affirmed a commitment to constitutional compliance and asked the Constitutional Tribunal to determine whether the proposed provisions conform to the Polish Constitution as it protects judicial independence, the irremovability of judges, and other guarantees that support a capable judiciary.
The Sejm had passed the amendment to the Supreme Court law on January 13. At the end of January, the Senate introduced 14 amendments, which the Sejm rejected. Supporters, including PiS deputies, described the measure as achieving a crucial milestone for releasing European funds tied to the national reconstruction plan. The amendment would reassign disciplinary and immunity matters to the Supreme Administrative Court, replacing the current system where the Professional Liability Chamber handles such cases for Supreme Court judges. In first instance, a three-member panel would decide, with a five-member panel in second instance. For judges of ordinary and military courts, the Supreme Administrative Court would act as the disciplinary court in some cases at first instance and in all cases at second instance, and it would also assume jurisdiction over immunity cases for judges across the judiciary.
In closing, the article notes the ongoing coverage of the topic and the authority of the Constitutional Tribunal to determine constitutionality. The discussion remains a focal point for debates about judicial independence and constitutional compliance within Poland’s legal framework.