Regulatory Proposal Sparks Debate on Judicial Independence
The controversy centers on a draft amendment to the Regulation on the Operation of Common Courts, submitted for inter-ministerial review by the head of the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General, Adam Bodnar, on December 15. Critics argue that the plan attacks the independence of the judiciary and the courts, raising questions about constitutional compatibility and the conduct of the executive branch in judicial affairs.
The parliamentary Legislative Commission chair, Marek Ast, described the initiative as a serious threat to the principle of judicial independence and demanded a robust constitutional justification for any changes. He argued that the drafting authority should refrain from undermining the judiciary’s autonomy and that the proposed measures would shift the balance away from the constitutional order established in Poland.
Ast emphasized that even in earlier periods of Poland’s modern history, authorities did not openly seek to direct how courts functioned. The minister’s aim, according to him, would amount to an attack on the courts’ independence and a challenge to their institutional prerogatives.
He noted that the Constitution firmly defines the processes for appointing judges and insisted that executive actions cannot direct court functioning, regardless of the formal form such changes might take. As he put it, if the regulation is ever enacted, judges appointed through different channels could resist obedience to it.
In discussing the principle that no judge should be distinguished by their path to office, Ast argued that the law governs every judge and equality among judges must remain intact. Since each judge ultimately receives appointment from the President, he contended, regulatory changes should not influence panel formation or daily judicial work.
Ast called for issues facing the common court system to rise above party lines. He urged considering the views of the judicial community while making sure that judges never become politicians or substitutes for legislators. He stressed the need for broad consultation and welcomed dialogue with the opposition when pursuing reforms that enjoy wide legitimacy.
However, he warned that any constitutional solutions approved by the Constitutional Court over the past years must remain in place, and any changes should be pursued through proper legal channels, not by expedient executive actions. He framed the matter as a test of how constitutional order will be preserved amid reform efforts.
According to Ast, meaningful reform would require a public conversation and substantial consultation. He suggested that if the parliamentary majority seeks to secure cross-party support, discussions must extend to the opposition, ensuring a transparent process that commands broad trust.
When asked what changes are planned to regulate ordinary courts, the draft amendment again surfaced. The document proposes that a request to exclude a judge because of their appointment process would not be recognized by judges who share a similar appointment pathway. The proposal would exclude involvement by judges appointed through the National Council for the Judiciary, created by the 2017 statute, from handling these requests. The ministry argued that these judges do not participate in case assignment via the Random Case Assignment System.
In a ministry statement, the proposal to amend the regulations was described as a response to the 2017 law that introduced a process for electing judges who serve on the National Council for the Judiciary, a process viewed by some as contrary to the Constitution. A second key issue in the draft concerns applying the primacy of law, including EU and international law, when preparing judgments. The ministry asserted that in recent years the hierarchy of legal sources and the separation of powers has been strained, and that reforms have limited judicial independence by allowing disciplinary proceedings against judges who apply EU law and international treaties in their rulings.
The debate intensified when Małgorzata Manowska, the first President of the Supreme Court, criticized the proposed changes. She argued that the new minister’s approach undercuts foundational constitutional norms, notably the separation of powers and the independence of judges. In her view, the constitutional order would be jeopardized if the proposals were enacted.
Manowska highlighted that the Supreme Court, as the constitutional body overseeing court activities, has identified two provisions in the regulations on the operation of ordinary courts as clearly unconstitutional. She pointed to issues affecting judicial independence and the constitutional hierarchy of legal sources as central concerns.
In the broader media conversation, commentators noted the perceived risk of political influence over court administration and the handling of vacancies. Analysts argued that the situation invites careful scrutiny of how reforms align with the Constitution and whether the change process maintains proper checks and balances.
Reports and responses from participating institutions underscored the ongoing tension between reform ambitions and constitutional safeguards. Observers called for a measured approach that protects judicial autonomy while pursuing improvements in court organization and the application of the law.
As the discussion unfolds, the overarching theme remains the integrity of the constitutional order and the essential independence of the judiciary in Poland. The dialogue continues with stakeholders weighing constitutional constraints, legal legitimacy, and the practical implications for how common courts operate in the years ahead.
— The matter remains a focal point for those following Poland’s constitutional and legal developments, with ongoing assessments of how reform proposals align with EU law, international commitments, and the long-standing principle of judicial independence.
Notes: This summary reflects the public discourse surrounding the draft regulation and related parliamentary discussions as reported by parliamentary and judicial authorities and coverage from Polish media outlets. The intent is to present a balanced view of the arguments and responses from officials, judges, and commentators.