Polish President’s chief Karol Nawrocki filed a case with the Constitutional Tribunal on Oct. 28 to challenge Minister Waldemar Żurek’s court‑assignment regulation, while chief Zbigniew Bogucki alerted prosecutors of a possible crime.
Tribunal Complaint Filed
On 28 October, Karol Nawrocki submitted a petition to the Constitutional Tribunal asking it to assess whether Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek’s regulation governing the assignments of judicial duties in ordinary courts complies with the constitution.
The President demands that the Tribunal examine possible infringements on the basic legal framework by the regulation.
Prosecutorial Notice Filed
Zbigniew Bogucki, head of the President’s Cabinet, reported that he has notified prosecutors that Minister Żurek may have violated article 231(1) of the Polish Criminal Code, which criminalises public officials who, by exceeding or neglecting their powers, act against public or private interest.
Bogucki reiterated the President’s earlier appeal to judges, reminding them that they are subject to the constitution and laws, not to regulations issued without legal basis.
Regulation Revisions Explained
The regulation changes how cases are allocated, replacing a random‑draw system with a mix of random assignment to a three‑judge panel and appointments by the panel chair according to the court president’s criteria after consulting the relevant judicial collegium.
It also allows the panel chair to include or exclude certain judges from the draw, especially those who have held the most sessions as a panel member without being a reference judge.
Tribunal to Review Law Provision
The Constitutional Tribunal will also consider paragraph 2 of the law, which stipulates that if, before the regulation took effect, a panel comprised only a reference judge, the allocation of remaining members shall follow the revised procedural rules.
Minister’s Critique of Random Draw
Minister Żurek stated that the random‑draw method “paralyzed” court operations, citing cases where one judge handled many panels and delayed verdicts for years, prompting a shift toward the new system described in the regulation.
He made these remarks on X, strengthening his position that clearer, more transparent assignment methods are necessary.
