There were serious questions about the amendment to the Supreme Court law raised by multiple legal bodies, not only by the president. The Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, and the register of the National Council for the Judiciary signaled doubts about the draft, as noted by Małgorzata Paprocka, a minister in the President’s Chancellery, in an interview with PAP.
Act on the President’s Desk
On 10 February, President Andrzej Duda announced his intent to submit the amendment to the Constitutional Tribunal for a preemptive review. The presidential motion challenged the amendment’s core provisions, including the test for judge independence, the transfer of disciplinary and immunity matters from judges to the Supreme Administrative Court, and the mia culpa regarding the 21-day vacatio legis.
Later that week, the Sejm Legislative Committee adopted its draft position on the issue. The presidential charges were described as largely unfounded and imprecise in the draft, and the provisions challenged by the president were deemed compatible with the constitution.
For obvious reasons, the Chancellery of the President did not share this view, and Presidential Minister Małgorzata Paprocka commented on the Sejm draft in an interview with PAP.
Serious Doubts from the President, the Courts, and the Registry
As Paprocka noted, there were “serious doubts” about the amendment that extended beyond the president’s concerns. These doubts were also voiced by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, and the National Council for the Judiciary, according to her account.
She pointed out that while the Sejm and the Prime Minister may express disagreements, other high officials — including the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General — were reported to share the president’s concerns, according to media coverage.
“Such discrepancies serve as clear evidence that the President’s decision to bring the matter before the Constitutional Tribunal was warranted,” she said.
Presidential Justification
Paprocka emphasized that the president’s motion spans over one hundred pages. She suggested that the length alone makes it hard to dismiss the motion as merely malicious or inattentive reading.
She reiterated that the Chancellery views the Supreme Court amendment as unconstitutional. “These provisions touch not only on the status and independence of judges but also on the prerogatives of the president, the right to a fair trial, and the very foundations of a democratic state,” the minister summarized.
Paprocka added that the presidential application to the Constitutional Tribunal is framed to consider the entire package of rules, while the committee’s discussion tended to focus on fragments without a full overview or references to existing Constitutional Court jurisprudence, which the president cited in the petition.
The Chancellery’s Expectation for a Tribunal Ruling
The minister stressed that the Constitutional Tribunal should resolve the questions surrounding the law as soon as possible. She recalled that the president had requested this action and noted that the Tribunal had set a deadline of March 20 for views from mandated participants, including the Attorney General and the Sejm.
“It is my belief that once those views are presented, the Tribunal will proceed to a hearing and address the matter promptly,” Paprocka said.
The January amendment to the Supreme Court law, described by its proponents as an important milestone for the European Commission to unlock funds from the national reconstruction plan, has drawn attention at the highest levels. By late February, Julia Przyłębska, the president of the Constitutional Court, announced that proceedings had begun regarding the president’s request to examine the constitutionality of the amendment’s provisions. The prime minister’s position, a lengthy document approaching one hundred pages, has already been submitted to the Tribunal for consideration of constitutional compatibility.
Opinions from the Attorney General and the Sejm are still requested. The Constitutional Tribunal has not yet set a hearing date. The Court would need at least eleven judges to convene a full chamber to rule on the matter.
In this evolving legal story, officials from the Prime Minister’s Chancellery and other government bodies have prepared positions for the Constitutional Court, with some statements signaling notable differences from the president’s arguments. The issue remains under intense parliamentary and judicial scrutiny as the Tribunal moves toward a definitive ruling.
Note: This summary reflects ongoing reporting and statements from public actors as reported by the Polish press agency and related outlets during the period in question.