They don’t conceal their position. Lawyer Sylwia Gregorczyk-Abram spoke on behalf of the Free Courts initiative, arguing that the situation surrounding the National Council for the Judiciary should be addressed by reappointing some of its judicial members. She even claimed that judges could be dismissed from the National Council for the Judiciary by a simple resolution. Online responses were swift and strong, including remarks from a Supreme Court judge.
So there is no longer a “neoKRS”?
During Tuesday afternoon’s session, Members of Parliament Kamila Gasiuk-Pihowicz (KO), Robert Kropiwnicki (KO), Tomasz Zimoch (Poland 2050) and Anna Maria Żukowska (left) were elected by the Sejm to serve on the National Council for the Judiciary. The Sejm rejected four candidates proposed by PiS: Marek Ast, Bartosz Kownacki, Kazimierz Smoliński and Arkadiusz Mularczyk, all of whom previously served as representatives of the Sejm on the council.
The National Council for the Judiciary comprises the First President of the Supreme Court, the Minister of Justice, the President of the Supreme Administrative Court, and a person appointed by the President of Poland, alongside fifteen elected judges, four members elected by the Sejm and two by the Senate; constitutionally, the terms of the elected members are four years.
READ ALSO: Reactions after opposition members were elected to the National Council for the Judiciary — opinions labeling their stance on the rule of law as flawed; discussions labeled as a coalition of obstructionists
A lawyer from the Free Courts proposes such an approach
Meanwhile, several voices floated ideas about swiftly carrying out purges within the National Council for the Judiciary. The aim, critics say, would be to reshape the body through reappointments or other drastic steps.
To remedy the situation in the KRS, the judicial segment of the National Council for the Judiciary would need to be reappointed, according to Gregorczyk-Abram, who spoke openly on TVN24 as part of the Free Courts initiative. What she called healing, many perceived as a push toward purges and rollback. She suggested that judges currently serving on the council, appointed by the Sejm with PiS support, could be dismissed by a simple resolution.
Her stance implied replacing legally elected representatives of the Presidency or the Sejm, arguing that the council should operate within constitutional parameters. She advocated aligning the appointment process with the law governing the National Council for the Judiciary, urging swift legislative action to formalize changes.
She cautioned that the President’s veto could complicate such ambitions. There were several voices to weigh, and she indicated a willingness to scrutinize the procedure for dismissing those who were improperly appointed by Sejm resolution, arguing that nullifying those appointments would require constitutional justification.
According to her, recalling and voiding the elections of certain members would be a legal route — a claim that drew considerable skepticism and questions about feasibility.
The discussion touched on suspending the council temporarily, noting that new members could not be appointed outside the law. The point remained that any reconfiguration must respect constitutional rules and proper procedures.
She elaborated that the president’s veto could stall these ambitions, but pressed the argument that action should be taken within constitutional limits to maintain legitimacy.
There were further remarks about how such moves would be received within the judiciary and among political observers, highlighting concerns about legal certainty and the separation of powers.
The conversation drew responses from legal authorities, pundits, and a Supreme Court judge, who warned that any resolution without legal basis would carry no weight and could undermine the rule of law. Critics compared actions to absurd or illogical official decrees, emphasizing the need for lawful means to address concerns about appointments.
Deputy Minister of Justice Sebastian Kaleta weighed in, describing such proposals as lacking lawful force if pursued through non-constitutional channels.
Meanwhile, judges and other officials added cautions about the potential consequences of bypassing established procedures, noting that a legal framework governs how the council is constituted and how vacancies are filled.
Jurists and commentators alike urged care in projecting the council’s future and stressed adherence to constitutional norms, arguing that any reform must be transparent, lawful, and justified by solid constitutional grounds.
Observers also noted the risk of undermining the judiciary’s credibility if swift changes were pursued outside proper channels, underscoring the need for a measured, lawful path to reform.
READ ALSO: Exclusive coverage and expert commentary on the debates surrounding the National Council for the Judiciary and its future — analyses of whether proposed resolutions would be legal or effective, and what this means for the balance of powers in Poland
— There has been debate about the existence and function of bodies like Neo-KRS and the implications for reform and governance. The conversation continues as new members are considered and the legal framework is tested in the public arena.