President Andrzej Duda decided to submit an amendment to the law on the Supreme Court to the Constitutional Tribunal for preventive review. The move is described by legal expert Prof. Genowefa Grabowska as prudent. She notes that it does not shut Poland off from KPO funds, while also signaling potential concerns about how the law could be interpreted under the Polish Constitution. Grabowska adds that the president’s caution likely reflects his experience with the European Commission thus far. This interpretation comes from a close observer who spoke to the portal wPolityce.pl.
The European Commission’s conditions tied to Poland’s disbursement have likely influenced the president’s stance, making him wary of conceding more without reciprocal goodwill. According to the same interlocutor, Poland has met the vast majority of the EC’s requirements for KPO funds, yet the bloc has withheld the full amount and shown little momentum to unblock payments. The question remains why the Commission has held back despite apparent compliance.
Prof. Grabowska analyzes the amendment from a constitutional lens. Legally, any draft legislation that passes through parliament must align with the constitution. The current issue is whether the proposed changes to the Supreme Court Act respect the president’s constitutional prerogatives and whether certain provisions could be used by some judges to challenge the president’s authority. There are voices from the Iustitia association that suggest this could lead to a reorganization of the judiciary, which Grabowska warns could derail judicial work if misapplied.
In submitting the law for review, the president aims to obtain the Constitutional Tribunal’s assessment on constitutional conformity and to gauge how the court would interpret the new provisions. Even when the text does not overtly contradict the constitution, its interpretation will matter greatly. The tribunal would need to resolve questions such as the scope of presidential prerogatives, the boundary between the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court, the status of judges, and how disciplinary responsibility is modeled.
Grabowska stresses that the new law must not disrupt Poland’s existing legal order. She notes that the president has repeatedly emphasized the goal of preserving constitutional order and avoiding political interference or questions about the judges appointed on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council. Any move that weakens the independence of constitutional bodies, or that attempts to dismantle the National Judicial Council, could fuel legal chaos and erode the constitutional framework.
According to the expert, the average citizen may not be concerned with the internal dynamics among judges. A person entering a courtroom seeks a verdict, not a study of collegial relations or cooperative processes. The idea that any judge could evaluate a colleague’s competence or career path from the bench is not acceptable. The politicization of judiciary dynamics is a concern, and Grabowska points to instances where cooperative engagement among judges has been compromised.
Can the Supreme Administrative Court handle disciplinary cases against judges?
The analysis also raises a procedural question about transferring disciplinary case review from judges to the Supreme Administrative Court. The constitutional tribunal will need to determine whether this transfer falls within the Supreme Administrative Court’s constitutional competence. A careful comparison of constitutional provisions with current practice will be required, given that similar models exist in several European countries. The key question remains whether the administrative court should rule on matters that occur within the Supreme Court or in common jurisdiction. Grabowska notes that this solution is surprising rather than revelatory.
The lawyer hopes the Constitutional Tribunal will resolve the issue of amending the Supreme Court Act promptly, even amid public leaks about disagreements within the tribunal. The president has urged a swift consideration, signaling a possible ruling within a three-month timeframe and referencing expectations for initial KPO payments in June. The amendment is framed as essential to ensuring transparent, timely adjudication and maintaining secure procedures before an independent court.
Grabowska acknowledges that the Court should not be rushed, yet believes the tribunal can complete its task within a reasonable period. She suggests that all judges of the Constitutional Tribunal, led by President Julia Przyłębska, should present a unified stance on this highly sensitive issue. A coordinated approach would facilitate clear judicial directions aligned with the constitution and democratic norms.
Does the entry into force of the Supreme Court Act change the ongoing friction with the EC? Grabowska remains skeptical. The EU‑Polish dispute over KPO has grown for nearly a year, and she fears it may persist. She criticizes the EC for stepping into legislative matters and implying specific provisions of Polish law, a role she notes EU bodies should not typically assume. This illustrates broader tensions not only for Poland but for other EU nations facing similar procedural frictions.
If the Constitutional Tribunal were to declare the amendment unconstitutional, the law would be struck and the dispute would continue unresolved. Poland would confront a fresh round of litigation with the European Commission, which could respond by insisting that no such law exists. The potential fallout would extend beyond the judiciary reform debate and into ongoing disputes with Brussels.
A future update on this topic will likely focus on the Constitutional Tribunal’s response, and the broader implications for Poland’s governance of justice and its relations with the European Union. The conversation remains central to ensuring that Poland’s judicial system operates under a stable constitutional framework, with courts upholding independent, timely and fair proceedings. The discussions continue as stakeholders weigh constitutional principles against political considerations in a high-stakes environment.
Source: wPolityce