Poland¶
The Polish cases show a state trying to undo the capture of its courts without capturing them back. Judges appointed through a council chosen by politicians now sit across the system, and each route out resembles the route in: removing them invites the charge of a purge, and keeping them preserves the capture. The president defends them in the name of legal certainty, and the government seeks a path that unwinds appointments while sparing judgments, so restoration and stability are set against each other.
The clerk’s briefs¶
From the clerks, for the Patrician’s eyes
Worth a look. Litigants whose cases were heard by the disputed judges do not know whether their judgments will stand, and the judges themselves wait to learn whether they are judges. Courts abroad, asked to recognise Polish rulings, may hesitate. Whatever Poland settles on, a later government that wants a bench of its own can cite it, as a precedent for removal or for keeping appointees in place. A settlement with broad agreement, or one endorsed by the European courts, would make that harder.
October 2026: The second reading¶
The Ministry of Justice announced on 7 October 2026 that the Sejm would take up, at second reading the next day, the bill “o przywroceniu prawa do niezaleznego i bezstronnego sadu”, regulating the consequences of the judicial council’s resolutions of 2018 to 2025; “wyroki juz wydane pozostana w mocy, chyba ze ich legalnosc byla konsekwentnie kwestionowana w toku postepowania”, judgments already given remain in force unless their legality was consistently challenged in the proceedings. The clerks note that the bill tries to unwind appointments while leaving most of their judgments standing.
February 2026: The veto¶
On 19 February 2026 President Karol Nawrocki vetoed a bill that would have let judges elect most members of the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS) in direct, secret elections, in place of politicians choosing them. He objected that parliament, “a representative of the sovereign, of all Poles”, would lose its role, and that the bill would cast doubt on the status of around 3,000 judges appointed through the council and their rulings, creating “immense legal chaos”. The clerks note that the president defended the judges chosen through a council chosen by parliament in the language of legal certainty, so that removing them can now be called a purge.
December 2017: Parliament picks the council¶
An amending act of 8 December 2017, in force from 17 January 2018, changed who chooses the National Council of the Judiciary, the body that puts judges forward for appointment: its judicial members are “no longer elected by judges but by the Sejm”, as the European Court of Human Rights put it. The clerks note that the parliamentary majority now chooses the body that chooses the judges, and that every appointment the council makes from here on will carry that origin.