Court of Justice of the European Union (TEU) present issued a key ruling on the functioning of the Polish Constitutional Court (CC). The EU Court full divided the European Commission's argument, stating that the Polish Constitutional Protection Authority had breached the fundamental principles of Community law.
According to the Thursday judgement of the TEU, the Polish Constitutional Court no longer meets the requirements of an independent and impartial court established by the Act. The Luxembourg judges pointed to 2 main reasons for this decision.
The first of these were irregularities in the cast: reservations concerning the appointment of 3 judges (so-called double judges) in December 2015 were confirmed and the procedure for appointing Julia Przyłębska as president of the Constitutional Tribunal in 2016.
In addition, the primacy of EU law has been undermined: the EU Court of Justice found that the Polish Constitutional Tribunal violated the EU legal order by issuing judgments of 2021 which called into question the primacy of European Union law over national law.
The explanatory memorandum stresses that values specified as the regulation of law and effective judicial protection are part of the identity of the Union, to which Poland has acceded voluntarily and cannot unilaterally withdraw.
Minister of Justice Waldemar Żurek assessed the judgement as ‘very strong and clear’. During the policy press conference, he pointed out that this ruling was a confirmation of many years of concerns of the legal community regarding the dismantling of the regulation of law in Poland.
"We have warned that breaking democratic standards can lead to a situation in which the Polish constitutional body will cease to be recognised internationally. present we have this formal proof" - commented Minister Żurek.
The head of the Ministry of Justice announced that Poland must honour this decision, which involves the request to take fast but apolitical steps to reconstruct the position of the Constitutional Court.
In an authoritative communication published on the website, the Constitutional Tribunal rejected Luxembourg's conclusions. In the opinion of the current authorities of the Constitutional Tribunal, the judgement of the Constitutional Tribunal was issued with an excess of competence (ultra vires) and does not affect the functioning of Polish authorities. The Constitutional Tribunal reiterated its view that the Constitution of the Republic of Poland remains the highest legal act in Poland.
Comment
Ruler or unnecessary organ? The question of the legitimacy of the Constitutional Court (TK) returns in the Polish public debate at all political crisis. Although in any countries, specified as the US, the ultimate Court examines the constitutionality of the law, the Polish strategy is based on the alleged concentrated control of standards. This means that 1 specialised body has been established to destruct unconstitutional provisions.
Why not the ultimate Court? The main reason is the fundamental difference in competence. The ultimate Court (SN) is an appeal body in civil, criminal or labour matters – it deals with circumstantial people and their disputes. The Constitutional Court in turn assesses the law itself. erstwhile the Constitutional Tribunal considers the act to be incompatible with the Constitution, this provision ‘disappears’ from the strategy (erga omnes) which protects all citizens at the same time and not just the side in a circumstantial process.
Taking over these tasks by SN would require a complete change in the state architecture. The Constitutional Tribunal is simply a "negative legislator" with the power to repeal Parliament's decisions, which is the task stricte a body, not just a court. The separation of these roles is intended to prevent excessive burden on SN judges and to guarantee that constitutional judges are experts on the foundations of the system, not just on court procedures.
In the current political situation, therefore, it is not the institution of the Court itself that is simply a problem, but its politicisation and decision-making paralysis. Without an efficient, independent arbitrator who can say "stop" to the legislator, the Constitution becomes just a collection of wishes alternatively than a real law.
→ develop. ed.
17.12.2025
• illustration photograph - photo: curia.europa.eu
