Judicial Ruling and Ministry Response in Poland: Legal Contention Over Barski Case

The dispute centers on a ruling issued by a judge from Poland’s Constitutional Court and the subsequent reaction from the Ministry of Justice, focusing on questions of legality and institutional authority. A ministry press release describes the security order issued on January 15, 2024 by Judge Krystyna Pawłowicz as non-existent, a term presented as sententia non existens. The description addresses the position of the National Prosecutor, Dariusz Barski, and the ministry’s view on the ruling that involves him.

Recent reporting on the wPolityce portal noted that the Constitutional Court issued a temporary decision related to what the ministry characterizes as improper actions by Adam Bodnar, who is seen as attempting to remove Barski from the role of National Prosecutor. The tribunal’s interim decision reportedly bars the Ministry of Justice from taking further steps until the constitutional review is complete. The report highlights a pause in administrative actions while the constitutional review unfolds.

READ ALSO: OUR NEWS. The Constitutional Court has issued an interim ruling concerning the Public Prosecution Service. This development is described as a halt to Bodnar’s actions against the Prosecutor General’s office.

Bodnar’s stance toward the Constitutional Court’s decision

The Ministry of Justice issued a statement in which the ministry head, together with the Attorney General, regards the court’s interim decision as non-existent. The official text reiterates the claim that the January 15 decision by Judge Pawłowicz was used in violation of applicable laws and procedures.

The ministry notes that the decision referred to Article 47 of the January 28, 2016 law that established the Public Prosecution Service. The citation is tied to the act as published in official government records. Supporters of the ministry argue that the ruling, in its current form, does not fit within the statutory framework and was issued without referencing the remedies required by law.

Clarifications from the ministry are provided in its public profile and in a separate official message accompanying this assertion.

The ministry also published a link to the full text of the message as part of its communications materials, though the main article here avoids repeating direct links and instead relies on attribution to official channels.

Allegations of legal violation

The ministry states that the January 15 decision by the Constitutional Tribunal concerns a provision of the January 28, 2016 law establishing the framework for the Public Prosecution Service and relates to Dariusz Barski, a prosecutor referenced in the proceedings. The ministry argues that the decision was made in clear violation of the law and cites constitutional provisions as the basis for its concerns. The official notes point to several constitutional and statutory articles as grounds for declaring the interim decision non-existent and outside the court’s proper powers.

According to the ministry, the interim ruling appears to affect individuals who were not participants in the constitutional proceedings. The announcement implies that the decision lacks the character of a valid legal act and, as such, would not create binding legal effects under the current constitutional framework. The ministry emphasizes that the contested order should not be treated as legally operative in its present form.

As the official statement continues, the ministry asserts that the interim decision cannot stand as a valid legal act and that it should be regarded as non-existent. The ministry adds that Bodnar views the decision as justified on grounds including perceived violations of impartiality and the principles of judicial independence.

The public briefing closes with a reminder that the interim decision remains a contested measure and that its legal status is explicitly challenged by the Ministry of Justice. The agency frames the issue as one of constitutional legality and respect for the rule of law.

Additional remarks from the ministry describe ultra vires concerns. The text argues that powers were exceeded and that the action was not sanctioned by proper legal channels. The overall tone underscores a dispute over the scope of authority and the proper method for contesting or implementing provisional rulings.

The ministry’s position ends with a reiteration of the central claim: the interim decision should be treated as non-existent until the constitutional procedure clarifies its status. The discussion indicates ongoing disagreement between the ministry and Bodnar over how to interpret the tribunal’s interim measure and how to proceed with the Barski case.

Further commentary from the ministry notes Bodnar’s assertion that the decision rests on concerns about political neutrality, impartiality, and judicial independence—issues raised in the context of the constitutional review. The overall narrative suggests a clash between competing interpretations of the law and the powers of the constitutional tribunal in this particular case.

Acknowledgments of the procedural context emphasize that no single judge, especially one serving as a member within the panel, can unilaterally redefine the parameters of constitutional procedure. The public statements frame the dispute as a vital test of governance and legal accountability within the Polish system.

According to the ministry, the situation is governed by established legal norms and the constitutional framework, and the interim orders within the court process should be interpreted in light of those norms. The ministry’s communications reflect its ongoing effort to present its perspective to the public and to formalize its stance through official channels.

Source attribution is provided by the cited reporting and official ministry communications, with the material consolidating the ministry’s assessment of the ruling and its implications for Barski and the broader Public Prosecution Service.

Source: wPolityce (attribution)