Judicial Independence and Timely Access to Justice in Poland

The core duty of a judge is to manage cases and deliver timely justice. Today, that duty faces criticism because the basic principle of judicial service seems threatened. Citizens may find it harder to have their cases heard within a reasonable timeframe, a concern raised by Judge Piotr Skrzyszowski, President of the National Association of Judges “Judges of the Republic of Poland” in Krakow, during an interview on the wPolityce.pl portal.

READ ALSO: OUR TOPIC. The topic notes ongoing tensions and reactions within Poland’s legal landscape, including discussions with political figures about the future of the judiciary and the timing of reforms.

wPolityce.pl asked whether the association supports the rule of law while criticising methods used by some politically active judges’ groups. Is there fear involved in taking a stand?

Judge Piotr Skrzyszowski, head of the association, answered that there is no fear. He stressed that civil courage is a fundamental trait for judges. It means speaking plainly about issues, choosing the right moment to speak, and standing by professional judgments. This is described as a core element of the judicial ethos. The judge noted that the profession calls for speaking out in line with conscience and knowledge, especially when the rule of law is at stake.

In a recent resolution, the association described what it called a campaign of hatred and fear-mongering, with similarities to mobbing. The question arose whether this referred to actions by the group Iustitia. Yes, the association is concerned about the broader circle of judges nominated after 2017. There are perceived attempts to intimidate them, creating a chilling effect and aiming to paralyze a large portion of the judiciary. Some proposals were viewed as a way to pacify the judiciary, including calls to re-verify reviewers. The discussion extended to the National Council of the Judiciary and the potential for disciplinary steps that could impact judges who previously held roles as assessors, now serving as district court judges, with possible changes to their offices.

Such ideas, the association warned, may lead to a wider paralysis. Could as many as 3,000 judges and evaluators be removed from their positions? The concern shifted from paralysis to inertia, with the judiciary facing a risk of drift and unresponsiveness if reforms are not carefully handled.

The Iustitia project was described as introducing rules that would create inertia and restructure the judiciary by promoting the removal of thousands of judges. The result could limit public access to justice, since judges who manage large caseloads could see delays. The argument was that new appointments would require delving into long case files, potentially causing significant postponements and triggering complaints at the European Court of Human Rights. This would, in turn, affect the functioning of the judiciary and the state itself.

There was speculation that political actors might aim to remove senior judges from the Supreme Court and reduce the terms of the National Council for the Judiciary, while leaving other parts untouched. The concern was that pressure would continue to hang over the judiciary, with the risk of selective verification used as a tool to serve particular aims.

Many of these views were described as more radical as the Iustitia project evolved. The proposal was said to apply not only to Supreme Court judges but also to general and administrative judges appointed in recent years, potentially affecting a broad group of serving judges.

Is calling for an end to an independent judiciary or publicly revealing the status of judges a crime? The discussion touched on legal boundaries, including provisions against overstepping powers. Such calls were viewed as unacceptable by the association, particularly when they could pressure judges to act in ways that compromise independence and impartiality. The core mission of a judge is to handle cases, and the overarching concern was the risk of undermining citizens’ timely access to justice.

The plain question remained: should judges continue to work without becoming entangled in political battles or personal vendettas? The answer, as given, was a firm commitment to duty. The aim is to perform the role assigned by society while maintaining integrity and independence.

In Krakow, the initiative began, yet support from judges in other cities has grown. They also face intimidation and pressure from politicized judges’ groups. This broad concern matters greatly because every judge must be able to work without fear. When pressure and verification requirements linger over a judge, it becomes harder to focus on a case and apply the law with conscience. The goal is for judgments to rest on the law, the judge’s understanding, and a fair assessment, not on external interference.

The most urgent priorities identified are clear: preventing a collapse in the judiciary and safeguarding the public’s right to a fair trial. The association seeks to protect the rights of judges who might be affected by proposed changes and to advocate for legal measures that ensure citizens can exercise their right to a court efficiently and effectively.

The discussion captured a commitment to the rule of law and the belief that judges should act with integrity, without letting politics derail judicial duties.

Note: the following summary reflects the position of the association as reported through the cited interview, focusing on the themes of judicial independence, timely access to justice, and safeguarding the integrity of the judiciary.