Supreme Court Judges’ Financial Statements Pulled from Website as Chief Justice Challenges Legal Norms

First President of the Supreme Court Zbigniew Kapiński has ordered the removal of judges’ financial disclosures, asserting that Constitutional Tribunal rulings are legally binding even without publication in the Journal of Laws.

Challenging the Publication Requirement

The Supreme Court has removed judges’ financial statements from its official website. First President Zbigniew Kapiński justifies this move by citing a Constitutional Tribunal ruling, arguing that these decisions hold legal force regardless of their publication in the Journal of Laws—a position that directly contradicts the Ministry of Justice.

In a statement issued on July 15, 2026, Kapiński explained that the Constitutional Tribunal’s rulings must be applied even when not published. This approach stems from his interpretation of Article 190, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, which defines these verdicts as final and universally binding.

Constitutional Tribunal Ruling K 2/26 and Supreme Court Vacancies

The core of Kapiński’s statement focuses on the June 25, 2026, ruling (sygn. K 2/26) concerning the requirement for the Prime Minister’s countersignature on presidential acts. The Tribunal determined that the President’s decisions regarding the appointment of judges to the Chamber of Professional Liability and the selection of the First President and chamber heads cannot be dependent on the Prime Minister’s signature.

Kapiński believes this ruling paves the way for filling personnel gaps within the Supreme Court. The objective is to finally appoint a President for the Chamber of Labor and Social Insurance, a role vacant since September 2024, and to fill three existing vacancies in the Chamber of Professional Liability.

Privacy Concerns and Financial Statements

The removal of financial disclosures is tied to a Constitutional Tribunal ruling from December 2, 2025 (sygn. K 2/23). The Tribunal held that mandates requiring the public release of judges’ financial statements violate the constitutional right to privacy, informational autonomy, and the principle of proportionality. Kapiński clarified that while judges must still submit these documents to the appropriate authorities, they will no longer be made accessible to the public.

Dispute Over Judges’ Retirement Age

Kapiński also addressed the status of Supreme Court judges appointed after January 1, 2019, who have reached the age of 65. Citing a Constitutional Tribunal judgment from November 26, 2025 (sygn. K 5/25), he argues that the lack of publication does not mean these judges are forced into retirement. According to his position, these individuals remain active judges with both the right and duty to adjudicate, provided no other grounds for retirement exist.

Governmental Opposition to Judicial Policy

The Ministry of Justice maintains a firm stance against the Supreme Court’s actions, stating that the June 25, 2026, Tribunal ruling is not a legal verdict and will not be respected. The Ministry argues that the ruling improperly expands the President’s powers at the expense of the Prime Minister and contradicts established Constitutional Tribunal jurisprudence dating back to 2006.