A recently obtained document from the wPolityce.pl portal reveals sharp criticism of the National Council of the Judiciary by Adam Bodnar, who has taken on the role of Justice Minister. The document includes a formal inquiry from the Attorney General addressed to the Coordinators for International Cooperation in Criminal and Civil Matters, raising questions about the council’s status and its role in shaping Poland’s judicial landscape.
READ ALSO: The government under Tusk has faced questions about whether it has kept separate the responsibilities of the head of the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General. What has the European Commission advised in this area?
The December 8, 2017 law is identified as a turning point that politicized the process for selecting judges who become members of the National Council of the Judiciary. Critics argue this departure from constitutional norms undermines the council’s independence. The argument continues that such political involvement in appointments and promotions to higher courts weakens the safeguards designed to protect an impartial judiciary, a claim echoed by various international tribunals and domestic courts that have issued rulings on the matter.
According to Bodnar, the constitutional body itself is subjected to scrutiny, while the document also reflects his broader appreciation for constitutional design and, at times, foreign judicial bodies. The text suggests a stance where European Union legal primacy is highlighted in contrast to national constitutional interpretations, a point that has sparked ongoing debate in Poland about the hierarchy of laws and the place of EU law in the national legal order.
The minister’s message to colleagues and partners includes a warning to monitor constitutional rulings and the influence of foreign tribunals as the National Council for the Judiciary undergoes changes with new members. The discussion touches on the potential implications for Poland’s legal system as these shifts unfold across the judiciary and its oversight bodies.
Observers note that several early moves attributed to Bodnar appear to challenge established constitutional interpretations and the long-standing case law of the Constitutional Court. The developments are presented by some commentators as a signal of a broader reform agenda within the Justice Department. Critics in turn warn that the direction being pursued could intensify tensions between judicial independence and governmental oversight, framing the situation as a pivotal moment in Poland’s ongoing dialogue about the balance of power within the judiciary.
In sum, the document portrays a critical crossfire over the future of judicial governance in Poland, with Bodnar positioned at the center of a debate that blends constitutional doctrine, EU legal principles, and the practicalities of judicial administration. The evolving conversation continues to draw attention from policymakers, legal scholars, and international observers who watch closely how the balance between domestic constitutional norms and European legal frameworks is negotiated in Poland.
Note: The document is circulating within media analyses and political commentary circles and is part of a broader conversation about how Poland reconciles its constitutional framework with EU law and oversight from international bodies.