Poland’s Supreme Court dismissed an extraordinary appeal signed by Deputy Prosecutor General Jacek Bilewicz, citing concerns over the legality of his appointment.
Dispute Over Extraordinary Appeal
The Supreme Court’s Extraordinary Control Chamber rejected an extraordinary appeal due to its signature by prosecutor Jacek Bilewicz, who serves as Deputy Prosecutor General. The court stated that, in light of this, Bilewicz was acting “in essence illegally.”
Legality of Bilewicz’s Appointment Questioned
The extraordinary appeal concerned a February 2024 ruling by a Krakow court in a case involving a bank’s lawsuit against a citizen – the legal successor of the original debtor. The appeal reached the Supreme Court in September 2025 and was rejected Tuesday by the Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamber.
Appeal Dismissed Due to Unauthorized Signature
The court’s decision, issued by Judge Paweł Czubik, stated, “The extraordinary appeal is subject to rejection due to being filed by an unauthorized person.”
Request for Presidential Opinion on Appointment
In mid-April, the Supreme Court requested the Prosecutor General submit a copy of the President’s opinion regarding Jacek Bilewicz’s appointment as Deputy Prosecutor General. The court noted that, according to the Act on the Prosecutor’s Office, the National Prosecutor and Deputy Prosecutors General are appointed after obtaining the President’s opinion and dismissed with their written consent.
Bilewicz Fails to Provide Presidential Opinion
The Supreme Court reported that in response to this request, prosecutor Jacek Bilewicz submitted authenticated copies of various documents on April 24th, but did not provide the President’s opinion.
Court Finds Appointment Lacked Proper Authorization
The court determined that, “since prosecutor Jacek Bilewicz did not submit the President’s opinion regarding his appointment as Deputy Prosecutor General, it should be stated that he held the office without proper authorization, and therefore, in essence illegally.” Consequently, prosecutor Bilewicz could not effectively sign the extraordinary appeal.
Court Considers Interests of All Parties
Judge Czubik stated that in rejecting the appeal, the Supreme Court also considered the interests of all parties, particularly the defendant. Recognizing an appeal signed by an unauthorized person would cast doubt on the validity of any issued ruling. Rejection of the appeal does not create res judicata, allowing an authorized party to re-file.
Ongoing Dispute Over Prosecutor Leadership
This decision is part of a broader dispute over the leadership of the prosecutor’s office, which began over two years ago following a change in the leadership of the National Prosecutor’s Office. On January 12, 2024, the then-Minister of Justice and Prosecutor General Adam Bodnar presented Dariusz Barski with a document stating that his reinstatement from retirement “was carried out in violation of applicable regulations and had no legal effect.”
Bilewicz Served as Acting National Prosecutor
Until a successor to Barski was selected through a competition, prosecutor Jacek Bilewicz served as acting National Prosecutor. Dariusz Korneluk won the competition and was appointed the new National Prosecutor by the Prime Minister in mid-March 2024. The Prime Minister then appointed prosecutor Bilewicz as Deputy Prosecutor General at the end of July 2024.
Supreme Court Previously Dealt with Immunity Case
In late March, the Supreme Court – in the Chamber of Professional Responsibility – dismissed a case concerning the lifting of immunity of Judge Piotr Schab in connection with the non-issuance of proceedings in disciplinary proceedings. Judge Maria Szczepaniec also ruled that the motion to lift immunity was submitted by an unauthorized prosecutor, stating that Dariusz Barski has the status of a prosecutor in active service and serves as the National Prosecutor.
Requirements for Extraordinary Appeal
Current regulations allow an extraordinary appeal to be filed against a final court ruling if it is necessary “to ensure consistency with the principle of a democratic state of law implementing the principles of social justice,” and if the ruling violates, for example, principles or freedoms and rights of citizens as defined in the constitution.
The Role of the Extraordinary Control Chamber
These appeals are heard by the Supreme Court’s Extraordinary Control Chamber, established under the 2017 Act on the Supreme Court passed during the PiS government. The institution of the extraordinary appeal was also introduced at that time.
European Court Challenges to Chamber’s Status
The status of the Extraordinary Control Chamber has been the subject of rulings by European courts. For example, in December 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the composition of the Extraordinary Control Chamber was not an independent and impartial court established by law. In September 2025, the CJEU indicated that a national court is obliged to recognize a judgment issued by a higher court as non-existent if that court is not an independent and impartial court.
Former Prosecutor General’s Concerns
In September of last year, Prosecutor General Waldemar Żurek sent “requests to cease violating the law” to Supreme Court judges appointed after 2017, including those of the Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamber.
Proposed Changes to Appeal Process
The abolition of the institution of the extraordinary appeal is included in the draft “rule of law” act being prepared by the Ministry of Justice and being debated in the Sejm, which aims to restore the right to an independent and impartial court established by law by regulating the effects of resolutions of the National Council of the Judiciary adopted in the years 2018–2025.
Ministry of Justice’s Justification for Changes
The Ministry of Justice argued that the extraordinary appeal is an exception to the principle that final judgments are final and was used – during the PiS government – as a mere “appeal in disguise,” allowing for the re-examination of a case, including its factual basis. The Ministry also announced changes to the regulations to address problems with conflicting and “unfair rulings” revealed in the practice of recognizing extraordinary appeals.
