Judicial Council Letter Addresses Suspicions About Kraków District Court Actions
An open letter from the Chairman of the National Council for the Judiciary addresses concerns raised after widespread suspensions within the Kraków District. The letter reacts to a ministry announcement that described recent steps as dismissals of leadership at the Kraków District Court and clarifies the Council’s stance on the situation and the motivations behind it. The National Council for the Judiciary published the full text on its X profile, providing context to the events and the statements involved.
Judges of Poland, the letter begins, urging readers to consider the Ministry of Justice’s March 4, 2024 announcement with careful attention to the facts presented. The notice framed actions against the court’s leadership as a continuation of prior measures, citing changes implemented by the previous Justice Minister who removed the Kraków District Court President, two vice-presidents, and three district court presidents. It claimed the replacements were chosen through a process that emphasized loyalty to political factors over substantive criteria, and it criticized the perceived emphasis on sensational career histories of the suspended judges as evidence of political influence at play. The Council notes that the announcement also referenced 2018 and late 2021 assessments concerning the Council’s own activities.
Among those suspended were long-serving judges with more than three decades in the judiciary, as well as others with shorter tenures who had not pursued promotion. The suspensions affected leaders in smaller districts facing personnel and organizational challenges, as well as graduates of the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution. Some judges had attained district court appointments after more than twenty years of service, and several had recently joined the district court leadership after 2017 with the Council’s involvement in their careers. The majority of those suspended showed support for colleagues who sought seats on the National Council for the Judiciary, though a few did not share that alignment. In several cases, work in courts where presidents had retired and where veteran judges were scarce also played a role in the suspensions.
The letter notes that support for candidates in the National Council appears to have been a prevailing, though inconsistently applied, criterion in the suspensions. Yet the document asserts a deeper motive behind the actions: a move to destabilize the Kraków District Court’s administration in response to resistance to a reform agenda that some judges openly opposed. The ministry’s stated aim, according to the chairman, was to secure a favorable opinion from the Council on the removal of the district court president in Kraków.
The document frames the situation as a partisan push rather than a purely administrative adjustment. It emphasizes the position held by the Kraków District Court during the chairmanship, stating that the judges trusted to lead the court were competent, conscientious, and not swayed by external pressure. They are described as dedicated professionals who earned respect through their steady stewardship and collegial conduct. The current leadership of the Kraków District Court is likewise described as possessing deep knowledge, empathy, and commitment, with a record of service that underscores their value to the judiciary and the communities they serve. The author argues that the ministry’s actions appear driven by a desire to placate a faction urging retaliation and personal retribution against those who oppose proposed reforms.
The letter invites judges to evaluate the ministry’s recent actions from the perspective of those suspended presidents and their collective disagreement with what they viewed as unethical conduct by some colleagues. It is noted that even the Deputy Minister of Justice was involved in decisions to suspend members of the district court leadership in certain instances. The author asks readers to consider whether the debate over court powers or reform proposals should obscure the core issue of due process and fair administrative action.
Polite but firm, the author acknowledges that opinions on the functioning of the judiciary may differ. Some may favor reforms or changes in how court powers are distributed, yet the text calls for reflection on the public, spoken criticisms understood as attempts to humiliate colleagues who opposed those in power. The message to judges is clear: assess the recent events with attention to the principle of proportionality, and resist language that implies collective guilt or public shaming of individual judges for political reasons.
The closing portion of the letter references Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woicka by title as a signatory and notes the broader context in which the statements were made. The document ends with a reference to the social media post where the full message appeared and a formal attribution to a public source for readers seeking additional detail. The substance remains a call for fairness, accountability, and respect for judicial independence in the face of political pressure.
[citation: wPolityce]