Representatives of the highly politicized association Iustitia are leveraging the Poland–European Commission dispute over the Ukrainian agricultural import ban to push their agenda. Following Jarosław Kaczyński’s decision on Ukrainian grain, judges issued a fresh communication to the European Commission, this time accusing Poland of rule‑of‑law failures in the operation of the National Judicial Council, commonly known as neo‑KRS. What lies behind this move?
READ ALSO: Kasta and its allies again press Brussels for political sanctions against Poland. Now they appeal to the Constitutional Court
The judges’ appeal to the European Commission lands amid a renewed strain in Polish–EU relations. The matter is not easily defined. The Iustitia letter carries a date of April 16. On that same day, the European Commission publicly objected to Jarosław Kaczyński’s pledge to seal the border to Ukrainian agricultural products.
The group calls on the European Commission to promptly initiate an infringement procedure under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, addressing the functioning of the National Judicial Council, the so‑called neo‑KRS.
– this is stated in the document published by Iustitia.
The aim is to reestablish the rule of law in Poland and to safeguard the right of citizens in Poland and other Member States to have an independent judiciary. In practice, the neo‑KRS has frequently appeared as an instrument aligned with the political authority that appointed its members. In recent years, amid an sustained campaign against judicial independence, it has not defended this crucial value. Instead, it has supported efforts that weaken judicial independence, notably through involvement in the controversial process for appointing judges, which has been tied to violations of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as reflected in judgments by the European Court of Human Rights in the Dolińska‑Ficek, Ozimek, and Advance Pharma cases.
– according to the evaluative statements from the group.
Perpetual crisis posture
To Iustitia, appeals, resolutions, and what it terms correspondence are the hallmarks of its activity. These filings frequently reach Brussels at politically fraught moments for Poland. The pattern emerged soon after the war in Ukraine began, when legal actions by the Polish government drew comparisons to Kremlin actions by members of the group. Iustitia has also used its denunciations during tense negotiations between the Polish government and EU institutions. One notable feature is that the judges within this association deny the authority of Poland’s legal institutions and the constitutional process itself. They acknowledge this stance in their most recent report.
None of the laws passed by the Polish Sejm has resolved the core issue of the neo‑KRS’s legitimacy or its participation in the appointment of judges. Instead, systemic problems in the political framework surrounding judicial appointments appear to persist. The broader erosion of the rule of law is evident as a politicized Constitutional Court is perceived as not fully aligned with the acquis communautaire. It is noted that roughly 3,000 judges have been appointed with involvement from the neo‑KRS, and some of its rulings may be challenged due to the contested appointment process.
– according to statements from Iustitia.
A prerequisite for restoring the rule of law in Poland is a reform of the National Judicial Council. The remedy cannot be limited to addressing only the symptoms of the crisis; underlying causes must be confronted. Delays in triggering infringement procedures by the European Commission are viewed as allowing the coexistence of illegitimately appointed judges and the weakening of judicial legitimacy across both Polish and EU institutions.
– notes Iustitia.
The group argues that Kasta will exploit every international and domestic crisis to undermine the Polish government’s actions. It positions this stance as a modern echo of older political resistances, drawing a line to historical confederations. The tone remains combative as it frames itself as defending constitutional order against what it sees as political capture of the judiciary.
Source context: a Polish media outlet is cited as the original reporting channel for these statements.