For Polish legal scholars commenting on the judgment, the message is clear: cases must be assessed individually, not through broad political or administrative measures.
Maciej Gutowski, a lawyer and professor at Adam Mickiewicz University in the western city of Poznań, said the ruling should be treated as a warning by Poland’s governing camp.
He argued that the government must abandon any idea of resolving the issue through mass reversals of judicial promotions.
“Those in power must understand that solving the problem of these judges does not have to mean bloodshed,” Gutowski said.
He said Poland’s ordinary courts are already facing major staffing shortages, and that nearly one-third of judges in the common court system were appointed with the involvement of the restructured National Council of the Judiciary (KRS).
Because of that, he warned, removing such judges in large numbers could trigger a breakdown in the court system.
The KRS was reshaped by the former Law and Justice (PiS) government after 2017, and its new form has been widely criticized by Polish defenders of judicial independence as well as European institutions, which argued that the body had become politicized.
Judges appointed with its involvement are often referred to in public debate as “neo-judges.”
Gutowski said that, if there is evidence some judges benefited from political ties, those cases should be dealt with one by one through disciplinary proceedings.
At the same time, he argued that many judges appointed under the disputed system have no political connections and should not have their status challenged automatically.
He also criticized the idea that judges themselves should be left to solve the institutional conflict.
In his view, politicians on both the government and presidential sides should work out a minimum agreement, because continued paralysis in the courts mainly harms ordinary citizens waiting years for cases to be resolved.
Another expert, constitutional scholar Ryszard Piotrowski, said the CJEU ruling supports an approach already visible in parts of Polish case law.
He said courts must examine the circumstances of a judge’s appointment individually, rather than relying on the broad label of “neo-judge.”
“There is no such concept in Polish law as a ‘neo-judge,’” Piotrowski said. “It is a journalistic term, and using it causes chaos in the justice system.”
Piotrowski argued that challenging judges solely because they were appointed after 2017 can undermine legal certainty and, in some cases, serve as a tactic to delay proceedings or attack unfavorable rulings. He said that does little to protect citizens’ rights.
The CJEU ruling came in response to questions from a Poznań court that was considering whether a judge hearing a payment dispute should be taken off the case because she had been recommended by the restructured KRS.
In its judgment, the Luxembourg-based court said that irregularities in the appointment process may matter only when, because of their nature and seriousness, they create a real risk of interference by other branches of power.
The court added that the mere fact that a judge was appointed with the participation of the restructured KRS is not enough on its own to justify automatic exclusion.
Established in 1952, the Luxembourg-based Court of Justice of the European Union aims to ensure that member states comply with obligations under the bloc's treaties. The top EU court also interprets EU law at the request of national courts. Photo: EPA/JULIEN WARNAND
The ruling does not settle the Poznań case itself. That decision now goes back to the Polish court.
But experts say the judgment, which has drawn conflicting reactions among politicians, sends a strong signal that any attempt to resolve the long-running dispute over such judges will have to be measured, individual, and grounded in law.
(rt/gs)
Source: IAR, PAP, curia.europa.eu