The Supreme Court rejected the request to lift the immunity of Judge Maciej Nawacki, a move sought by Judge Paweł Juszczyszyn. Today, Zbigniew Korzeniowski, who leads the court’s jury, stated that politicians write the laws, while judges enforce them, and that a crime requires a statute. He emphasized that immunity cannot be waived simply to enable prosecution in a particular case.
The Supreme Court did not grant Juszczyszyn’s demand to lift Judge Nawacki’s immunity. The decision, rendered by Justice Zbigniew Korzeniowski, referred to the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and clarified the legal framework within which such matters are adjudicated.
Juszczyszyn is pursuing action against Nawacki for allegedly hindering the delivery of a verdict. The measure suspending the judge originated from the then-defunct Disciplinary Chamber, and the current court proceedings question the validity of that earlier suspension.
Justice Korzeniowski articulated the justification for today’s ruling, noting that Nawacki accepted the judgments issued by the Disciplinary Chamber, which has since evolved into the Chamber of Professional Responsibility. He argued that continuity exists in the ongoing proceedings and that the Disciplinary Chamber functioned as a court in its own right.
In addressing Juszczyszyn’s contention that the new Chamber of the Supreme Court does not constitute a court, Korzeniowski asserted that the Polish legal framework provides clear regulatory structures that govern such processes and that those rules remain in force.
According to Korzeniowski, the tradition of judicial independence in Poland is anchored in the principle that legal authority arises from constitutional norms. He noted that European courts have faced criticism for changes in the Polish judiciary, while the Polish Constitutional Court has maintained its primacy, arguing that European bodies exceeded their jurisdiction. In any dispute, a Polish judge may, if warranted, align with the arguments of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, Korzeniowski emphasized.
The case continues to unfold within Poland’s constitutional-judicial landscape, where interpretations of authority and the legitimacy of disciplinary bodies are central to how justice is administered. The dialogue underscores the ongoing debate over where power resides in the Polish judiciary and how that power interacts with international legal opinions.
In related developments, discussions among higher courts and public prosecutors focus on ensuring that procedures remain aligned with constitutional guarantees and established statutory norms. The resolution of the present issue rests on the careful assessment of whether the mechanisms in place satisfy the requirements of due process, consistency, and constitutional fidelity.
Overall, the dialogue surrounding Judge Nawacki’s immunity touches on fundamental questions about the balance between judicial independence and accountability, the legitimacy of disciplinary structures, and the extent to which national courts recognize or resist external legal critiques. The Supreme Court’s decision reflects an adherence to the written Constitution while acknowledging the evolving institutions that support professional responsibility within Poland’s judiciary.