Bodnar has approval to appeal neo-presidents and their deputies in Koszalin and Konin courts

There are crucial changes in the Polish judiciary. The Minister of Justice, Adam Bodnar, is actively implementing the plan to dismiss the Presidents and Vice Presidents of the Courts who were nominated by the erstwhile Minister of Justice, Zbigniew Ziobra. This extremist change aims to reconstruct assurance in the judiciary and remove those associated with the neo-KRS. What will be the consequences of these decisions and how will they affect the functioning of the Polish justice system?

Minister Adam Bodnar received approval to dismiss management in 2 territory courts – Koszalin and Konin. The colleges of these courts gave the green light to the resignations. As a result, they can be cancelled at any time:

• Celińska Justina, president of the Koszalin territory Court, and Vice president Tomasz Krzemianowski. They are both neo-judges and signed letters of support for the neo-KRS for Luke Piebiak.
• Michał Jankowski, president of the territory Court of Konin, and Vice president Kinga Śliwinska-Buśkiewicz. They are besides neo-judges and signed letters of support for the neo-KRS.

Environmental resignations and pressures

President of the territory Court in Dziadów, Anna KampaShe resigned herself. In times of PiS rule, she signed letters of support for the neo-KRS for Anna Dalkowska and Catherine Cloudy and worked on a delegation to the Ministry of Minister Ziobra. This is another resignation under force from the judge's community, which constantly exerts force on people associated with neo-KRS.

Appeal procedures in progress

Minister Bodnar is in the process of cancelling further denominations of Minister Ziobra. This process besides includes presidents and vice presidents of crucial courts in Warsaw and the Court of Appeal in Rzeszów:

• Rafał Puchalski, president of the Court of Appeal in Rzeszów, and Vice-President of Józef Pawłowski.
• Grzegorz Furmankiewicz, president of the Krosno territory Court, and Vice-President Mariola Olszewska.
• Krzysztof Szmidt, president of the Krosno territory Court, and Vice president Eva Lis.
• Daniel RadwańskiPresident of the Brzozów territory Court.
• Barbara Roczniak-GlistiakPresident of Lesko territory Court.
• Agnieszka Leszkiewicz, president of the Słupsk territory Court, and Vice-President Ryszard Błencki.
• neojudge Luke Kluska, neo-president of the territory Court in Pruszków.
• neojudge Anna Jagodzińska-Bajkowska, neo-president of the territory Court for Warsaw-Żoliborz, and “Vice-Presidents” Isabella Goose and Piotr Sysik.
• neojudge Iwona Strączyńska, the neo-president of the territory Court in Grodzisk Mazowiecki, and the ‘wicepres’ Radosław Kopeć.
• neojudge Sebastian Lados, the neo-president of the territory Court for Warsaw-Woli, and the “wicepres” Michał Wójcicki.
• neojudge Joanna Przanowska-Tomaszek, neo-president of the Warsaw territory Court, and its deputy: neo-judge Agnieszka Sidor-Leszczyńska, neojudge Radosław Lenarczyk, neojudge Marcin Rowicki, neojudge Patrycja Czyżewska and neojudge Małgorzata Kangowska-Wajs.

Procedural problems

In any cases, specified as the appeal of the management of the territory Court in Warsaw, the procedure had to be repeated. Ziobra's denominations took advantage of the fact that the suspension took place from the day following the sending of the decision to appeal, allowing them to conven the nightly College of the territory Court, which gave a negative opinion on their appeal.

Similar problems may arise in the appeal of the management of the territory Court for Warsaw and the territory Court for Warsaw-Mokotów. Here too, the suspension was from the next day, which allowed the appealed presidents to take action against the decision of the minister.

Amendments to the Institute of Justice

Last days have besides brought changes to the Institute of Justice. The director's position is lost. Dr. Marcin Wielec. A competition will be announced in his place. The Institute deals with technological and investigation activities in the field of the creation, application, axiology and social functioning of the law and phenomena of social crime and pathology.

Until now, Minister Bodnar has dismissed the Presidents of the Courts and their deputies in 34 courts:

• President of the Poznań Court of Appeals, neo-Judge Matthew Bartosz and vice presidents, neo-Judge Przemysław Radzik and neo-Judge Sylvia Dembska.
• President of the Court of Appeals in Krakow, neo-Judge Sigismund Drożdżejka and vice-president, neo-Judge Katarzyna Wystęńska-Walenciak.
• President of the Kielce territory Court, neojudge Paul Stępnia.
• President of the Poznań territory Court, neo-judge Daniel Jurkiewicz and Vice-President Michael Inglot.
• President of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw, neo-Judge Piotr Schab. At first, he did not accept Bodnar's decision. Eventually, however, on 22 March 2024 he left the President's office. Recently, Minister Bodnar besides dismissed the vice presidents of this court, the neojudges of Edyta Dzialinski and Agnieszka Stachniak-Rogalska.
• President of the Olsztyn territory Court, neo-judge Michał Lasota and his deputies, neo-judges Tomasz Kosakowski and Marcin Czapski.
• President of the territory Court in Olsztyn Maciej Nawacki and his deputies, neojudges Tomasz Koszewski and Adam Jaroczyński.
• President of the territory Court of the Bishop, neojudge Tomasz Turkowski.

• President of the Krakow territory Court, neo-Judge Bartłomiej Migda and his deputies: neo-Judge Michał Puza, associate of the neo-KRS Irena Bochniak and neo-Judge Piotr Kowalski.
• President of the territory Court for Kraków-New Huta, neojudge Maciej Pragłowski and vice president of this court, neojudge Łukasz Felisiak.
• President of the territory Court for Krakow-Podgórze, neojudge Marcin Cichoński.
• President of the territory Court for Krakow-Śródmieście, neo-Judge Piotr Skrzyszowski.
• President of the Myślenice territory Court, neojudge of Margaret of Saints.
• President of the territory Court of Wieliczka Ewa Motyczyńska-Pałys.
• President of the Court of Appeal in Katowice Katarzyna Frydrych, erstwhile Deputy Minister of Justice in the PiS government.
• President of the Warsaw-Prag territory Court, neo-Judge Michał Bukiewicz and Vice-President of Kinga Kubuj – who is active in disciplinary proceedings on our initiative.
• President of the Ostrołęka territory Court Jarosław Teklinski.
• President of the territory Court in Gliwice neo-Judge Patrick Poniatowski and Vice president of neo-Judge Wojciech Głowacki.
• President of the Gliwice territory Court Joanna Zachorowska and 2 vice-presidents of that court, neo-judge Anna Jaworska-Weloch (formerly asessor) and Barbara Klepacz.
• President of the territory Court in Ruda Śląska Ewa Żarkiewicz-Marek and Vice president Adrian Klanek.
• President of the territory Court of Rybnik Bartłomiej Witek and vice presidents of neo-judge Paul Stępnia and neo-judge Ewa Janik.

• Vice president of the Poznań-Grunwald territory Court and Marek Jaskulski, a associate of the neo-KRS.
• President of the Gorzów Wielkopolski territory Court Anna Kuśnierz-Milczarek and Vice president of that court, neo-Judge Kinga Wochna.
• President of the territory Court in Gorzów Wielkopolski Jarosław Dudzicz and Vice president Dorothy Bobrowicz.
• President of Elbląg territory Court, neojudge Agnieszka Walkiak.
• President of the territory Court of Sulęcin Ewa Kuś-Wasilewska.
• President of the territory Court of Toruń Krzysztof Dąbkiewicz.
• President of the territory Court in Rzeszów, neo-Judge Waldemar Krok and Vice President, neo-Judge Grzegorz Plis.
• President of the territory Court in Rzeszów, neo-Judge Tomasz Berezowski.
• President of the Bialystok territory Court, neojudge Ewa Kołodziej-Dubowska and vice president Dorothy Sosna.
• President of the Bialystok territory Court, neo-Judge Paul Dzienis and Vice-President of Alina Kreiza-Alekseyuk.
• President of the territory Court in Bielsko Podlaski Mirosław Mironiuk.
• President of Dębica territory Court Katarzyna Radzik.
• President of the territory Court of Piotrków Trybunalski Bartłomiej Szkudlarek.

Another presidents and vice presidents of the courts resigned themselves. They're under force from the judges. These are:

• President of Poznań-New City territory Court and Wilda Michał Tasarek.
• President of Koszalin territory Court, neo-Judge Piotr Bogusszewski.
• Vice president of the Elbląg territory Court, neojudge Anna Długajczyk.
• President of Bełchatów territory Court, neojudge Robert Sobczak.
• President of the Lublin Court of Appeals, neojudge Jerzy Daniluk and vice president, neojudge Piotr Czerski.
• President of Elbląg territory Court, neojudge Jacek Bryl and vice-president, neojudge Katarzyna Jacewicz-Okuniewicz.
• Vice president of the Warsaw-Prague territory Court Przemysław Chrzanowski.
• President of Tarnowskie Góra territory Court Marcin Kulikowski.
• President of the Poznań-Grunwald territory Court and Jeżyce Tomasz Magoka and Vice president of Sylwester Priest.
• Vice president of the Kielce territory Court, neojudge Monika Wron.
• Vice president of the Gliwice territory Court Gabriela Sobczyk.
• Vice-President of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw, neojudge Arkadiusz Ziarko. He resigned recently. However, he helped Minister Bodnar to make staff changes in that court at a crucial minute erstwhile the rebel president of that court Peter Schab rebelled.

• Vice president of the Legnica territory Court Paweł Oborski.
• President of the Ropczyce territory Court Anna Zieć.
• President of the territory Court of Bytovo Patricia Bona.
• President of the territory Court in Kraśnik Anna Plewa.
• President of the territory Court of Żagań Michał Volowicz.
• President of the territory Court for Łódź-Śródmieście Artur Wióra.
• Vice-President of the territory Court of Grace Magdalena Socha.
• Vice president of the territory Court in Łódź Michał Krakowiak.
• Vice president of Bielsko Podlaski territory Court Marcin Mosiołek.
• Vice president of the territory Court of Żory Miłosz Dubiel.
• Vice president of the territory Court for Krakow-Śródmieście Grzegorz Kurczab.
• Vice president of the Roman Sołtysek territory Court of Wadowice.
• Vice president of the territory Court for Łódź-Śródmieście Janusz Pelczarski.

• Vice-President of the Łomża territory Court Wiesława Kozikowska.
• Vice-President of the Bydgoszcz territory Court Sylwia Suska-Obidowska.
• Vice-President of the Bydgoszcz territory Court Iwona Piekańska-Szymańska.
• Vice president of the territory Court in Białystok Piotr Wypych.
• Vice president of the territory Court in Rzeszów Wojciech Dudek.
• President of the Poznań-Old City territory Court, neojudge Danuta Felińska-Żukowska (she went to rest).
• Vice-President of the territory Court in Piotrków Trybunalski Krystyna Gajdzińska-Modro.
• President of the territory Court of Łódź-Vidzew Marek Pietruszka.
• President of Anna Kampa territory Court.

Until now, Minister Adam Bodnar has not received approval to dismiss management in the territory courts in Bielsko-Biała and Sosnowiec. Kolegia besides refused to accept resignations of regional court presidents in Bartoszyce, Kętrzyn, Miechów, Chrzanów, Olkusz, Wadowice, Sucha Beskidzka and Vice president of Myślenice. It is besides worth noting that, despite crucial changes in courts, neo jurisprudence continues to be ruled by neo jurisprudence whose case law is legally defective due to the deficiency of appropriate contract. Unfortunately, this problem has not been regulated by Minister Bodnar, which causes that a large number of cases to repeat avalanches are increasing due to the fact that a devolved gang of Pokemons participating in illegal concurancies is not a problem to impose a theoga and fake faulty legally sentences.

READ ALSO: "The acceptance of promotion was a mistake". The first neojudge wants to retreat the nomination

How do we reconstruct the regulation of law?

In our opinion, solving the problem of neojudges, which would be without prejudice to any legal rules, would require zeroing out everything these judges have done. For applicable reasons, it is unacceptable.

If we are to decide individually about the position of neojudges, we are faced with a choice: we can either search the most (apparently) legal solution, which, however, will contain a hidden political decision, or we can adopt a solution openly violating the legal rules, but not concealing its political character.

And this choice, in itself, is simply a political choice.

We remind you that not only we and a large part of the legal community believe that neoKRS is an illegal institution. A akin view is given by justice Pszczółkowski, who, in a distant sentence, stated that the present KRS was not a body shaped as required by the Constitution.

Its arguments are based on the provisions concerning the composition of the National Court Board, in peculiar concerning Article 9a of the Act on the National Judicial Council. Changes in the membership of the KRS introduced in 2017 are contrary to Article 187(1) of the Constitution, according to justice Pszczółkowski.

The justice stresses that, in accordance with the Constitution, compliance with the requirements for the formation of the body, including the NRS, is simply a essential condition for that authority's ability to exercise its powers. In this context, it lists the anticipation of making applications to the Constitutional Court in cases relating to the independency of courts and the independency of judges.

This position is applicable for the assessment of the legitimacy of the National Court of Justice in proceedings before the Constitutional Court, especially in the context of budgetary issues and the freezing of judges' salaries. justice Pszczółkowski points out the importance of complying with constitutional standards in the formation of bodies which play a key function in the legal system, specified as the National Judicial Council.

"National Judicial Council in a composition formed pursuant to Article 9a of the Act of 12 May 2011 on the National Judicial Council (Journal of Laws of 2021 item 269, as amended; hereinafter: KRS Act) – added pursuant to Article 1 point 1 of the Act of 8 December 2017 on the amendment of the Act on the National Judicial Council and certain another laws (Journal of Laws of 2018 item 3; hereinafter: the Act of 2017) – is not a body shaped in the manner required by Article 187(1) of the Constitution," wrote a separate justice Piotr Pszczółkowski.

Further on, the TK justice explains why the current mechanics for shaping the composition of the KRS "shades the constitutional structure of this body".

‘This is for at least 2 reasons. Firstly, the legislator, by abandoning the established constitutional practice, entrusting the judges themselves with the election of judges – members of the National Court of Justice, and transferring this competence to the Sejm, granted this political authority a decisive influence on the cast of an excellent majority of the Council (i.e. the selection of 19 out of 25 members). Secondly, the legislator, erstwhile introducing a fresh mechanics for the selection of judges – the members of the NRS did not comply with the request that representatives of each group of judges of all types of courts mentioned in Article 187(1)(2) of the Constitution should be included in the Council,” states the separate sentence.

In the erstwhile period (i.e. from the establishment of the National Court registry in 1989 until the amendments were made in 2017), the selection procedure for the members of the Council was as follows: those elected from among the judges were selected by the judges themselves. More specifically, the 2 members of the National Judicial Board were elected by a general assembly of judges of the ultimate Court of that Court; 1 associate of the National Court of Justice was elected by a general assembly of judges of the ultimate Court of that Court of Justice; 2 members of the National Court of Justice were elected by a general assembly of judges of appeal courts of that court; and 9 members of the National Court of Justice were elected from among its members by meetings of representatives of general assemblies of judges in provincial courts. Additionally, 1 associate of the KRS was elected by the General Assembly of Military Court Judges from among the judges of those courts.

In the opinion of Piotr Pszczółkowski, the breach of the structural balance of the National Judicial Council resulting from the Constitution occurred erstwhile the legislature, by means of the 2017 Act, entrusted the Sejm with the power to elect 15 judges to be members of the National Court Register. According to the judge, the transfer of 19 people (including members of the CoR) from 25 seats in the Council to a single political authority made the bulk of the Council's composition dependent on the decision of the current parliamentary majority.

The Constitutional Court justice cites the judgments of the European Courts of Justice and Human Rights, which state that the National Judicial Council has lost the essential independency from political power and is incapable to make independent and nonsubjective selection of candidates for judges, nor to apply to the president of the Republic of Poland for the appointment of judges.

‘I believe that these reservations should be duly addressed besides to the ability of the Council to exercise another powers in the field of safeguarding the independency of courts and the independency of judges, including its usage to the Court of Justice with applications under Article 186(2) of the Constitution. I besides have the impression that the Constitutional Court has already seen the problem itself, refusing to mention to the case. K 12/18 examination of the legitimacy of the National Judicial Council to request only to confirm its own legal position. “” states the judge.

Piotr Pszczółkowski draws attention to the issue of representativeness of members of the National Court Register, which has been examined by the Constitutional Tribunal.

"The present model regulation makes the KRS, a body which, in accordance with Article 186 of the Constitution, is to uphold the independency of the courts and the independency of the judges, a body with much more crucial political support than the judge's."

The justice emphasises that, in accordance with Article 11a(2) of the Act on the National Judicial Council, entities specified as a group of at least 2 1000 citizens or twenty-five judges are entitled to apply for a candidate as a associate of the Council, excluding those who are at rest.

"There is now a request for very advanced political support in the selection of members of the CoR: Members who elect members of the Council (model 276, out of 460 Members), while requiring a very low minimum threshold of support for a associate of the Council expressed by the judiciary (only 25 judges of around 10,000 Judges). Similarly, the request for a candidate to be a associate of the Council to get the support of a minimum of 2,000 citizens of nearly 38 million people should be classified as a tiny representative," explains Piotr Pszczółkowski.

The justice recalls that the Constitutional Court, through its judgement in Case K 12/18 of 25 March 2019, decided to waive the constitutional review of Article 11a of the Act on the National Judicial Council, which gives emergence to a problem concerning the representativeness of the National Court of Justice and the procedures for collecting letters of support for candidates for that body. According to the judge, this decision was taken hastily and may lead to a misconception that the effect of the Constitutional Court ruling on the anticipation for politicians to elect members of the National Court of Justice means compliance with the Constitution besides in the remaining scope of the regulation on the selection of members of the National Court of Justice.

"A holistic knowing of the Constitution requires that, in order to effectively carry out the constitutional tasks of the National Courts: to diagnose the threats of the independency of courts and the independency of judges and to prevent specified threats, it is essential to have the legitimacy of a large part of the judicial community that can objectively measure the work and attitude of a candidate for a associate of the Council. The reason and experience of life propose that, in order to keep the constitutional balance of authorities, the participation and support of the judiciary community in the selection of members of a constitutional body to safeguard the independency of judges and the independency of courts should not be little than the participation and support of another authorities – those before which the KRS is tasked to safeguard the judiciary."

Thus, the justice of the Constitutional Tribunal confirmed our position regarding the deficiency of power to issue judgments by neo-Judges who usage an illegal body nomination.

The deficiency of power to give judgments by persons utilizing nominations issued on the basis of illegal competitions organised by a criminal body impersonating the KRS is besides justified in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (judgment of 22 July 2021 – complaint No 43447/19, Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek against Poland of 8 November 2021 – complaint No 49868/19 and 57511/19, Advance Pharma sp. z o.o. v. Poland of 7 February 2022 — complaint No 1469/20, Broda and Bojar v. Poland of 29 June 2021 — complaint No 26691/18 and 27367/18, Grzępa v Poland of 15 March 2022 — Complaint No 43572/18, Wałęsa v Poland of 23 November 2023 — action No 50849/21), judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (of 19 November 2019 — Case AK of the combined actions C 585/18, C 624/18, C 625/18, judgement of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 October 2021 in Case C-487/19), judgement of the Polish ultimate Court (judgment of 5 December 2019 III PO 7/18, OSNP 2020/4/38, order of the ultimate Court of 15 January 2020 III PO 8/18, OSNP 2020/10/114, resolution of the Joint Chambers of the ultimate Court of Justice of 23 January 2020 (BSA 1-4110-1/20) and judgement of the ultimate Administrative Court of 26 June 2019, Il GOK 2/18, judgement of 11 October 2021, Il GOK 9/18, judgement of Il GOK 10/18, Il GOK 11/18, Il GOK 11/18, Il GOK 12/18, Il GOK 12/18, Il GOK 13/18, Il GOK 21, Il GOK 20/18, Il 21).

We remind you that the case law issued by the neo-judges is repealed by law. In the case of civilian proceedings pursuant to Article 379(4) in fine k.p.c. and criminal proceedings pursuant to Article 439(1)(6) in fine k.p.k.

What is neo-KRS and neo-Judge

The National Judicial Council was elected in a manner incompatible with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, which makes it impossible for the Court of Justice to recognise it in the light of the adopted line of the jurisprudence of the ultimate Court and the TEU as a body acting as acting and having the power to appoint judges. Any justice appointed by that unconstitutional authority and appointed by the president to execute is besides served by a noe-judge who has no legal capacity to issue judgment,

At this point it will be justified to rise that the problem of vocations of "judges" after the formation of the "National Judicial Council" as a consequence of changes in 2017 has respective aspects. The first is related to the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, which impose on public authorities, including the legislator, the work of specified appointment of judges to judicial duties, which guarantees the essential minimum independency and independency of the bodies active in the nomination process. This body is the National Judicial Board. engagement in constitutional standards for shaping the judicial composition of this body, creating an chance for politicians to form the Council, i.e. the election of members of the judges of the Council in their entirety by parliament (excluding the 1st president of the SN and the president of the NSA), has caused this body to neglect to meet constitutional requirements. This makes in any event the appointment of a justice question arise, which accompanies any man who puts his case under the judgement of the court, whether this court is simply a constitutional court.

In addition, this is the second aspect – in the doctrine to which I have given my hand, and in the case-law, there has been a method of verifying the correctness of the appointment of judges based on tools that have been in the strategy since forever, but mostly not utilized to measure the fulfilment of minimum conditions of impartiality and independence. It is the institutions (in the case of preventive control) – iudex sspectus and iudex inhabilis, and in the case of follow-up control – the absolute appeal condition, which is the incorrect cast of the court. On this thought the position of the resolution of the 3 Joint Chambers of the ultimate Court of January 2020 was placed. The resolution contained not precisely the right differentiation: indicating that, in the case of an SN, due to the nature of that authority, judges appointed after a advice of the KRS formed after 2017, do not supply guarantees of independent and impartial ruling. For this reason, it was considered that only this organization flaw justifies the claim that specified judges are deprived of material votum. The resolution did not competition that these persons had obtained the position of SN judges, but it was found that they had no power to issue judgments.

The judgments of specified ‘judges’ so far have been affected by the defect, given the inadequate cast of the court, which should be regarded as a failure to fulfil the constitutional request of the competent court referred to in Article 45(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. Failed judges should not rule. From the date of the resolution, these judges shall be incapable to rule. They do not have a material votum, although they have the position of judges. In the light of the above, it should be considered that, pursuant to Article 91(2) and (3) of the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and of the ECHR, the rule of precedence of the application of the law

This is justified in the judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 October 2021 in Case C-487/19, as well as in the erstwhile judgement of the European Court of Human Rights of 7 May 2021, action No 4907/18. I remind the hooded court that, in accordance with Article 9 of the Constitution, the Republic of Poland is obliged to respect its binding global law. In accordance with Article 91(2) of the Constitution, an global agreement ratified with the prior consent expressed in the Act shall take precedence over the law if that law cannot be reconciled with the agreement. The position of judges and the guarantees of the independency of courts, which constitute the essence of the right to a fair trial, are enshrined in the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and are further confirmed in Article 6(3) of the Treaty on EU. In the present case, the judgement given on 7 October 2021 by the Constitutional Court in the present – defective – composition of the case in Case No. K 13/21, which reconciles the interests of citizens.

Our position on the neo-CRS and neo-Judges appointed by this unconstitutional body confirms the position of the European Commission, which decided on 15 February 2023 to mention Poland to the Court of Justice of the European Union in connection with the controversial ruling of the Polish Constitutional Court. The Commission opened infringement proceedings against Poland on 22 December 2021. – The reason was the judgments of the Polish Constitutional Court of 14 July 2021 and 7 October 2021, in which it declared the provisions of the EU treaties to be incompatible with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, explicitly questioning the rule of primacy of EU law. Without doubt, in light of the content of the judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber) of 19 November 2019 (Nos C 585/18, C-624/18, C 625/18) and the resolution of the full composition of the ultimate Court of 23 January 2020 (BSA I-4110-1/20), there is simply a basis for concluding that the institution designated to guarantee the regulation of law is breaking the law and commits the crime.

You request legal assistance, compose us or call us right now.

579-636-527

[email protected]

Conclusion

Personal changes carried out by Minister Adam Bodnar are aimed at restoring independency and trust in the Polish justice system. The cancellation of the denominations of Minister Ziobra is simply a step towards transparency and improvement of the functioning of the courts. However, these procedures are not free from challenges and complications that may affect their effectiveness. The final effect of these actions will be crucial for the future of the Polish judicial system.

This article aims to supply detailed information on current changes in the Polish judiciary, taking into account circumstantial persons and procedures, which can contribute to a better knowing of this complex situation by readers.