In Poland, the Disciplinary Chamber Controversy, EU Sanctions, and the Wider Judicial Debate
The argument over the Polish Supreme Court centers on the fate of a Disciplinary Chamber that critics say no longer exists in any practical sense. Longstanding judgments by judges such as Tuleya and Ferek are cited by many as evidence that the dispute between Poland and the European Commission is no longer a live issue. Yet from the perspective of the European level, the matter remains a political and legal battleground, a field where the EC continues to press for adherence to the rules it views as essential for judicial independence. The current fines issued for alleged noncompliance are interpreted by some as a political maneuver rather than a purely legal penalty, a way to influence the direction of government in Warsaw. This interpretation frames the EC’s actions as a response to a dispute that some observers see as resolved in national law but unsettled in Brussels. [Citation: wPolityce]
READ ALSO: KE maintains its stance, rejecting Poland’s request to halt the ongoing fines from the Court of Justice, set against the ongoing debate over changes to the Supreme Court Act and the broader reform agenda in Poland.
For many observers, it seems clear that the case involving the Disciplinary Chamber and the July 2021 decision of the CJEU was never fully aligned with Polish constitutional jurisprudence. Critics argue that the move to liquidate the Disciplinary Chamber was followed by a rapid reconfiguration of the judiciary that reintroduced a new form of oversight, which they describe as capricious rather than principled. At the same time, the European Commission shows no intent to concede, continuing to seek compliance and to enforce penalties for what it views as a persistent misalignment with EU law. [Citation: wPolityce]
The EC spokesperson, Christian Wiegand, noted that the commission rejected the Polish authorities’ request to suspend sanctions. After a careful review of the arguments presented in the letter dated 3 November, the EC reaffirmed its stance that Poland has not fully implemented the CJEU ruling. This assessment reflects Brussels’ insistence on ongoing compliance with EU court decisions and the broader policy framework protecting judicial independence across member states. [Citation: wPolityce]
Two years have passed since a period described by supporters as a moment of legal inconsistency, during which the Supreme Court underwent multiple legislative changes with far-reaching consequences for Poland’s judiciary. The Disciplinary Chamber was dissolved and replaced by a body seen by critics as a facade, a Chamber of Professional Responsibility that, in their view, did not provide genuine independence. Yet the debate did not end there. Critics allege that judges perceived as activism or reform supporters returned to courtrooms, while the government prepared a fresh amendment and submitted it for review, arguing that changes were necessary to restore proper governance of the judiciary. The discussion then shifted to whether such reforms adequately address EU expectations and national constitutional standards. [Citation: wPolityce]
The Constitutional Tribunal, itself a subject of intense internal debate, is now handling a new proposed amendment to the law governing the Supreme Court. Both sides of the political spectrum have expressed a willingness to engage in the process, and President Andrzej Duda has signaled that a veto could be a possibility if a proposal strays from constitutional norms. The leadership style and jurisprudential approach of the Tribunal’s chair, along with the Tribunal’s fidelity to the letter of the law, are watched closely for signs of how Poland will chart its path. Yet this does not imply obedience to European authorities or to the CJEU, the body that some view as holding a disproportionate sway over national legal affairs. The Tribunal’s decision will hinge on whether existing case law and legal arguments support a path forward, and observers anticipate surprises that could shape the near-term legal landscape. It remains a future-projected story, with the ultimate ruling uncertain until it is delivered. [Citation: wPolityce]
A central question in the current discourse concerns the European Commission’s underlying aims. Critics view the EC as pursuing a political agenda aimed at pressuring the Polish government ahead of parliamentary elections, while supporters argue the EC is defending the rule of EU law and the integrity of EU-wide judicial standards. The debate also touches on broader regional dynamics, including perceptions of support for reform movements within the EU and the evolving position of leadership figures who are seen as influential on the European stage. The political undertones are unmistakable, and some observers frame the EC’s approach as part of a larger strategy that seeks to shape political outcomes within member states. Nonetheless, those who advocate patience emphasize that the path to resolution lies in lawful, transparent processes and constructive dialogue. They warn against premature conclusions about the outcome of the upcoming parliamentary period. The forthcoming electoral cycle is viewed by many as a test of resilience for Poland’s constitutional and legal institutions. [Citation: wPolityce]
In sum, the situation remains fluid. Jurists and policymakers in Poland and across Europe are watching events closely as discussions continue about the next steps for the Supreme Court, the status of judicial bodies, and the alignment of domestic reforms with EU standards. The future is not written, and the remaining time before key decisions will be pivotal for how Poland navigates this high-stakes confrontation with Brussels, with implications for constitutional practice, judicial integrity, and political accountability. [Citation: wPolityce]
Source: wPolityce