The Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg recently rejected the preliminary questions posed by the Chamber for Extraordinary Scrutiny and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court of Poland. This move has sparked debate about the chamber’s status and raised questions about the interpretation of its role within EU law. Some observers wonder whether the CJEU is casting doubt on the legality of elections in Poland since 2018.
READ ALSO: It is a matter of time before the CJEU will rule that independent Polish institutions must align with EU treaties and EU law.
The panel from the Chamber for Extraordinary Scrutiny and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court is not viewed by some as an independently established court, and that view influenced the CJEU’s assessment of whether the questions submitted for a preliminary ruling meet EU procedural criteria.
– this was stated on the court’s official reading on Thursday.
In Poland, judges who wish to stay in office after reaching retirement age must indicate their intent to continue serving to the National Council for the Judiciary (KRS). A judge at an ordinary court challenged the KRS’s resolution to suspend the authorization of continued judicial service. The KRS argued that the declaration was filed after the legal deadline. In light of this challenge, the Chamber for Extraordinary Scrutiny and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court sought EU guidance on the security and independence principles of judges enshrined in EU law.
– reminded the court of the circumstances surrounding the case.
Undermining status
The court’s ruling stated that the questions put forward by this chamber do not originate from an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, as required by EU law, and thus the questions were deemed inadmissible. The CJEU grounded its decision in a cited European Court of Human Rights judgment, noting concerns about the independence of two juries within the Chamber of Extraordinary Scrutiny. The ruling highlighted that the appointment process for these juries did not comply with fundamental national provisions regarding how judges are appointed.
Such steps, the CJEU argued, appear to overstep Luxembourg’s jurisdiction and interfere with the non-treaty organization of a member state’s judiciary.
Beyond that, the CJEU addressed extrajudicial commentary, stating that the changes to the National Council for the Judiciary in 2017 undermined its independence from the legislative and executive branches. This, it claimed, affected the council’s ability to nominate independent and impartial candidates for the Supreme Court. The tribunal noted that the chamber’s statute is set by national law and Polish constitutional jurisprudence.
Moreover, the judges in question were appointed by the President of Poland on the basis of a KRS resolution, whose validity had been challenged in parallel proceedings and suspended until a ruling on legality was issued. The Supreme Court later annulled the resolution. The various circumstances surrounding the appointment of the judges on the panel that raised the questions may raise legitimate doubts about the independence and impartiality of those judges and the confidence that the judiciary must inspire in a democratic society governed by the rule of law. Consequently, the chamber was not deemed to have the status of an independent and impartial tribunal established under law.
– ruled the CJEU.
The reasoning invoked here seems contentious for a number of reasons. The President’s appointment authority is embedded in the constitutional framework, and its legality has undergone review by various courts. If one follows the CJEU’s logic, it could call into question the validity of elections within Poland since 2018, based on which body has the final say on electoral outcomes. Other lines of Polish constitutional jurisprudence assert that the Polish Constitution holds supremacy over EU law in areas where conflicts arise. Critics view the CJEU’s stance as a political move rather than a purely legal one, arguing it signals a broader attack on national judicial arrangements.
In the end, the case highlights a continuing tension between European judicial oversight and national constitutional sovereignty, a friction that has implications for perceptions of legitimacy in both EU law and member-state governance.
End of discussion.
Note: The above discussion reflects ongoing commentary on EU member-state judicial structures and should be read as part of a broader debate about the balance of power between national courts and European institutions.