Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal faces renewed legal challenges regarding a controversial Supreme Court ruling on judicial procedures.
Background to the Supreme Court Ruling
The case began in April 2023 when the Labor and Social Insurance Chamber of Poland’s Supreme Court, composed of seven judges, issued a ruling. The decision found regulations introduced during the pandemic—allowing appellate courts to hear civil cases with a single judge—to be defective. The Chamber concluded this practice limited the right to a fair hearing and wasn’t necessary for public health protection, making any proceedings conducted under these rules invalid. The seven-member panel granted this ruling the status of a legal principle.
National Council of the Judiciary’s Response
This development stirred controversy in Poland’s legal community. The National Council of the Judiciary (KRS) became a prominent critic, warning of potential consequences. In their view, the ruling violated judicial independence by establishing a normative legal principle through a seven-judge panel, potentially influencing judicial functions.
The KRS argued: “On one hand, judges are constitutionally obligated to hear cases in single-member panels, while on the other, they may fear their judgments could be overturned if the Supreme Court declares proceedings invalid due to improper court composition.”
Challenge to Constitutional Tribunal
Seeking support for their position, the KRS petitioned the Constitutional Tribunal. They requested a finding that specific provisions of the Supreme Court Act—particularly article 87, paragraph 1, which allows seven-judge panels to give rulings legal principle status—were unconstitutional.
The KRS argued: “The challenged provision directly and unequivocally violates judicial independence. By formulating a legal principle in a 7-member panel with potential 4-3 voting splits, four judges could effectively ‘create law’ binding the entire Supreme Court. This constitutes an excessively far-reaching interference with judicial independence.”
Tribunal’s Decision and Dissenting Opinions
In December 2023, the Constitutional Tribunal unexpectedly discontinued these proceedings. They ruled that the KRS had incorrectly defined the subject of their challenge, arguing both articles 87 and 88 of the Supreme Court Act should have been reviewed. The Tribunal stated: “Only article 88 regulates the effects of giving rulings legal principle status; it specifies what is meant by binding judges. However, the role of the Tribunal is not to precisely determine the correct formula of the application’s petitum.”
Two Tribunal members dissented. President Bogdan Święczkowski and Judge Justyn Piskorski both argued the prerequisites for discontinuation hadn’t been met. They believed the Tribunal should have reconstructed the subject of control independently and conducted a hearing to clarify issues, rather than deciding in a non-public session.
In his dissent, Piskorski emphasized: “Given the complexity of the constitutional question, the evolution of the Supreme Court over the past century, the constitutional context, and concerns about judicial independence, this case warranted thorough analysis and resolution.”
Pattern of Dissent
This controversy reflects a pattern of the Constitutional Tribunal facing internal dissent. Recently, Judge Andrzej Zielonacki submitted a separate opinion to another Tribunal decision, stating that the Constitution doesn’t grant the Tribunal authority to “suspend” challenged provisions pending judgment.
