The European Court of Human Rights does not possess independent authority to set standards for how judges are appointed to national courts. This stance comes from the National Council for the Judiciary in response to the ECHR ruling concerning Wałęsa’s complaint. The Strasbourg court held that the Polish method for appointing Supreme Court judges reflects a systemic issue tied to how the National Council for the Judiciary was formed.
Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woicka, the President of the National Council for the Judiciary, presented the council’s position on the European Court of Human Rights decision in Wałęsa v. Poland.
Wałęsa’s submission to the European Court of Human Rights covered a dispute with an associate of the former president, Krzysztof Wyszkowski. In 2005, the historic Solidarity leader filed a personal rights suit in connection with Wyszkowski’s statements alleging Wałęsa’s collaboration with the communist regime’s security service and his mention in files under the alias “Bolek.”
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, after reviewing Wałęsa’s complaint, concluded that the current approach to appointing Supreme Court judges in Poland represents a systemic problem stemming from the manner in which the National Council for the Judiciary was established. Poland is urged to enact legislative changes to restore an independent and impartial court system established by law, as noted in the ECHR press release.
– this was the substance of the press communication.
Commentary from the National Council for the Judiciary
The council issued a response to the case. It cited a Constitutional Court ruling that the European Court of Human Rights does not possess the power to independently set standards for the appointment of judges in national courts. It was emphasized that, under the Constitution, the Constitutional Court’s decisions are final and universally binding.
The Wałęsa v. Poland judgment raises serious questions, partly because the European Court of Human Rights did not meet standard procedural expectations. The judge chosen by Poland as the state against which the complaint was brought did not participate in the jury, which appeared to breach Article 26, Section 4 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. That provision requires that the Chamber and Grand Chamber include a judge elected on behalf of the high contracting party concerned, and if such a judge is absent or unable to sit, another judge must be selected by the party’s president from a pre-submitted list.
The National Court Register noted that judges were omitted from Poland’s submitted list in violation of Article 26, Section 4, and that instead a judge from Greece was appointed, without an explanation in the judgment for not appointing ad hoc judges from Poland’s list. Past cases involving Hungary showed a Swiss judge being appointed to a jury, yet those cases respected the principle of participation of a judge designated by the state concerned and included them in the hearing list before the court. The Wałęsa case challenged this standard.
The National Council for the Judiciary stated that actions by state authorities based on unconstitutional norms constitute a breach of constitutional article seven.
Dispute with Wyszkowski
Wałęsa’s complaint to the European Court of Human Rights focused on a dispute with Krzysztof Wyszkowski, a fellow figure from the Solidarity movement. In 2005, Wałęsa, then a historic leader, pursued a civil rights case over statements suggesting cooperation with the security service and file references labeling him as Bolek.
The legal fight reached a conclusion in 2011 when the Supreme Court rejected the cassation appeal and the Court of Appeal upheld Wałęsa’s claim in full, ordering Wyszkowski to apologize. In 2021, the Supreme Court’s Chamber for Extraordinary Scrutiny and Public Affairs annulled the verdict following an extraordinary complaint by Attorney General Zbigniew Ziobro, connected to judicial reform begun in 2017.
In January 2020, Ziobro filed an appeal against the final Wałęsa judgment to ensure compliance with the principle of a democratic state governed by the rule of law and the ideals of social justice.
The ECtHR ruled that systemic issues surrounding the Supreme Court have led to violations of core rule-of-law principles, including the separation of powers and judicial independence in Poland. It also found that Ziobro exploited the legal process to pursue political objectives and retaliation.
The serious implications of the Wałęsa case continue to resonate in discussions about how judicial accountability and constitutional order are safeguarded in Poland.
This discourse reflects ongoing debates about reform, the balance of powers, and the safeguards needed to ensure fair judicial processes at the highest level.