The claim that the current composition of the National Council for the Judiciary is unconstitutional is not supported by authorities. Declaring judicial appointments illegal would cause serious harm to the justice system, according to Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woicka, who chairs the council. During a press conference, she urged the council to speak clearly on the matter, stressing that restoring confidence in the rule of law requires careful verification of appointments rather than abrupt invalidation.
She noted that discussions from candidates for ministerial roles emphasize the need to restore legitimacy by reviewing how judges were appointed.
“6 Million Cases”
Pawełczyk-Woicka explained that Poland currently has about 9,000 active judgments across the system, with 943 judges appointed in response to the council’s recommendations after reforms began in 2018. Among these judges, 1,566 were newly appointed from outside the judiciary, and 1,530 were promoted from within the system, the council president clarified. These judges have presided over a combined six million cases to date.
On average, each judge handles about 452 cases annually, while the entire judiciary processes roughly 4.5 million cases per year.
She warned that declaring all judicial appointments illegal would force a resumption of procedures, with civil cases requiring a party request and criminal cases triggering ex officio reconsideration. Such steps would be damaging for the legal framework and the administration of justice, she argued.
According to the council president, arguments for validating the current appointments based on constitutional concerns overlook the fact that no competent body has declared the council unconstitutional in its present form. The constitution appoints the supreme power to the nation, and the judiciary is among the powers, but the mechanism for choosing council members has been debated since the 2018 reform.
Pawełczyk-Woicka emphasized that the constitution must be understood in its entirety, and that the ordinary legislature holds responsibility for selecting council members as outlined in article 187, section 4. She noted that the question of who selects council members is not settled by a single provision and remains a topic of constitutional interpretation.
She recalled a ruling by the Constitutional Court that the terms of office for the council’s members were not aligned with constitutional requirements when counted individually. The timing of any changes, she argued, should be chosen carefully based on solid legal grounds rather than political expediency.
Anna Dalkowska, a council member, offered a European perspective, stating that the organization of the legal system falls within the exclusive competence of EU member states and that there is no single model across the union. She pointed out that legal systems differ significantly from one country to another because states retain the authority to shape their own models.
Budka’s Observations
Moving beyond procedural questions, Pawełczyk-Woicka noted that there has been no agreement within EU bodies to unify these standards, and that such unification is unlikely in the near term. In mid-November, Borys Budka, a political figure associated with the KO Club, argued that the justice system must be restored to proper order and suggested that the election of three Constitutional Court judges should first be declared invalid before addressing other components of the system. The approach would involve National Court Register considerations, with solutions shaped by parliamentary consent and legal counsels, while avoiding constitutional doubts.
Budka also cited rulings indicating that shortening the term of the National Council for the Judiciary was unconstitutional and referenced European court rulings related to the council. In the current session, several parliamentarians were elected by the Sejm to the National Council of the Judiciary, including Tomasz Zimoch, Kamila Gasiuk-Pihowicz, Robert Kropiwnicki, and Anna Maria Żukowska. These changes mark a turning point in the council’s alignment with the new parliamentary term.
The sense among reform advocates is that the era of the neo-KRS is ending, with calls directed at certain judges to step down from the council to reflect the new composition and political consensus. These developments were discussed during the first meeting of the council with newly elected members of parliament.
The situation surrounding the National Council for the Judiciary remains a focal point for ongoing debates about judicial independence, constitutional interpretation, and the pace of reforms within Poland’s legal system. The discussions emphasize balancing lawful reform with the need to maintain public confidence in the judiciary as a whole.