The National Council for the Judiciary has responded to remarks from the government led by Donald Tusk. It notes that Article 9 of the Law on the Promulgation of Normative Laws determines which acts appear in the Journal of Laws, and there is no provision for comments from anonymous users. A question arises whether the European Court of Human Rights will now influence the composition of the Constitutional Court, a concern echoed on the KRS profile on the X platform.
A response to the government’s move. Rulings of the Constitutional Court with an explanatory note
On a recent Monday afternoon, the Constitutional Court released its December 5 ruling concerning provisions of the Hunting Act. The decision was issued by a five-judge panel, chaired by Justyn Piskorski. Other members of the panel included Jarosław Wyrembak, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski, Mariusz Muszyński, and Bogdan Święczkowski. The head of the Standing Committee of the Council of Ministers announced that rulings issued by the Court in panels described as lacking full legal form would appear in the Journal of Laws with an explanatory note.
The constitution requires compliance with international law, and Poland remains bound by the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. These rulings have implications for the composition of the Constitutional Court, particularly when concerns are raised about the legitimacy and legality of panels that may not meet statutory requirements. An annotation in the published judgment notes that, according to certain ECtHR decisions, the Court must be composed of judges designated in accordance with the law, and any deviation could affect the legitimacy of the proceedings.
Maciej Berek, a government member and chair of the Standing Committee of the Council of Ministers, commented on X that the operative part of the judgment would bear an annotation reflecting these considerations.
In the publication, an annotation appears above the operative part of the judgment indicating that the Constitutional Court, in light of ECtHR rulings, operates in a manner consistent with established legal norms when a non-authorized person sits on the panel. This interpretation has sparked debate about the essential principles governing judicial selection and the right to lawful judicial review.
Deputy Minister of Justice Arkadiusz Myrcha indicated on his X profile that a special annotation will accompany each ruling parallel to concerns of double handling or double publication. This stance has been noted as part of the ongoing discussion over how rulings should be presented in the Journal of Laws.
SEE THE DETAILS: The government’s stance on doubles and the plan to publish rulings with explanatory notes has drawn public attention.
The National Council for the Judiciary responds to the exchange
The National Council for the Judiciary’s X profile continues to reference the publication in the Journal of Laws and the ministry’s positions. It reiterates that Article 9 of the Law on the Promulgation of Normative Laws governs which acts are subject to publication, and stresses that there is no space for anonymous commentary in this process.
The question remains whether the ECtHR’s influence will shape the future composition of the Constitutional Court, and whether the KRS profile will reflect those developments in its online discourse.
The discussion has spurred readers to consider how printed judgments should appear and whether annotations should accompany all rulings. This conversation is part of a larger debate over transparency, legal formality, and the balance between national procedures and international law.
READ ALSO: After the provocation from the Tusk government, debates arise about annotations in published judgments and potential missteps in Journal of Laws processes. The discourse continues as observers weigh the implications for judicial independence and administrative practice.
olnk/PAP/X/wPolityce.pl
Citation: wPolityce