{"id":6435,"date":"2026-07-28T16:54:12","date_gmt":"2026-07-28T16:54:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ceo.com.pl\/en\/?p=6435"},"modified":"2026-07-28T17:17:29","modified_gmt":"2026-07-28T17:17:29","slug":"polands-judicial-crisis-deepens-as-nawrocki-appoints-four-supreme-court-judges-50125","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ceo.com.pl\/en\/polands-judicial-crisis-deepens-as-nawrocki-appoints-four-supreme-court-judges-50125\/","title":{"rendered":"Poland\u2019s Judicial Crisis Deepens as Nawrocki Appoints Four Supreme Court Judges"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A long-running conflict over Poland\u2019s justice system has intensified after President Karol Nawrocki appointed four new judges to the Supreme Court. Justice Minister Waldemar \u017burek accused the president of deepening the institutional crisis and raised the prospect of further compensation claims against the Polish state over cases heard by judicial panels whose independence is subsequently questioned.<\/p>\n<p>President Nawrocki formally appointed Pawe\u0142 Buco\u0144, Pawe\u0142 Chmielnicki, Andrzej Micha\u0142owicz and Tomasz Szczurowski to the Supreme Court on 28 July 2026. The four judges received their appointment documents and took the judicial oath before the president.<\/p>\n<p>The appointments immediately revived one of the most divisive debates in Polish public life: whether judges nominated through procedures involving the National Council of the Judiciary, known by its Polish abbreviation KRS, operating under rules introduced after 2017, were appointed in a manner fully consistent with Polish constitutional requirements and European standards of judicial independence.<\/p>\n<p>\u017burek accused the president of aggravating rather than resolving the dispute. In a social media post published before the ceremony, he referred to the four nominees as \u201cneo-judges\u201d and said that the purpose of the appointments was clear: to deepen the crisis surrounding the judiciary.<\/p>\n<p>The justice minister also raised the issue of potential financial consequences. He asked who should pay compensation awarded by the European Court of Human Rights to people whose cases were heard by improperly constituted Supreme Court panels: the state, the Presidential Chancellery or the president personally.<\/p>\n<p>The minister\u2019s question was political and rhetorical. Under the European Convention on Human Rights, responsibility for paying compensation ordered by the Strasbourg court rests with the Polish state, not personally with an individual office-holder. His statement was intended to highlight what he regards as the financial consequences of continuing to make appointments through a disputed procedure.<\/p>\n<div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_85 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/ceo.com.pl\/en\/polands-judicial-crisis-deepens-as-nawrocki-appoints-four-supreme-court-judges-50125\/#Why_the_Supreme_Court_appointments_are_disputed\" >Why the Supreme Court appointments are disputed<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/ceo.com.pl\/en\/polands-judicial-crisis-deepens-as-nawrocki-appoints-four-supreme-court-judges-50125\/#European_judgments_create_legal_and_financial_risks\" >European judgments create legal and financial risks<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/ceo.com.pl\/en\/polands-judicial-crisis-deepens-as-nawrocki-appoints-four-supreme-court-judges-50125\/#Walesa_judgment_identified_a_systemic_problem\" >Wa\u0142\u0119sa judgment identified a systemic problem<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/ceo.com.pl\/en\/polands-judicial-crisis-deepens-as-nawrocki-appoints-four-supreme-court-judges-50125\/#Nawrocki_also_appoints_more_than_200_court_assessors\" >Nawrocki also appoints more than 200 court assessors<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/ceo.com.pl\/en\/polands-judicial-crisis-deepens-as-nawrocki-appoints-four-supreme-court-judges-50125\/#No_quick_end_to_Polands_judicial_deadlock\" >No quick end to Poland\u2019s judicial deadlock<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Why_the_Supreme_Court_appointments_are_disputed\"><\/span>Why the Supreme Court appointments are disputed<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The controversy originates in changes introduced under the former Law and Justice government. Following legislation adopted in 2017, the 15 judicial members of the KRS ceased to be elected by other judges and were instead chosen by the Sejm, the lower house of the Polish parliament.<\/p>\n<p>The KRS plays a crucial role in the judicial appointment process. It evaluates candidates and submits motions for their appointment to the president. Critics of the post-2017 system argue that transferring the formal selection of the council\u2019s judicial members to parliament weakened its independence and increased the influence of the legislative majority over judicial nominations.<\/p>\n<p>Supporters of the system respond that the Constitution does not explicitly state that the 15 judicial members must be selected by judges themselves. They also emphasise that the final act of appointing a judge is a constitutional prerogative of the president.<\/p>\n<p>The expression \u201cneo-judge\u201d is used by opponents of the post-2017 appointment system to describe judges nominated or promoted following recommendations from the reconstituted KRS. It is not a formal legal term. Law and Justice, President Nawrocki and supporters of the appointments reject the label, maintaining that judges appointed by the president remain judges under the Constitution and cannot be divided into supposedly legitimate and illegitimate categories.<\/p>\n<p>Nawrocki has repeatedly opposed distinguishing between \u201cbetter\u201d and \u201cworse\u201d judges. On 19 February 2026, he vetoed legislation that would have transferred the selection of the 15 judicial members of the KRS from the Sejm to judges voting in direct and secret elections.<\/p>\n<p>The president argued that the legislation would segregate judges, expose the judiciary to political interest groups and create further uncertainty over the validity of judgments. He also maintained that Polish law recognises neither \u201cneo-judges\u201d nor \u201cpaleo-judges\u201d and that judicial status follows from the Constitution and statutes.<\/p>\n<p>The government argued that the proposed reform was necessary to restore the constitutional position and independence of the KRS. After the veto, the existing statutory model remained in force.<\/p>\n<p>On 15 May 2026, the Sejm elected a new group of 15 judicial members of the KRS under the still-binding rules that leave the formal choice to parliament. The council therefore has a new composition, but the central legal dispute over the method of selecting its judicial members has not been resolved.<\/p>\n<p>The four Supreme Court judges appointed on 28 July had been recommended through procedures involving the KRS operating under the disputed post-2017 framework. Their appointments are therefore likely to remain controversial even though the president\u2019s formal power to appoint judges is set out in the Constitution.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"European_judgments_create_legal_and_financial_risks\"><\/span>European judgments create legal and financial risks<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>\u017burek\u2019s warning about compensation is based on a series of judgments delivered by the European Court of Human Rights.<\/p>\n<p>In the 2021 case of Doli\u0144ska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland, the Strasbourg court found that the Supreme Court\u2019s Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs was not a tribunal established by law within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.<\/p>\n<p>The judges sitting in the chamber had been appointed by the president following recommendations from the KRS formed under the post-2017 rules. The European court concluded that the appointment procedure had been fundamentally affected by the involvement of the legislative and executive branches.<\/p>\n<p>The Strasbourg judges found that the irregularities were sufficiently serious to undermine the legitimacy of the judicial panel. Poland was ordered to pay each applicant \u20ac15,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n<p>Similar findings appeared in other cases involving different parts of the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<p>In Reczkowicz v. Poland, the European Court of Human Rights found that the Supreme Court\u2019s former Disciplinary Chamber was not a tribunal established by law. The applicant was awarded \u20ac15,000 in compensation.<\/p>\n<p>In Advance Pharma v. Poland, the court examined a panel of the Supreme Court\u2019s Civil Chamber that included judges appointed following recommendations from the reconstituted KRS. It once again found a violation of the right to a tribunal established by law and described the underlying problems in the judicial appointment process as systemic.<\/p>\n<p>These judgments did not themselves automatically invalidate every decision issued by every judge appointed through the disputed system. They did, however, provide grounds for litigants to challenge whether a particular judicial panel satisfied the requirements of independence, impartiality and lawful establishment.<\/p>\n<p>As a result, the legal consequences may differ depending on the composition of the panel, the chamber involved, the nature of the proceedings and the procedural route through which the challenge is raised.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Walesa_judgment_identified_a_systemic_problem\"><\/span>Wa\u0142\u0119sa judgment identified a systemic problem<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The European Court of Human Rights treated the issue as systemic in its November 2023 pilot judgment in Wa\u0142\u0119sa v. Poland.<\/p>\n<p>The case concerned an extraordinary appeal that led the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs to overturn a final judgment issued in Lech Wa\u0142\u0119sa\u2019s favour approximately a decade earlier. The Strasbourg court found violations of the right to an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, the principle of legal certainty and Wa\u0142\u0119sa\u2019s right to respect for private life.<\/p>\n<p>Under the pilot judgment procedure, the court instructed Poland to adopt legislative and other measures addressing the structural problems affecting judicial appointments and the functioning of the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs.<\/p>\n<p>The required measures were intended to ensure that Poland\u2019s courts complied with the requirements of judicial independence, impartiality, lawful establishment and legal certainty.<\/p>\n<p>The financial risk associated with the crisis is therefore not purely theoretical.<\/p>\n<p>In November 2024, the European Court of Human Rights removed 22 Polish cases concerning the independence and impartiality of Supreme Court panels from its list. The decisions followed friendly settlements or unilateral declarations under which the applicants were offered \u20ac10,000 each.<\/p>\n<p>At that time, approximately 700 similar cases concerning Poland\u2019s judicial reforms were pending before the court.<\/p>\n<p>The number later increased. In November 2025, the European Court of Human Rights reported that it had more than 1,100 pending cases against Poland concerning the reorganisation of the judiciary initiated in 2017. About 900 of those cases had been adjourned following the Wa\u0142\u0119sa pilot judgment.<\/p>\n<p>The adjournment was extended until 23 November 2026 to give the Polish authorities more time to introduce general measures addressing the systemic problems identified by the court.<\/p>\n<p>The latest Supreme Court appointments may therefore generate further challenges in Polish courts and, after domestic remedies have been exhausted, potentially before the European Court of Human Rights.<\/p>\n<p>Whether such challenges succeed will depend on the circumstances of individual cases. Nevertheless, each appointment made through the disputed procedure adds to the number of judicial panels whose composition may later be questioned.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Nawrocki_also_appoints_more_than_200_court_assessors\"><\/span>Nawrocki also appoints more than 200 court assessors<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Supreme Court nominations formed part of a broader series of ceremonies held at the Presidential Palace on 28 July.<\/p>\n<p>President Nawrocki also accepted the oath of constitutional law scholar S\u0142awomir Patyra, who had been elected by the Sejm as a judge of the Constitutional Tribunal on 11 June 2026.<\/p>\n<p>Patyra\u2019s swearing-in followed a separate confrontation over four other Constitutional Tribunal judges elected by parliament whose oaths the president had not accepted. The dispute concerned the extent of the president\u2019s constitutional duties and discretion when receiving the oath of a judge elected by the Sejm.<\/p>\n<p>On the same day, Nawrocki appointed or nominated more than 200 court assessors from across Poland. The group included assessors assigned to district courts and provincial administrative courts.<\/p>\n<p>During the ceremony, the president said that courts, judges, prosecutors and assessors existed to serve the citizens of the Republic of Poland. He described the new assessors as a generation capable of helping to restore the prestige of the justice system.<\/p>\n<p>Nawrocki also called on them to remain independent, resist political pressure and uphold the ethos of public service.<\/p>\n<p>The contrast between that message and the political dispute surrounding the Supreme Court illustrates the depth of Poland\u2019s judicial deadlock. Both sides invoke judicial independence, constitutional order, legal certainty and the interests of citizens, but they draw fundamentally different conclusions about the legitimacy of the current appointment system.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"No_quick_end_to_Polands_judicial_deadlock\"><\/span>No quick end to Poland\u2019s judicial deadlock<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The latest nominations are unlikely to resolve the dispute. Instead, they may increase the number of cases in which litigants challenge the composition of Supreme Court panels.<\/p>\n<p>For businesses and private citizens, the most serious consequence is not only the political conflict itself but also continuing uncertainty over whether final judgments may later be questioned in domestic or European proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>Such challenges can prolong litigation, increase legal costs and expose the state to additional compensation claims. They may also create practical uncertainty over which panels can issue decisions that will be recognised as fully compliant with Polish and European standards.<\/p>\n<p>The government has attempted to change the method of selecting the judicial members of the KRS and continues to seek a comprehensive legal solution concerning judges appointed under the post-2017 system.<\/p>\n<p>President Nawrocki opposes measures that could remove judges from office, treat their appointments as ineffective or formally divide the judiciary according to the date and method of appointment. He argues that such measures would undermine the stability of judgments and the constitutional authority of the presidency.<\/p>\n<p>The election of a new KRS composition in May 2026 did not resolve the underlying dispute because the formal selection of its judicial members remained in the hands of the Sejm. At the same time, the presidential veto blocked legislation that would have transferred that choice back to the judiciary.<\/p>\n<p>Without an agreement between the government, parliament and the president, Poland is likely to remain caught between competing interpretations of its Constitution, binding European human-rights standards and thousands of judicial appointments that have already taken effect.<\/p>\n<p>The appointment of four additional Supreme Court judges demonstrates that the conflict is not gradually disappearing. Instead, it is entering another phase in which new nominations, existing judgments and potential compensation claims are likely to remain closely interconnected.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A long-running conflict over Poland\u2019s justice system has intensified after President Karol Nawrocki appointed four new judges to the Supreme Court. Justice Minister Waldemar \u017burek accused the president of deepening the institutional crisis and raised the prospect of further compensation claims against the Polish state over cases heard by judicial panels whose independence is subsequently [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":6436,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"Poland\u2019s long-running judicial crisis has entered a new phase.\r\n\r\nPresident Karol Nawrocki has appointed four new judges to the Supreme Court, prompting sharp criticism from Justice Minister Waldemar \u017burek. The minister argues that the nominations could lead to further challenges before European courts, greater legal uncertainty and additional compensation claims against the Polish state.\r\n\r\nThe dispute centres on judges nominated with the participation of the reconstituted National Council of the Judiciary. While the president\u2019s camp insists that all judges appointed under the Constitution have equal status, critics point to European Court of Human Rights judgments questioning the independence of panels formed under the contested system.\r\n\r\nFor businesses and private citizens, the consequences may extend far beyond politics. Challenges to the composition of courts could prolong proceedings, increase legal costs and cast doubt on the finality of judgments.\r\n\r\nRead more about the latest escalation in Poland\u2019s rule-of-law conflict.","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[10,4],"tags":[2783,3851,3775,2679,4751,64,2683],"class_list":["post-6435","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-law","category-politics","tag-contrast","tag-expose","tag-krs","tag-media","tag-pawel-chmielnicki","tag-poland","tag-social-media"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceo.com.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6435","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceo.com.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceo.com.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceo.com.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceo.com.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6435"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/ceo.com.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6435\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6441,"href":"https:\/\/ceo.com.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6435\/revisions\/6441"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceo.com.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6436"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceo.com.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6435"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceo.com.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6435"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceo.com.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6435"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}