Constitutional Tribunal Curbs Prime Minister’s Role in Judicial Appointments

Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal ruled on Thursday that presidential judicial appointments no longer require the Prime Minister’s countersignature, effectively removing the government’s gatekeeping power over the staffing of the Supreme Court and judiciary.

Constitutional Tribunal Rulings on Countersignatures

The Constitutional Tribunal determined that the requirement for a Prime Minister’s countersignature when appointing judicial assessors or filling specific Supreme Court positions—such as the head of the General Assembly—is unconstitutional. The ruling clarifies that the President’s exercise of these powers is not dependent on executive approval.

The Tribunal emphasized that this decision applies to future actions and does not invalidate legal acts performed under the previous interpretation of these norms. The ruling originated from a petition filed in January by the former First President of the Supreme Court, Małgorzata Manowska.

Interpretation of Presidential Prerogatives

The Tribunal noted that while the constitution does not explicitly list every act requiring a countersignature, it recognizes a category of “derivative activities” functionally tied to core presidential prerogatives. Officials argued that giving the Prime Minister the power to block appointments could allow the government to interfere in the judiciary, a sphere from which the constitution intended to isolate political influence.

The ruling was decided by a panel of five judges presided over by Deputy President Bartłomiej Sochański. Justice Andrzej Zielonacki submitted a dissenting opinion regarding the final verdict.

Executive Branch Contests Legitimacy

Minister of Justice Waldemar Żurek rejected the ruling, arguing that the Tribunal lacks a properly selected president and a transparent, legal composition. He characterized the proceedings as an incident involving individuals chosen through a flawed process rather than a valid judicial verdict.

Current political tensions, including a March 2024 Sejm resolution, have led to a situation where rulings from the Tribunal are not being published in the Journal of Laws. The government maintains that complying with decisions from the current Tribunal could constitute a violation of the rule of law.