Poland’s Supreme Court has dismissed requests for “independence tests” of judges, citing a February ruling by the Constitutional Tribunal deeming such tests unconstitutional.
Supreme Court Dismisses Judge Independence Test Requests
The Chamber of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected two defense motions requesting “judge independence tests” in disciplinary proceedings. The decisions were based on a February ruling by the Constitutional Tribunal, which found these tests to be inconsistent with the constitution.
Defense Motions Focused on Judge Independence Criteria
Both defense motions concerned assessing whether a judge met the requirements of independence and impartiality, considering the circumstances of their appointment and subsequent conduct – aligning with the provisions establishing the mechanism for the so-called “independence and impartiality test.”
Demendecki Targeted in Independence Test Requests
The defense lawyers in two disciplinary cases involving a judge and a prosecutor requested such a test be conducted on Tomasz Demendecki, a judge of the Chamber of Professional Responsibility, appointed to the Supreme Court after 2017. Demendecki was assigned to panels in both disciplinary cases.
Załucki Rejects Motions, Citing Constitutional Tribunal Ruling
On Wednesday, Judge Mariusz Załucki, also appointed after 2017, rejected both motions. In the reasoning for the rejection decisions, published on the Supreme Court’s website, he cited the Constitutional Tribunal’s ruling.
Constitutional Tribunal Ruling Invalidates Independence Tests
“The Supreme Court indicated in its justification that the inadmissibility of the motion is a consequence of the Constitutional Tribunal’s ruling of February 25, 2026, which found the provisions introducing the so-called ‘independence and impartiality test’ to be inconsistent with the constitution,” according to a Supreme Court statement.
Ruling Stemmed from NSA Judge’s Constitutional Complaint
The Constitutional Tribunal’s ruling in February concerned a constitutional complaint filed by Anna Dalkowska, a judge at the Administrative Court and, until 2021, a Deputy Minister of Justice during the PiS government.
Background: Dalkowska’s Exclusion and Constitutional Challenge
Previously, the Administrative Court dismissed Dalkowska’s appeal against a decision to recuse her from hearing one case before that court. The Administrative Court’s decision to recuse Dalkowska noted her “undeniably extraordinary situation,” where a district court judge was immediately appointed to the Administrative Court, lacking experience in administrative or appellate proceedings.
Dalkowska’s Complaint Challenged Recusal Procedure
Dalkowska’s constitutional complaint challenged the constitutionality of a provision of the Act on the Organization of Administrative Courts, concerning the examination of a judge’s independence and impartiality. She argued that the recusal decision was made without her being heard and that the person requesting her recusal failed to provide evidence of grounds for it.
Constitutional Tribunal Deemed Provision Unconstitutional
The Constitutional Tribunal ruled the provision unconstitutional. Judge Stanisław Piotrowicz justified the ruling, stating the provision was “constitutionally unacceptable” because it allowed for “abstract questioning of a judge’s independence, solely based on the circumstances surrounding their appointment.” The Tribunal also found that mutual scrutiny of appointments by judges through court proceedings was “a denial of the principle of independence and a serious violation of the President’s competence.”
Supreme Court Applies Tribunal Ruling to its Own Procedures
The Supreme Court’s statement noted that the Constitutional Tribunal’s ruling stemmed from provisions of the Act on the Organization of Administrative Courts, but the regulations of that act “are identical in their normative structure to the solutions provided for in the Act on the Supreme Court, applicable in cases heard by the Supreme Court.”
Supreme Court Cannot Apply Unconstitutional Norms
“The Court cannot apply statutory norms that essentially replicate a solution found to be unconstitutional, as this would circumvent the effects of the Constitutional Tribunal’s ruling and violate the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution. The identity of the normative mechanism justifies extending the effects of the constitutional assessment to the provisions of the Act on the Supreme Court,” the Supreme Court statement emphasized.
Sejm Resolution and Non-Publication of Tribunal Rulings
In a resolution adopted in March 2024, the Sejm (Polish Parliament) emphasized that considering rulings of the Constitutional Tribunal issued in violation of the law in the activities of a public authority could be considered a violation of the principle of legality. The Sejm also stated that two current Constitutional Tribunal judges – Jarosław Wyrembak and Justyn Piskorski – are not judges of the Tribunal. Since the Sejm’s resolution, Constitutional Tribunal rulings have not been published in the Journal of Laws.