Poland and the European Commission: the path to the Supreme Court amendment and KPO funding
A recent Social Changes survey reported by the wPolityce.pl portal highlights a mix of expectations and skepticism among Poles regarding the European Commission’s next steps after Poland moves forward with the Supreme Court law amendment. Among respondents, 43 percent are unsure about what the EC will decide, while 37 percent expect the Commission to demand additional milestones tied to the settlement, and 20 percent believe money from the National Recovery Plan, known as KPO, could be unlocked. Stanisław Karczewski, a PiS Senator and former Marshal of the Senate, commented to wPolityce.pl that he would align with the 37 percent who anticipate further prerequisites from Brussels, even in light of specific agreements with the EC.
Karczewski continues to express reservations about the EC’s sincerity, yet he maintains that Poland should honor the arrangement and proceed with the amendment to the Supreme Court law. He notes that this step is a crucial milestone for the judiciary and suggests that failing to complete it would leave the country responsible for missing out on funds. He indicates that his Senate group will vote in favor, stressing that while trust in the EC is partial due to past disappointments, the party platform still supports the agreed path.
In his view, the milestone for judicial reform is essential. He states that if the amendment is not passed, the opportunity to access funds from the EC-funded package could be compromised, and the country would bear the blame for not pursuing the agreed terms. The senator remarked that he and his colleagues would support the amendment in the Senate, even as he admits faith in the European Commission has been shaken by prior experiences where promises were not fully kept.
He is quoted as saying, “I hope this law is passed.” He elaborates that even if the Senate makes changes, the Sejm may ultimately reject them, and the president’s decision on the bill remains an open question at the moment.
The senator reiterates that the KPO funds hold significant importance. As a medical professional, he notes that between 20 and 30 billion PLN could be allocated to healthcare from KPO, a sum he views as vital for the restructuring and modernization of hospitals. This stake in healthcare investment underscores the broader rationale for moving ahead with the reform and ensuring that the associated funds are not left on the table.
When asked why amend the Supreme Court law if it may not unlock KPO funds as Solidarna Polska politicians emphasize, he responds with tempered realism. The outcome about unlocking funds depends on the EC, and at this stage neither coalition partners nor others can claim certainty. The ultimate decision remains in Brussels, and the path forward will hinge on how the EC interprets the changes and the commitments already made.
Readers may consider a range of perspectives on the matter, including analyses that question whether the EC could misrepresent Poland’s position on KPO again. A broader discourse is available that examines how Poles view the situation and how it compares with the views of political elites. This conversation continues to unfold as policymakers, healthcare professionals, and citizens watch closely what unfolds in both the Senate and the Sejm in the coming weeks.
Further reading: insights into how the EC’s stance on KPO has been interpreted by observers, and what it might mean for Poland’s health system financing. Additional commentary from experts discusses what lawmakers in Poland hope to achieve with the amendments and how the proposed changes might influence future negotiations with Brussels. These perspectives contribute to a broader understanding of the ongoing dialogue surrounding KPO and judicial reform in Poland.