The European Court of Human Rights ruled on May 21, 2026, that the arbitrary refusal by the Polish President to appoint judges without justification or judicial oversight violates the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Sobczyńska Case and the ECHR Verdict
On May 21, 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of Sobczyńska and Others v. Poland. The case concerned a group of judicial assessors whom President Lech Kaczyński refused to appoint as judges in 2008 without providing any justification.
The Ministry of Justice officially commented on May 22, 2026, stating that it fully shares the legal reasoning and conclusions of the ECHR. The central dispute centered on whether the President may refuse an appointment without explanation and whether such a refusal is subject to judicial review.
Legal Context of Presidential Prerogatives
The presidential prerogative is a constitutional power exercised independently by the President of Poland, without the Prime Minister’s countersignature. Appointing judges is one such prerogative under Article 144, paragraph 3, point 17 of the Polish Constitution.
Between 2005 and 2006, the applicants participated in legal competitions for judicial positions, receiving approval from judicial assemblies and the National Council of the Judiciary. In 2008, President Lech Kaczyński issued a laconic refusal without legal or factual justification. Between 2008 and 2014, the applicants attempted to challenge this decision in domestic courts, but were told that the presidential prerogative was not subject to judicial review. Consequently, they filed complaints with the ECHR in 2014.
Key Findings of the Court
According to the Ministry of Justice, the ECHR ruled that an arbitrary, unmotivated refusal combined with a lack of access to a court constitutes a breach of Article 6 of the Convention regarding the right to a fair trial.
The Court confirmed that the constitutional prerogative to appoint judges does not grant the President absolute or unchecked power. Any refusal regarding a candidate presented by the National Council of the Judiciary must be transparently justified, and such decisions must be subject to effective judicial control to prevent the infringement of constitutional rights like equal access to public service.
Ministry of Justice Position and Practical Implications
The Ministry of Justice has accepted the ECHR judgment with full gravity, stating that the President’s power cannot be equated with unbridled discretion. The Ministry emphasized that judicial control serves as a necessary safety valve, strengthening the rule of law and protecting the judiciary from political pressure.
While the ruling establishes a significant precedent, the implementation of changes depends on future political decisions between the President and the Sejm. It remains unclear if legislative reforms will be adopted, or if the process will face a political impasse given the required parliamentary majorities.
Frequently Asked Questions
The ECHR ruling is legally binding for Poland as a signatory to the Convention. While the President will retain the power of appointment, the process must now be subject to judicial oversight, likely through the Supreme Administrative Court or the Supreme Court.
This ruling does not end ongoing disputes regarding the National Council of the Judiciary or the Constitutional Tribunal, as it is limited to the specific procedural issues of judicial appointments and the requirement for justification.
