A constitutional scholar from the University of Silesia, Professor Anna Łabno, argues that a regulator aligned with the Constitution and the law cannot be ignored by a judge. She notes that the proposed amendment to the Rules of Ordinary Courts, authored by the new Minister of Justice, Adam Bodnar, would discriminate against judges appointed by the National Council for the Judiciary. The ministry claims that the law passed on December 8, 2017 created a procedure for electing judges who serve on the National Council for the Judiciary, and that this procedure would clash with the Constitution. The scholar questions this stance and discusses why the regulation should be examined against the constitutional framework.
In a television interview on wPolsce.pl, she was asked whether she concurs with the ministry’s assessment. The response emphasizes a careful reading of the Constitution, highlighting that the provision in question specifies the appointment of 15 judges and leaves the exact procedure to the legislative process. According to the analysis, the act remains constitutional even if opinions differ about its interpretation.
The minister’s regulations also require judges to consider the primacy and application of European Union and international law when drafting judgments and their rationales. This dimension prompts a reminder of the supreme legal authority in Poland, which is the Constitution itself. The discussion reiterates that Article 8, Section 1 places the Constitution at the pinnacle of the legal hierarchy, and all norms must align with it. While disputes between European law and the national Constitution can arise, they are not simple to resolve. Observers note that recent years have seen the European Union sometimes act beyond its competences, a situation that demands careful constitutional calibration. The Treaty on European Union outlines that the Union exercises only the powers conferred upon it, as understood within the Polish legal framework. The emphasis remains on ensuring that EU influence respects national constitutional boundaries while maintaining Poland’s obligations as a member state.
Professor Łabno points out that judges named after 2018 face a particularly challenging environment given these ongoing developments in the Ministry of Justice. The core principle remains that a judge is accountable solely to the Constitution and the laws enacted by the legislative body. A judge should not apply or follow rules that contravene constitutional and statutory provisions. Independence is not a granted boon; it is a duty that comes with safeguards to enable fair and impartial adjudication. The professor acknowledges the difficulty of operating under these conditions but stresses that judges must uphold their constitutional duties and lawful obligations. The question remains how many will align with the ministerial path, and how many will resist when such actions appear unnecessary or inappropriate.
Professor Łabno reiterates that society bears a responsibility to support judges who have been appointed by the National Council for the Judiciary since 2018. She frames the current moment as a turning point that calls for broad solidarity among citizens to back judicial independence and to reinforce confidence in the courts during this period of constitutional scrutiny and reform.
The full interview can be viewed in the accompanying report for a detailed account of the perspectives shared by Professor Łabno and the broader implications for Poland’s constitutional order and its alignment with European law.