Judicial Reform Debates and the Challenge of Independence in Poland

No time to read?
Get a summary

The opposition majority has become bolder as it is backed by parts of the judiciary that critics call a caste, and by supporters who openly urge lawbreaking and the dissolution of constitutional bodies. A special body called the Committee for the Defense of Justice organized a protest in front of the National Council of the Judiciary and demanded the end of a sitting term. The move drew widespread criticism as clearly illegal and a direct challenge to the rule of law.

READ ALSO: WE DENY. A leak has surfaced describing what is alleged to be instructions from a group labeled as a caste for judges. An email from an activist connected to Iustitia is said to reveal a pattern that many see as a breach of judicial independence.

Any credible path toward rebuilding the state must start with sturdy institutions, and the judiciary stands at the core of that framework via the National Council for the Judiciary. A goal is clear: create a Council that Poles can trust, one capable of reforming the courts while remaining truly independent of political influence. A bill has been prepared with the aim of establishing such a National Council for the Judiciary, and there is a call for the President to review, adopt, and sign this law promptly to advance reform. The message came from the press spokesperson of the judges’ association Iustitia, Judge Bartłomiej Przymusiński.

Critics note that the project was developed with a strong political tilt, pointing to involvement from members of the Civic Platform, including Borys Budka. Some judges argued that the vision of the judicial caste and their allies in the Civic Coalition lacks substance and dignity, highlighting what they described as absurdities in the draft created for the parliamentary majority and calling for a more judicially centric approach.

One element discussed publicly concerns Article 11 section 7 lit. c) introduced by the group @JudgesSsp. The debate centers on eligibility for membership in the @KRS_RP, with a suggestion that candidates should not be involved in public prosecutions for crimes. This topic has sparked a broader conversation about the development of jurisprudence on a global scale and whether tailored rules benefit a specific faction or align with broader judicial integrity. This discussion was raised by Judge Łukasz Piebiak and others in the field.

– The concerns were echoed by several judges who urged caution and scrutiny.

They are afraid of new judges

Responding to the ongoing dynamics, the president of Iustitia, Judge Krystian Markiewicz, argued that a steady stream of new appointees in the judiciary is reshaping the landscape and potentially triggering more proceedings before European tribunals. He suggested that the Sejm should consider declaring the current form of the National Council for the Judiciary unconstitutional and, by doing so, terminate its activities. The perspective here is that reform must begin with a clear legal framework that can withstand judicial review and protect the rights of those who rely on the courts.

From his vantage point, the urgency is evident because announcements for judicial positions continue to flood the inbox weekly. He asserted that the first session of the Sejm should be the opportune moment to set this reform in motion, stressing speed but also the necessity for thoughtful design. Critics, however, question whether all vacancies have been realistically accounted for and argue that the judiciary and the parties involved bear the burdens of lengthy trials that hamper justice for ordinary people.

Markiewicz also argued that the Sejm should push forward with a broader reform of the National Council for the Judiciary. He indicated that a new law should be enacted, and the coalition should view the prepared project as a solid starting point for a swift legislative process with the president’s cooperation in mind.

Observers note that the current posture from the leadership of Iustitia includes calls for cooperation with the office of the president. Dissent exists, though, as some senior figures have questioned the constitutional prerogatives of the head of state while others warned of potential criminal consequences for actions tied to judicial reform. The tone of the demonstrations in front of the National Council of the Judiciary underscores a feeling among a segment of judges that drastic measures may be deemed necessary by their colleagues to safeguard what they believe is the integrity of the judiciary.

The events around the Committee for the Defense of Justice signal a moment of tension in the judiciary, one that some describe as urgent and risky. The broader political field, including potential future coalitions, contains factions that have expressed strong support for reforms that align with positions associated with the so-called Iustitia project. For many observers, this underscores a persistent divide within the judicial community about how best to balance independence, accountability, and efficiency. As debates continue, the hope remains that any reform will strengthen the judiciary without compromising its independence or undermining public confidence. The situation remains dynamic, with developments likely to influence both policy and practice in the coming weeks and months. [Citation: wPolityce]

No time to read?
Get a summary
Previous Article

Exeed Plans Five New Electric Models for Russia in 2025

Next Article

Israel-Hamas Conflict: Key Developments and Regional Implications