Is it acceptable to insult guests as a greeting? Some viewers of TVN24 have suggested that sharp remarks can slip into the on‑air welcome. In a Fakty po Faktach segment, host Katarzyna Kolenda-Zaleska greeted jury member Zbigniew Kapiński in a way that drew noticeable comment for its provocative tone.
During a televised discussion, Judge Kapiński explained whether Dariusz Barski currently holds a post within the Public Prosecutor’s Office. On September 27 the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, comprised of judges appointed to the Supreme Court after 2017, ruled that Barski’s 2022 appointment as National Prosecutor was legally valid. In the court’s justification, Kapiński argued that January had seen an instrumental use of the law when Barski was removed from leading the PK.
Based on the Supreme Court’s resolution, Prosecutor Barski was reinstated under applicable regulations. The provisions cited come from the Public Prosecution Service Act and were in force on the reinstatement date, meaning Barski remains National Prosecutor, as Kapiński stated.
— Kapiński replied.
Who is bound by the Supreme Court resolution?
The judge was asked whether the Supreme Court’s ruling binds only the court in Gdańsk or all courts in Poland. Under Article 441 paragraph 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the decision is binding on the referring court, Kapiński explained.
Asked whether it binds other courts, he said that while the ruling is not directly binding beyond the referring court, Supreme Court decisions are studied and respected by institutions and courts citing them to justify their rulings, drawing on the Court’s authority if they agree, he noted.
In practice, other judges and prosecutors will make specific procedural decisions in individual cases. Whether they will respect the resolution will depend on them and their procedural stance, he added.
Kapiński: Bodnar’s position is completely unjustified
Judge Kapiński also addressed the issue of the neo‑judge designation that applied to him and two other judges who joined the Supreme Court after changes to the National Council for the Judiciary in 2017. The 15‑member panel was appointed by the Sejm rather than by the judicial community, a point often debated by authorities and lawyers. Some question whether such a nomination sustains legitimacy, but Kapiński stressed that the neo‑judge status does not make a ruling a decision of the Supreme Court or bind the Court in the same way.
Attorney General Adam Bodnar, citing the September 27 Supreme Court resolution, stated that the Neo‑Supreme Court judges defend their own positions and that the three neo‑judges’ stance is not a decision of the Supreme Court and is not binding.
Bodnar has no intention of respecting the resolution, while Dariusz Korneluk, identified in the media as the National Prosecutor, speaks as if he holds that role. He refers to something called a prime minister’s decree, which, in practice, has no bearing on the constitutional order this time around.
Everyone is responsible for their words. Bodnar too. And it should be clear that the position Bodnar describes is not supported by European jurisprudence or by the national constitution, Kapiński asserted.
— Kapiński added.
What about the rulings of European courts?
The judge was also asked about European Court of Human Rights judgments that argued the neo‑KRS appointments did not meet standards of independence and impartiality. Kapiński noted that while those judgments are influential, they have not automatically altered Polish law.
What do these judgments mean for Poland? They influence the Polish legal order, but changes to law require action by the Polish Sejm, the Senate, and the President. In other words, European judgments do not instantly rewrite national provisions, he explained.
— he said.
He added that some European rulings have not been enforced since 2006, citing Alicja Tysiąc as an example. Based on such rulings, it does not necessarily follow that judges appointed after 2018 are not judges, he argued.
— Judge Kapiński added.
He was also asked about the 2020 resolution of the three Supreme Court chambers on the neo‑judges. The chambers found that the court had been wrongly staffed when a person was appointed by the then National Council for the Judiciary, and they asserted that improper appointment could affect independence and impartiality in ordinary courts. The June 2022 law had already taken effect, and the next question is whether Supreme Court judges themselves will adhere to this solution, Kapiński recalled, pointing to reservations about ordinary court judges.
The impact on any particular decision must be assessed on a case‑by‑case basis, he added.
The judge also noted that in 2007–2017, six Constitutional Court rulings questioned the procedure for appointing judges to the National Council for the Judiciary and their opinions. Why this issue is not more widely discussed, he queried, adding his own critique of the process.
How the journalist introduced the judge
It is fair to say that Kapiński demonstrated courage by giving a television interview that did not flatter him, while still showing respect for Poles with varying political views. He characterized his appearance as a sign of respect for the audience and the court he represents.
The host’s tone toward the guest drew criticism for perceived imbalance, which the judge described as inappropriate. He reminded the studio that he speaks on behalf of the Supreme Court and that it is proper to address him as a sitting judge rather than simply as a former appellate judge.
– Kapiński noted that greeting the guest with a different title was unnecessary and inappropriate, a point he underscored in the exchange.
– Kolenda‑Zaleska replied, defending her framing of the question and the introduction to the interview, arguing that the description was not intended to demean the judge.
Chairman of the National Council for the Judiciary: The president must explain the obvious
The chair of the National Council for the Judiciary weighed in on the exchange, emphasizing that the journalist’s conduct and the broader questions around the legitimacy of appointments deserve clear explanation from the highest office. He commented that European judgments may require constitutional changes, but that does not automatically place ordinary judges in doubt or erase established law. He urged a measured approach that respects both national sovereignty and European human rights norms.
The dialogue highlighted tensions surrounding media coverage of judicial affairs and the responsibilities of public institutions to articulate complex legal issues clearly. Critics argued that media framing can influence public perception of the judiciary, while supporters urged respectful discourse that recognizes the legitimacy of diverse perspectives.
The episode underscored the ongoing debate about how Poland’s courts relate to European jurisprudence, the authority of the Supreme Court, and the role of the National Council for the Judiciary in appointing judges. It remains a live issue in Polish legal and political life, with implications for how cases are argued, decisions are cited, and the public understands the functioning of the judiciary.