Poland’s National Council for the Judiciary has sparked heated debate as reform proposals draw warnings from the nation’s top court officials. Małgorzata Manowska, the first president of the Supreme Court, warned that the changes would destabilize the justice system. She described the aim of guaranteeing representativeness in the council by election method as a caricature of how judicial elections should be conducted for council members. Her stance frames a broader clash over how judges are selected and how the judiciary should be governed.
The December 2017 amendment to the Law on the National Council for the Judiciary introduced several shifts. It set a principle that fifteen judicial members of the council would be elected by the Sejm, whereas previously they were elected by the judicial community itself. Recent amendments under government consideration propose shifting the election of council judges to be carried out by judges directly and creating a Social Council to support the National Council in its duties. These proposals also specify that the terms of judges elected after 2017 would end with the official announcement of the changes.
Arkadiusz Myrchak, a deputy minister of justice, indicated that there are many signals the government would discuss the bill on the council within the week.
Breach of the National Court Register system
Manowska argued that the proposed changes would not only threaten the constitutional foundations of the judicial system but could also lead to a broader destabilization with negative consequences for those participating in legal proceedings. In her view, a particular provision that would bar judges holding specific roles (such as court president or vice president) from council membership should be treated as unconstitutional. She noted that this mirrors a previously applicable rule from the Law on the System of Common Courts, a provision struck down by the Constitutional Court in 2007.
Manowska’s assessment highlights that the amendment would conflict with the Constitution and established case law, which limit how judges can run for office or be appointed to the National Council after taking office as judges. The assessment traces back to a process established after the 2017 amendments to the National Court Register law.
Unconfirmed unconstitutionality
As of 2018, Manowska stressed, there has been no formal confirmation of the council’s unconstitutionality in Constitutional Court proceedings, despite ongoing debates about the judiciary’s status. She underscored that a judge’s irremovability is a constitutional principle that cannot be narrowed or challenged by law, warning that any effort to do so would undermine the core structure of the judicial system.
Manowska pointed to long-standing Constitutional Tribunal case law showing that flaws in the nomination process do not automatically void appointments themselves. Such general concerns about appointment processes have not translated into a blanket invalidation of existing judges. She stressed that similar cautions apply when considering European Union and Council of Europe perspectives, arguing that reliance on these external authorities should not mask solutions that would undermine democratic constitutional norms.
She reiterated that doubts about how the National Council for the Judiciary functions within a democratic state under the current constitution should not trigger the same effects, and she stressed the need to preserve judicial independence and impartiality regardless of political circumstances.
“Caricatural elections”
Manowska also raised constitutional concerns about proposals that would prevent judges with administrative duties in ministries from being members of the council, and about plans to create a Social Council within the National Council for the Judiciary. She criticized the project’s use of selective references to European Union and Council of Europe positions as a rhetorical cover for changes that may threaten democratic constitutional norms. She described the drive to ensure representativeness in the election of council members as a caricature of the idea that all judges should participate in selecting the National Council. In her view, authenticity of the election process must reflect broad participation by the judiciary, not a narrowed, controlled process.
The current National Council for the Judiciary comprises 25 members and functions as a hybrid body. Its composition includes members from the judicial community, four parliamentarians, two senators, the Minister of Justice, a representative of the president, the President of the Supreme Administrative Court, and the first President of the Supreme Court.
Source materials and related discussions circulated within public outlets have illuminated the ongoing debate about how best to balance representation, independence, and accountability within Poland’s system of judicial governance. The discourse continues to explore how reforms might affect the independence of judges and the stability of legal proceedings in a shifting political landscape.