Polish constitutional crisis and judicial reforms (since 2015)

The constitutional crisis in Poland began in autumn 2015 with the double election of five constitutional judges each by the 7th and 8th legislative periods of the Polish parliament . As a result, the PiS- dominated Sejm passed six laws on the functioning of the Constitutional Court between November 2015 and December 2016 . In 2018, a disciplinary chamber was set up at the Constitutional Court, which can dismiss any judge or public prosecutor; this has changed the political system in Poland considerably.

The crisis was one reason for the protest movement Committee for the Defense of Democracy ( Polish : Komitet Obrony Demokracji ).

In mid-July 2021, the ECJ ruled that Poland's system of disciplining judges violated European law. The system does not offer all guarantees of independence and impartiality within the political system. On July 20, 2021, the EU Commission asked Poland to implement a CJEU ruling on its judicial reform by mid-August 2021; otherwise she will apply for financial sanctions.

course

Two judges elected

Election of judges by the 7th legislative period

The terms of office of five constitutional judges ended towards the end of the 7th Sejm period; three left office on November 6, and two more in early December. In the last two cases, the respective end of the term of office was predictably already in the following legislative period, the parliament of which was elected on October 25, 2015 .

On June 25, 2015, the Sejm passed a new law on the Constitutional Court with the votes of the ruling PO - PSL coalition, which made it possible for the 7th Sejm to elect the successors of the two judges who left in December 2015. On October 8, the election for the five judge posts that became vacant shortly afterwards finally took place. Newly elected constitutional judges were Roman Hauser , Krzysztof Ślebzak , Andrzej Jakubecki , Bronisław Sitek and Andrzej Sokala , with Sitek and Sokala not taking office until the next Sejm. The opposition PiS massively criticized this approach, as it believes the government is intervening in the powers of the subsequent Sejm in anticipation of an election defeat. While the PiS sued the law in the Constitutional Court , President Duda refused to swear in the elected constitutional judges, which is necessary so that they can begin their official business. After the PiS won the general election, it withdrew its lawsuit against the law. As a result, members of the Civic Platform filed a lawsuit in order to have the constitutional court clarify the question of the legality of the judges' election. They criticized that President Duda justified the swearing-in of the judges with doubts about the constitutional conformity of the decisions, but did not turn to the Constitutional Court for clarification.

Amendment to the law of November 19, 2015

On November 12th, the new Sejm was constituted, in which the PiS has an absolute majority. An amendment to the Constitutional Court Act was passed on November 19, which, among other things, introduced the new provision that the term of office of a judge does not begin until he is sworn in. The amendment limited the terms of office of the President and Vice-President of the Court to three years with the possibility of simple re-election. In addition, the early demotion of the then chairmen Andrzej Rzepliński and Stanisław Biernat to simple constitutional judges was planned. Since the law made it possible to refill not only the two previously disputed but all five judge posts that were newly filled in October, members of the Civic Platform immediately sued the Constitutional Court. Further complaints were filed by the Commissioner for Civil Rights Adam Bodnar , the National Council for Judiciary (Polish: Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa ) and the President of the Supreme Court .

Election of judges by the 8th legislative period

After the Constitutional Court announced that it would decide on December 3, 2015 on the action against the amendment to the law of June 25, 2015 and thus on the legality of the judge election of October 8, the Sejm declared on November 25, 2015 with the votes of the PiS and some votes of Kukiz'15 without legal basis unauthorized this election as invalid. In addition, the President was called upon not to swear in the elected judges.

According to the PiS MP Stanisław Piotrowicz , there were many procedural errors in the election of judges during the previous Sejm period. The Sejm resolution therefore leads to the convalescence of the electoral process and ends the five vacant positions in the Constitutional Court. Piotrowicz added that the ruling PiS had been legitimized by the voters to reform the country. If it were up to the voted out citizens' platform, the constitutional court would have been instrumentalized to block these reforms. This view is also represented by the constitutional lawyers Jaroslaw Szymanek , Bogusław Banaszak and Bogumił Szmulik .

In a 36-page assessment, Szymanek argues that the legislative amendment passed by the previous government was supposed to give the then parliament the opportunity to elect all five judges. Banaszak argued that the election in place of the outgoing judge, whose resignation was outside of the current Sejm period, amounted to a "petrification" of the current electorate. He also criticized the inconsistency between the Sejm's rules of procedure and the Constitutional Court Act with regard to the choice of judges. Szmulik also noted that any law that contradicts the Rules of Procedure is unconstitutional because it interferes with the independence of parliament.

On November 26, 2015, Article 30 of the Rules of Procedure was amended, which stipulates the application for filling state offices. According to the explanatory memorandum for the law, various exceptional cases are to be regulated: including vacancies as a result of not being sworn in, termination of further electoral proceedings or death.

On November 30, 2015, the Constitutional Court decided unanimously on the basis of the Code of Civil Procedure to “secure” the constitutional complaint filed by PO MPs on the law of June 25, 2015. On the basis of the legal instrument “postanowienie tymczasowe o zabezpieczeniu wniosku” (German: preliminary freezing decision on the application), the constitutional body asked the Sejm not to elect a judge until the judgment in the above-mentioned complaint had been reached. However, Parliament ignored this request.

On December 2, 2015, one day before the announced verdict, the Sejm elected five PiS candidates ( Henryk Cioch , Lech Morawski , Mariusz Muszyński , Piotr Pszczółkowski and Julia Przyłębska ) to the judge posts in question. Shortly after midnight, President Duda took the oath of office from these five people.

The Judiciary and Human Rights Committee (Polish: Komisja Sprawiedliwości i Praw Człowieka ) had already given a positive assessment of these five candidacies the day before. The chairman of the committee, Piotrowicz, refused to allow the opposition MPs to take part in the discussion. In addition, there was no hearing of the individual applicants for the Constitutional Court.

On December 3, 2015, four newly sworn judges, accompanied by the government protection office, entered the constitutional court. However, the court president Andrzej Rzepliński suspended the judges from adjudicating until the legality of their election was clarified.

On January 7, 2016, the PO MPs' complaint about the Sejm resolutions of November 25 and December 2, 2015 was rejected by the Constitutional Court because they were not so-called "normative acts " (Polish: akt normatywny ); that is, they are not identified as a legal source in the Polish constitution and do not set up any legal norm . Therefore, the examination of these decisions lies outside the competence of the constitutional body.

On January 12, 2016, Judges Pszczółkowski and Przyłębska were granted the right to participate in the judiciary.

The remaining three judges are also associated with the word "doubles" due to their collision with the three legally assigned posts by the previous parliament.

Judgments of December 2015

On December 3, 2015, the Constitutional Court passed a judgment in the case K 34/15 on the law of June 25, 2015. It came to the conclusion that the statutory provision for the election of three judges starting in November 2015 was constitutional, however, the possibility of appointing two additional judges is contrary to the constitution.

In the grounds of the judgment, the Constitutional Court stated that the President must immediately take the oath of office from the three legally elected judges. From the point of view of the president's office , the swearing-in is not possible due to the fact that the constitutional court is completely occupied. President Duda did not comment on the judgment during a December 3 speech. On December 9, 2015, the parliamentarians of the Civic Platform brought a motion requesting the president to comply with the December 3 ruling and to swear in the judges.

On December 9, 2015, the Constitutional Court ruled on the law of November 19, 2015 in Case K 35/15. The court considered the possibility of re-election of all five judges and the premature demotion of the chairman and his deputy unconstitutional. At the same time, the legislative procedure was constitutional.

Publication of the judgment in the law gazette

Prime Minister Beata Szydło refused to publish the judgment of December 3rd in the Law Gazette. As a justification, she justified her decision with possible formal errors in the judgment. The Constitutional Court ruled in a five-person composition, but in their opinion a committee of nine judges was necessary. On December 10, 2015, the head of the office, Beata Kempa , wrote to the chairman Rzepliński , demanding an account of the matter and made publication dependent on it. This fact is a novelty in the history of the Court of Justice. In an answer, Rzepliński stated that, under Article 190, Paragraph 2 of the Polish Constitution, the Prime Minister was obliged to publish his judgment in the Law Gazette without delay and that there were no exceptions.

On December 14, 2015, the Warsaw Public Prosecutor's Office initiated an investigation against the civil service due to a breach of duty to the detriment of the general interest. The judgments in cases K 34/15 and K 35/15 were finally published on December 16 and 18, 2015. The proceedings were closed on January 7, 2016. It should be noted that a publication was already possible on December 4, 2015 and the delay was due to the individual decision of the Prime Minister, but the subsequent publication and the uncertainty whether the act was deliberately to the detriment of the public interest led to the termination of the proceedings, according to the Public prosecutor.

Amendment to the law of December 22, 2015

In response to the judgments, Law and Justice decided to make further changes to the Constitutional Court Act. During a speech at the National Development Council (Polish: Narodowa Rada Rozwoju ) , Duda stated that he wanted to participate in the reform of the constitutional court.

The Kukiz movement postulated that the composition of the body should be expanded to include 18 judges, that judges should be elected with a qualified two-thirds majority and that the Supreme Court should examine whether constitutional laws were in conformity with the constitution .

On December 15, 2015, members of the PiS introduced a new legislative initiative in the Sejm and justified this with the alleged blockade of reforms by the constitutional court. A cross-party discussion took place in the Legislative Committee (Polish: Komisja Ustawodawcza ). During the absence of individual PiS MPs, the opposition politicians managed to postpone the meeting to January 7, 2016 in a vote. When the MPs returned, the chairman of the commission, Marek Ast , ordered the election to be repeated. According to the applicant Piotrowicz, members of the opposition participated in the vote without being a committee member. A week later, the amended legal text was passed by parliament.

The Legislative Office of the Sejm (Polish: Sejmowe Biuro Legislacyjne ) drew attention to the fact that some amendments proposed by PiS MPs were not applicable to the law and that parts of the project could run counter to the constitution. However, none of these reservations were taken into account. During a committee meeting to consider the changes from the second Sejm reading, the contributions from opposition MPs were restricted. The law then immediately hit the upper chamber of parliament, the Senate . There, the project was accepted by a majority with the votes of the PiS on the night of December 24, 2015, without any corrections. According to the amendment, the court should usually judge in full presence, that is, with the participation of at least 13 judges. Previously, a full attendance with nine judges was considered fulfilled, with the majority of the cases being investigated by a five-person committee. In addition, according to the new regulation, judgments should be made with a two-thirds majority in full presence. The change in the law also allows seven and three-person compositions in identified cases. According to the law, the General Assembly of the Constitutional Court should also not be allowed to prematurely terminate the mandate of a judge. The President of the State and Minister of Justice could also initiate disciplinary proceedings against judges, unless the chairman of the court proves this to be unfounded. Furthermore, the meetings should take place according to the chronological receipt of the applications. The court session should only take place after a waiting period of three months after the date has been received by those involved in the proceedings and, if the judges are fully present, only after six months. The change in the law did not provide for a legislative vacancy . During the legislative process, no move was made to remove Warsaw from the law as the compulsory headquarters of the court.

Concerns about the compatibility of the law with the constitution were raised by the National Judiciary Council, the Attorney General and the Commissioner for Civil Rights. The parliamentary process raised concerns on the part of the Bar Association (Polish: Naczelna Rada Adwokacka ), the National Council of Lawyers (Polish: Krajowa Rada Radców Prawnych ), the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights and the Association of Polish Judges "Iustitia" (Polish: Stowarzyszenie Sędziów Polskich " Justice ” ).

Various organizations appealed to the president to have the law examined by the constitutional court or to veto it. Regardless of this, Dudas initialed on December 28, 2015. He justified his decision with the will to strengthen the position and situation of the Constitutional Court. On the same day it was published in the Law Gazette, which was equivalent to the entry into force of the law.

Judgment of March 9, 2016

MPs from PO, PSL and Nowoczesna, as well as the President of the Supreme Court and the National Council for Judiciary, filed constitutional complaints against the new law. A controversy was sparked by the question of whether the new law should already apply in the judgment process. The Stephan Báthory Foundation , the Bar Association, the National Council of Lawyers and the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights were presented to the Constitutional Court as amici curiae legal opinions, assuming that the law in its entirety is unconstitutional. According to academic employees of the Faculty of Law and Administration of the Silesian University and the Bar Association, the Constitutional Court was allowed to judge directly on the basis of the Polish Constitution and to the exclusion of the new law. The then Attorney General Andrzej Seremet considered the law unconstitutional on 16 points. Moreover, the passing of judgment in application to the new law would lead to a paradox. A hypothetical judgment that documents the law's unconstitutionality was made on the basis of illegal legal provisions. It is therefore contestable because a legal act is unconstitutional from the moment it comes into being. The attorney general's point of view changed on March 4, 2016 after Zbigniew Ziobro became Minister of Justice and Attorney General at the same time.

On March 4, Ziobro appealed to the court to adjourn the session. Three days later he stated in a letter that judgments resulting from an "incorrect" composition could not be published by the government.

On March 9, 2016, the constitutional body ruled in case K 47/15 in the presence of 12 judges. As a result, the law of December 22, 2015 is in complete contravention of the constitution. At the discretion of the court, the Sejm disregarded the principle of getting the law through in three readings. Vice-President Stanisław Biernat emphasized the irrevocability of constitutional court judgments. A special vote was announced by the judges Julia Przyłębska and Piotr Pszczółkowski . During the publication of the verdict, there was no participation by representatives of the government, the Sejm or the Attorney General.

Publication of the judgment in the law gazette

The head of government Beata Szydło decreed not to publish the verdict, as the verdict was passed without the application of the new law. The verdict in case K 47/15 was dubbed by the prime minister as “the opinion of some judges of the constitutional court”. Minister Ziobro added analogously that the constitutional judges tried in a clumsy way to reach a verdict that had come about illegally. Because of this, there is no legal validity.

At the request of lawyers Andrzej Bałaban, Bogusław Banaszak, Genowefa Grabowska, Robert Jastrzębski, Anna Łabno, Mirosław Karpiuk and Bogumił Szmulik, the Minister of Justice manifested his point of view. The eight legal experts are also of the opinion that the Constitutional Court acted negligently in reaching its verdict without the implementation of the new regulations. According to several commentators - including Marek Chmaj and Ewa Siedlecka - only a few authors are experts in constitutional law.

Before the judgment was announced, an alleged draft of the judgment appeared on the right-wing Internet portal wPolityce.pl . If the author is believed, PO MPs also came into early possession of the judgment, which the journalist concluded as an agreement. The premature publication by unauthorized persons was unprecedented to date. Ziobro then ordered an investigation to be initiated. Rzepliński also filed a complaint with the public prosecutor's office.

On March 17, 2016, the Commissioner for Civil Rights approached the President of the Government Legislative Center (Polish: Rządowe Centrum Legislacji ) Jolanta Rusiniak with a request to explain the reason for the failure to publish the verdict. In a reply, Rusiniak pointed out that the publication of judgments was the responsibility of the Prime Minister.

Over 1700 citizens and various organizations filed criminal charges with the public prosecutor's office in the course of the failure to publish.

On April 27, 2016, the Praga Public Prosecutor's Office refused to initiate an investigation against the civil service. The local prosecutor Paweł Blachowski justified his decision by stating that the Prime Minister and her subordinate employees showed no signs of breach of duty. The prosecution also concluded that the government was obliged to verify the legality of constitutional court judgments, but had no legal basis to do so. Previously, those prosecutors who had pleaded for the initiation of proceedings were excluded from the investigation. The District Court of Śródmieście reversed the decision of the public prosecutor's office, so that the Praga public prosecutor's office started an investigation into the above-mentioned matter on November 15, 2016. In the further proceedings of the Constitutional Court, the judges Przyłębska, Pszczółkowski and Jędrzejewski expressed in separate opinions that the judgments would have no legitimacy without the application of the law . In addition, the judgment in Case K 47/15 was not valid because it was not published.

In several judgments, the Voivodeship Administrative Court (Polish: wojewódzki sąd administracyjny) dismissed complaints alleging that Beata Szydło and the Government Legislative Center had failed to act in the wake of the failure to publish the judgment. The reasoning stated that an administrative court had no authority to investigate this matter. On April 25, 2017, the Supreme Administrative Court (Polish: Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) dismissed a cassation action on the decision.

In the context of subsequently published judgments from the period between September 27 and December 13, 2016, the corresponding judgment of March 9, 2016 was not found here either.

In February 2017, the Praga Public Prosecutor closed the proceedings regarding the non-publication of the judgment because this decision was dictated in the public interest. It is unacceptable to embed court decisions in legal dealings (Polish: obrót prawny) that contradict the applicable legal system.

Legal dualism

On March 7, 2016, in view of the announcement of the Sejm Marshal, a consolidated version of the Constitutional Court Act was published, which contains the amendment of December 22, 2015, which was declared unconstitutional.

The companies Wolters Kluwer and CHBeck have decided to include the judgments not published by the government in their respective legal information systems Lex and Legalis.

On August 8, 2016, the Supreme Administrative Court issued a verdict based on the Constitutional Court ruling of June 28, 2016, although it did not appear in the Law Gazette.

On August 16, 2016, the Szydło cabinet published 21 delinquent judgments of the Constitutional Court. In the judgments of March 9 and August 11, 2016, however, there was no publication.

In spring 2017, the Constitutional Court (under new management) removed the unpublished judgments from its website.

Efforts to solve problems

On March 31, 2016, a committee of experts convened by the Sejm Marshal Marek Kuchciński met for the first time in connection with the constitutional court issue. Its members included 15 legal scholars and legal experts. Upon its dissolution, the body published a report in Polish and English. The expertise analyzed the expert opinion of the Venice Commission with regard to the constitutional dispute, the reason for the dissent at the political-legal level and worked out ten proposed solutions for the legislative power.

On March 31, 2016 there was also a meeting of various party representatives. During a debate next to the head of the measures governing party Jaroslaw Kaczynski , also Grzegorz Schetyna ( PO ), Paweł Kukiz ( Kukiz'15 ), Ryszard Petru ( Nowoczesna ), Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz ( PSL ), Przemysław Wipler ( Korwin ), Wlodzimierz Czarzasty ( SLD ) and Agnieszka Dziemianowicz-Bąk ( Partia Razem ).

On April 14, 2016, the Sejm elected Zbigniew Jędrzejewski as the new constitutional judge in place of Miroslaw Granat . During the election there was a cross-opposition consensus to boycott the election. After the Kukiz MP Małgorzata Zwiercan opposed this agreement and also voted twice on behalf of Kornel Morawiecki , she was expelled from the parliamentary club. The opposition demanded that the vacant position in the court be filled with one of the three legally elected judges during the 7th legislative period.

The constitutional judge Piotr Pszczółkowski (proposed by the PiS) pleaded for the court ruling of June 14, 2016 to be published in the law gazette and was therefore exposed to criticism from representatives of the PiS.

Disagreement in the Constitutional Tribunal

Court employee Kamil Zaradkiewicz (up until then chairman of the Working Group on Jurisprudence and Studies; Polish: dyrektor zespołu orzecznictwa i studiów) received public attention after he was forbidden to speak to the Constitutional Court in the media. He was also advised to resign from office. This was preceded by a newspaper interview in the Rzeczpospolita in which he had questioned the finality of the judgments of the Constitutional Court. On June 27, 2016, Zaradkiewicz was demoted, against which he appealed in July 2016. In his defense, 21 members of the Faculty Council for Law and Administration of the University of Warsaw and six constitutional judges signed a letter of protest to the President of the Court, Rzepliński. As a result of his employment in a state-owned company, some revised their approval.

In a letter dated June 28, 2018, the seven constitutional judges Kieres, Pszczółkowski, Pyziak-Szafnicka, Rymar, Tuleja, Wronkowska-Jaśkiewicz and Zubik complained that when the President of the Court Przyłębska took office, abuses were observed in the cast. You draw attention to opaque criteria when appointing the chairman or rapporteur. There are also frequent changes to already established appointments, which are repeatedly not justified. Some judges are almost exclusively excluded from those appointments that consider motions to remove judges. Furthermore, the signatories state that the law on the Constitutional Court prescribes the composition according to the alphabet, from which only the appointment of the rapporteur can be excluded and should then be reasoned accordingly. The arbitrary practice of the president of the court in the occupation of the panel destroys the neutrality of the latter.

Law of July 22, 2016

On April 29, 2016, the parties PiS and PSL introduced legislative initiatives to the Sejm on the functioning of the Constitutional Court. On May 12th, a project by the Committee for the Defense of Democracy was also submitted, for which over 100,000 signatures were collected. However, on July 5th, the KOD movement withdrew its project during the second reading.

On July 22, 2016, the PiS's legislative proposal was approved by the Sejm. The authors suggested that, based on the chronological receipt of the motions, all court judgments issued before July 20 should be published and that the sworn judges should be unreservedly included in the jurisprudence. The draftsman also made it possible for a group of at least four judges to adjourn judgments in "full presence". With the latter composition, the presence of a public prosecutor or his representative should be compulsory.

The Office for Parliamentary Analysis (Polish: Biuro Analiz Sejmowych ) received an opinion under the leadership of Marek Chmaj and Anna Rakowska-Trela , which questions the constitutionality of the new law.

According to the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, the new law undermines the separation of powers and opens up the possibility of an anti-constitutional dictatorship on the part of the parliamentary majority.

The legal act was evaluated negatively by the Polish branch of Amnesty International and the Citizens' Forum for Development (Polish: Forum Obywatelskiego Rozwoju ).

In addition, representatives of associations and constitutional organs called on the President to reject the law or to have a constitutional check carried out.

Duda signed the law on July 30th, after which it was published in the Law Gazette on August 1st. This time the legislature also provided for a legislative vacancy until August 16, 2016.

Judgment of August 11, 2016

The law on the functioning of the Constitutional Court of July 22, 2016 was challenged by members of the Civic Platform, Nowoczesna and the Polish People's Party. Independent complaints were brought to the Constitutional Court by the Commissioner for Civil Rights and the President of the Supreme Court. The court decided to examine the law in a closed session before it came into force. The Stephan Báthory Foundation , the Bar Association and the National Council of Lawyers were presented to the Constitutional Court as amici curiae legal opinions, assuming that the law in its entirety is unconstitutional. On August 10, 2016, Kaczyński ruled out publication in the verdict before the verdict was announced. In October, the public prosecutor's office refused to investigate the statement made. The corresponding application for this was made by Nowoczesna.

With the verdict of the Constitutional Court on August 11, 2016 in the case K 39/16, the law was classified as partially unconstitutional. Nine out of ten pieces of legislation submitted were challenged by the Court of Justice. Exempli causa: the inclusion of the three judges in the decision-making process, the chronological examination of laws, or the possibility of being able to block meetings by at least four judges. The court made its decision in the presence of twelve judges. Three of them (Julia Przyłębska, Piotr Pszczółkowski and Zbigniew Jędrzejewski) submitted a separate vote. The verdict was not published because, according to government spokesman Rafał Bochenek , the verdict did not meet the legal requirements.

In February 2017, the Praga public prosecutor closed the proceedings regarding the non-publication of the judgment of August 11, 2016, because this decision was dictated in the public interest. It is unacceptable to embed court decisions in legal transactions that contradict the applicable legal system.

In spring 2017, the judgment was removed from the court's website.

Investigations by the public prosecutor against constitutional judges

A preliminary investigation has been ongoing against the background of a car accident since the middle of 2015, in which judge Lech Morawski was involved. An expert opinion came to the conclusion that he was to blame for the accident, but this was questioned by the public prosecutor. As a result, the Gdansk Public Prosecutor's Office did not apply for a waiver of immunity. On August 18, 2016, the public prosecutor in Katowice informed that a case against Andrzej Rzepliński had been ongoing since July 20, 2016. He was accused of having exceeded his competencies in the course of the expulsion of three constitutional judges.

Budget of the Constitutional Court for 2017

In October 2016, at the request of its chairman Stanisław Piotrowicz, the Justice and Human Rights Committee postponed the assessment of the state budget in Section 06 (budget of the Constitutional Court) for the Finance Committee. According to the Judiciary and Human Rights Committee, the General Assembly decision of the court on the budget was unlawful because the three judges elected in November 2015 were not present. Piotrowicz relied on the assessments of Bogusław Banaszak, Julia Przyłębska, Piotr Pszczółkowski and Zbigniew Jędrzejewski. According to the chairman of the committee, the commission will not examine the individual plan until a general assembly decision is made by the court in the presence of all 15 judges.

The 2017 state budget, including section 06, was nevertheless adopted by the Sejm on December 16, 2016.

Judgment of November 7, 2016

On August 12, 2016, MPs from PO and Nowoczesna brought an action against the provisions of the Law of July 22, 2016, which determine the election of the head of the court and his deputy. The application should be examined in full on November 7, 2016. The three judges nominated by the PiS evaded their presence. Przyłębska, Pszczółkowski and Jędrzejewski called on the three excluded judges to be involved in the decision-making process. In a statement, the six judges proposed by the PiS stated that the chairman's approach was incompatible with the constitution and would prevent the passing of a judgment in full presence. On November 7, 2016, the court decided in a five-person committee that the provisions in question were constitutional.

Boycott of the Constitutional Court

On October 25, 2016, the court hearing in Case Kp 4/15 had to be adjourned because the President of the Republic had not sent a representative as the applicant. The head of the press office Marek Magierowski justified this by expelling the three judges.

On November 29, 2016, there was also no judgment, as the reporting judge Przyłębska did not appear due to illness.

On November 8, 2016, there was no general meeting of the court due to the absence of Przyłębska, Jędrzejewski and Pszczółkowski. As a result of the continuing exclusion of Muszyński, Cioch and Morawski, the quorum of 10 judges could not be fulfilled.

On November 10, 2016, the court had to rule in Case K 6/14 in five presence. Here, too, this was linked to the absence of the newly elected judges.

On November 15, 2016, the court continued efforts to establish procedural rules and began the procedure for the election of the new court president by the general assembly. Among other things, the possibility of fulfilling the constitutional obligations despite three absent judges was discussed. Rzeplinski announced a new plenary assembly between November 28th and 30th, 2016, which should submit candidacies for the new chairman of the court to the president.

In an interview with the right-wing Internet portal wPolityce.pl, Przyłębska justified her boycott of the General Assembly on November 15, 2016 by not wanting to legitimize the allegedly illegal actions of Rzeplinski.

General Assembly of the Constitutional Court on November 30, 2016

On November 30, 2016, judges Przyłębska, Pszczółkowski and Jędrzejewski said they did not take part in the general assembly for health reasons. Due to the legal obligation to submit candidates to the President by December 4th, the meeting was held in the presence of nine people, although this did not correspond to the required quorum of ten judges. The candidates for the post of President of the Constitutional Court were Marek Zubik, Stanisław Rymar and Piotr Tuleja. The in-house office underlined in the resulting decision to the president that this did not emerge from the general assembly, but from an assembly of judges for the general assembly.

President Duda has not nominated any of the proposed candidacies for President of the Constitutional Court.

Laws of November 30th and December 13th, 2016

In these laws, the Polish parliament once again regulated the functioning of the court and the judge's status in a separate law.

The latter introduced, among other things, a disclosure of ownership, an upper age limit of 70 years and the obligation of the court president to integrate sworn judges into the judicial process.

The Supreme Court, the Bar Association and the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights denied the constitutionality.

According to the new text of the law, until a new chairman is appointed, the court will be headed by a provisional chairman, who will be appointed by the president of the state from the judges' panel. Without exception, all judges sworn in by the President should be allowed to judge. In addition, the new law declared candidate proposals to be invalid before it came into force and stipulated the dissolution of the Constitutional Court office on January 1, 2018; in its place a court office (Kancelarię Trybunału) and a legal service office (pl. Biuro Służby Prawnej Trybunału) will be created. If no new employment contracts are offered, all employment relationships of the court employees will expire on December 31, 2017.

The civil rights commissioner Bodnar filed a constitutional complaint about the law, but the court averted it on October 24, 2017.

New chairperson of the constitutional tribunal

On December 19, 2016, the term of office of the President of the Court, Andrzej Rzepliński, ended. On the same day, the three laws on the court, signed by President Duda, appeared in the Law Gazette. On the basis of these laws, Julia Przyłębska could be elected as interim chair with the newly introduced mechanism.

In her first official act she allowed the three judges with unclear status Henryk Cioch, Lech Morawski and Mariusz Muszyński to take part in the judgment. In addition, the judges, Roman Hauser, Andrzej Jakubecki and Krzysztof Ślebziak, elected by the 7th legislative term of the Sejm, who were not sworn in by the President, disappeared from the Tribunal's website.

The information portal Obserwator Konstytucyjny (German constitutional observer) was also abandoned, whereby it continues to figure under the address niezniknelo.pl under private initiative. A plenary meeting of the constitutional tribunal was called on the same day. In the presence of 14 judges, eight of them abstained from casting a vote in the election of the candidate for the office of President of the Court, because the speedy session did not allow Judge Stanisław Rymar to attend that day due to his vacation. His proposal to hold the meeting the following day was rejected by the acting chairman.

The electoral procedure met with concerns from some legal experts. Six votes were cast during the general assembly. With the exception of Piotr Pszczółkowski, the remaining six judges, exclusively proposed by the PiS party, cast their votes. Pszczółkowski found the meeting to be illegal because the current law required the attendance of all 15 judges. Only when a new law came into force on January 3, 2017, legal provisions came into force that made this procedure possible.

The remaining seven judges announced that at least half of the 15 judges would have to vote for the decision of the general assembly to be valid. Instead of two separate elections about the candidates themselves and finally the decision to the president, only the first was carried out.

The court nominated Julia Przyłębska (five votes) and Mariusz Muszyński (one vote).

On December 21, 2016, President Duda proclaimed Julia Przyłębska as the new chairman of the tribunal.

On December 19, 2016, Andrzej Wróbel announced that he would step down as constitutional judge and instead move to the Supreme Court. According to his own statements, he wanted to protest against the government's policy towards the constitutional tribunal. On December 29, 2016, 15 pending judgments were published in the Law Gazette between September 27 and December 13, 2016, with three judgments still remaining unpublished. In spring 2017, the unpublished judgments of March 9, 2016, August 11, 2016 and November 7, 2016 were removed from the Constitutional Court's website. Mariusz Muszyński justified this step by stating that the judgments were made in disregard of the Constitutional Court Act. The removed judgments were published on the Ombudsman's website in June 2017.

The Prosecutor General contested the election of three constitutional judges

On January 11, 2017, the Prosecutor General Ziobro filed a motion to examine the decisions of the Sejm of the 6th legislative period from 2010 on the legality of the election of Stanisław Rymar, Piotr Tuleja and Marek Zubik. According to Ziobro, the resolutions breached the constitution. The three judges were appointed by the then Sejm in joint election and resolution, although the constitution stipulates an individual procedure. On January 13, 2017, the PiS chairman Jarosław Kaczyński stated in the PAP news agency that the review of Sejm decisions would be outside the competence of the constitutional tribunal.

The Sejm and the civil rights commissioner also made similar statements. Further criticism came from the National Council for Jurisdiction and a committee of experts from the Báthory Foundation.

Chairwoman Przyłębska appointed a three-person committee (Julia Przyłębska, Mariusz Muszyński and Michał Warciński) to review the application, which was to take place on July 13, 2017.

The court later announced in a press release that the session had been adjourned. For the time being, another request from the Ombudsman for the Ombudsman requesting the expulsion of a judge has to be examined.

Influence of the constitutional crisis on the efficiency of the constitutional court

In 2016, the number of incoming questions from ordinary courts to the Constitutional Court fell from 135 in the previous year to 21. In March 2017, the National Council for Jurisdiction withdrew all applications to the Constitutional Court, arguing this by including the “judge doubles” in the case law.

Under the leadership of the new President Przyłębska, fewer judgments (2014: 71, 2015: 63, 2016: 39, 2017: 36) and fewer cases (2014: 530, 2015: 623, 2016: 360, 2017) were passed compared to her predecessor : 284) performed. Nevertheless, there was a further increase in non-processed cases (2014: 8, 2015: 28, 2016: 51, 2017: 60).

Death of Lech Morawski

On July 12, 2017, Lech Morawski and thus one of three illegally elected judges died during the 8th electoral term. In the opinion of the constitutionalist Jacek Zaleśny of the University of Warsaw , based on the Roman principle Ex iniuria ius non oritur (German: No right arises from injustice), Morawski's successor, who is sworn in instead of Krzysztof Ślebzak, will also have a similar legal status.

On September 15, 2017, the Sejm accepted a majority of the PiS candidate Justyn Piskorski for the vacant position .

Subsequent publication of the judgment

On the basis of a new amending law, which was signed by the President of the Republic on May 2, 2018, the head of the court has to issue an order within seven days (until May 30, 2018) of the entry into force, according to which the pending publication of the judgments of May 9, 2018. March, 11th August and 7th November 2016 in the law gazette. After the timely order, the judgments were published on June 5, 2018. All received a subsequent comment that the judgments had been made contrary to the rules in force at the time.

Judicial reforms

Ordinary courts

On July 12, 2017, an amendment to the law on the ordinary courts was adopted in the third reading by the Sejm. The President signed it on July 24, 2017 after the law was passed without amendment by the Senate. During a transitional period of six months, the Minister of Justice is authorized to remove any court chairman and his deputy without first having to obtain the opinion of the Regional Council for Jurisdiction. According to this, a negative opinion regarding the removal of a chairman is binding for the minister if the decision was passed with a two-thirds majority. When appointing chairpersons, the compulsory approval of the judges in the relevant court or regional council does not apply. As part of the reform, the retirement age was reduced from 67 to 65 for judges and 60 for female judges. The Minister of Justice is responsible for any extension. The minister is given the opportunity to promote judges and to reward court presidents with additional salaries. In addition, he can order the removal of grievances. The judges are now assigned legal cases by lot, although this rule excludes on-call duty.

According to a further amendment, women can remain in office up to the age of 65 without having to obtain consent from the Minister of Justice, although they still have the right to retire at the age of 60. When the chairman is dismissed, the respective judicial college is involved. The Provincial Council, previously the Minister of Justice, can raise the retirement age to 70.

National Council for Jurisdiction

Composition of the councils for the judiciary according to the appointment procedure in a European comparison (as of 2015)

composition	Starting position	Amendment to the law of July 12, 2017 (veto of the President on July 31, 2017)	Presidential amendment of December 8, 2017
	Minister of Justice, Chairman of the Supreme Court , Chairman of the Supreme Administrative Court , a representative of the President , four elected deputies by the Sejm , two elected senators by the Senate .
	two Supreme Court judges elected by the Supreme Court Judges' Assembly; two judges of the administrative courts elected by the general assembly of judges of the administrative courts; two from the midst of the Assembly of Representatives of Appeal Courts; eight from the midst of the representative assembly of district courts; one from the midst of the judges' assembly of the military courts. According to the constitution, the term of office is four years.	15 judges from the Supreme Court, the Ordinary Courts and the Administrative and Military Courts are elected by the Sejm with a simple majority (Poland) . A group of 25 public prosecutors has the right to propose. Proponents: more democratic influence; Breaking up encrusted and hierarchical structures. Opponent: Partial influence; premature expiry of the constitutional term of four years.	15 judges from the Supreme Court, the ordinary courts as well as the administrative and military courts are elected by the Sejm with a qualified three-fifths majority. The right of nomination is only available to a group of at least 2,000 citizens or at least 25 acting judges. Each parliamentary club is given the list of candidates, of which each club can nominate a maximum of nine people for election. If fewer than 15 of the proposed candidates are nominated, the Sejm Presidium adds accordingly. The responsible parliamentary committee draws up a list of 15 candidates. If a qualified three-fifths majority is not achieved in the subsequent election in the Sejm, the election takes place with an absolute majority (Poland) . Here, too, the term of office of all previous council members expires prematurely.
structure	The Council is a single body.	The council is divided into two chambers, which separate the 15 judges elected by the Sejm from the rest of the members. Judges are appointed with the consent of both chambers. An appointment will also be made upon acceptance of all 15 judges and the presiding judge by the Supreme Court and Administrative Court. Proponents: Both chambers have equal rights; the Federal Constitutional Court is divided into two senates, although this is not evident from the Basic Law. Opponent: The first chamber consists mainly of politicians and can therefore overrule the remaining judges. Decisions of the 15-member chamber can be blocked. The constitution sees the National Council as a unified body.	The Council is a single body.

The OSCE -Gesandte Anne-Lise Chatelain made during the assessment of the project in the Senate aware that the judges elected by the Sejm was incompatible with European standards. On December 21, 2017, President Duda signed his proposed amendment to the law.

A total of 18 proposals were received, of which only PiS (nine judges) and Kukiz'15 (six judges) nominated for election. The proximity to the Justice Minister is viewed critically in the case of several candidates. On March 5, 2018, the Justice and Human Rights Committee gave parliament a list of 15 candidates for election (18-10 voting ratio). The election was en bloc with the participation of both parties: 269 of 460 MPs took part in the election, with the exception of two abstentions, all of whom voted for the list. This achieved a three-fifths majority of 162 votes. Florian Hassel writes in the Süddeutsche about a “council of the unqualified”, which consists of “former subordinates of the Minister of Justice, school friends, wives of judges known to him”. The author states that “in the past they applied for high-ranking judicial posts as often as unsuccessfully”.

Supreme Court

Judge	Starting position	Amendment to the law of July 20, 2017 (veto of the President on July 31, 2017)	Presidential amendment of December 8, 2017
	Except in the case of legal violations, judges cannot be dismissed up to the age of 70. The chairman of the Supreme Court is appointed for a six-year term by the President of the Republic, who has to choose between two candidates elected by the General Assembly of Judges of the Supreme Court.	14 days after the law has come into force, the Minister of Justice sends the Regional Council for Jurisdiction an application with judges who are to remain in office. On the basis of this, the Provincial Council will make a non-binding decision regarding each of the named judges to the President of the Republic within 14 days of receiving the application. Ultimately, the President decides whether the judge concerned will remain in office (since this is done on the basis of the judges named by the Minister of Justice, no judge can remain in office without his consent) or be retired. By mutual agreement between the Minister of Justice and the judge, the latter may be transferred to an ordinary court. The chairman of the Supreme Court is appointed for a six-year term by the President of the Republic, who has to choose between five candidates elected by the General Assembly of Judges of the Supreme Court. The previously incumbent chairwoman will be dismissed early despite her constitutional term of office.	The chairman of the Supreme Court is appointed for a six-year term by the President of the Republic, who has to choose between five candidates elected by the General Assembly of Judges of the Supreme Court. The previously incumbent chairwoman can be dismissed early despite her constitutional term of office.
structure	The court is divided into four chambers: civil matters; Criminal matters; Labor, social security and public affairs; Military.	The court is divided into three chambers: public law; Private law; Disciplinary proceedings. Previously, disciplinary proceedings were examined in a panel of three judges. According to the new legal text, the procedure will only be handed over to a judge. Disciplinary judges are better off in terms of income.	The court is divided into five chambers: civil matters; Criminal matters; Labor and social security; extraordinary control and public affairs; Disciplinary proceedings. Disciplinary judges are better off in terms of income.
requirements	For employment at the Supreme Court, the following requirements must be met: Polish citizenship, full right to use public and private law, ten years of work as: judge; Public prosecutor; (Deputy) Chairman or Advisor to the Attorney General's Office; Lawyer; Legal advisor; Notary.	In addition, the person must not have been legally convicted of an intentional crime. The required professional experience was reduced in the amendment. Furthermore, only Polish citizenship must be present.	The qualifications required are not weakened, but the candidate must not have been convicted of an intentional criminal offense. Only Polish citizenship must be present.
retirement	A judge retires at the age of 70. An extension is possible if a corresponding application is made to the chairman of the Supreme Court. A medical certificate must be presented.	The age limit will be reduced to 65 years, with women being allowed to retire at the age of 60. An extension requires a medical certificate, whereby the consent is now incumbent on the State Council for Jurisdiction under the mediation of the Minister of Justice.	The age limit will be reduced to 65 years, with women being allowed to retire at the age of 60. An extension requires a medical certificate, whereby the consent is now incumbent on the President of the State. The extension can be granted a maximum of two times for a further three years each time.
Rules of Procedure	The rules of procedure are determined by the General Assembly of Judges of the Supreme Court.	The rules of procedure are determined by the President of the State at the request of the Minister of Justice after hearing the National Council.	The rules of procedure are established by the President of the Republic after hearing the College of the Supreme Court.
consultation	The Supreme Court is allowed to make judgments as part of the legislative process (by this point over three-quarters of the proposed amendments have been adopted).	The Supreme Court has no powers to judge legislative projects.	The Supreme Court may make judgments during the legislative process.
miscellaneous			Lay judges elected by the Senate will sit in the chambers for extraordinary control and public affairs as well as disciplinary proceedings . In addition, the so-called extraordinary complaint (Polish: Skarga nadzwyczajna ) is introduced, with which, among other things, legal judgments can be appealed against the General Prosecutor, the Commissioner for Civil Rights , a group of at least 30 MPs or 20 senators or the chairman of the Polish Financial Supervisory Authority .

Diego García Sayán of the United Nations criticized the fact that the principle of the irrevocability of judges was broken. Although the government had always referred to "increasing the efficiency of the judicial system" when introducing the judicial reforms, the aim of the judicial reform was above all to "hinder the constitutionally protected principle of the independence of the judiciary and to give the legislature and executive the opportunity to participate in to intervene in the judiciary ”. On December 21, 2017, Duda signed the presidential law on the Supreme Court.

The amendment to the law of April 12, 2018 stipulates that any procedure for the appointment of the (first) chairman of the Supreme Court, which was not yet completed on the day before it came into force, will be discontinued. Until the appointment of the (first) chairman, the President of the Republic appoints a judge of the Supreme Court who takes over the direction of the court or a chamber. The legislature now provides for this procedure to be used when the above-mentioned offices are generally vacated and not only for forced retirement. The chairman alone has the budget of the disciplinary body. The first chairman therefore no longer has a say. According to the opinion of the Supreme Court, the assumption is again confirmed that the disciplinary body is a separate and independent court from the Supreme Court, which is not aware of the Polish constitution.

With the amendment to the law of May 10, 2018, the extraordinary complaint against judgments that became final after October 17, 1997 but before the change came into force, was restricted by only being able to submit it through the Attorney General or the Commissioner for Civil Rights. The European Commission recommended abolishing the extraordinary complaint as it would be contrary to legal certainty . The Venice Commission expressed more harsh criticism: since the extraordinary complaint can also be applied to judgments that became final before the introduction of this legal institution , it is in this respect worse than the system in the Soviet Union and its satellite states. When extending the retirement age, the President has to obtain the opinion of the KRS, which, however, is not binding on him.

Due to the change in the law of July 20, 2018, candidates for the first chairman of the Supreme Court are to be elected after two thirds of the total number of judges (120) have been filled. This reduces the presumed occupation from 110 to 80 judges. The National Council for Jurisdiction can give an opinion on an applicant for a judicial office at the Supreme Court even if he has not presented his professional experience and / or academic record.

On May 24, 2018, the President announced the vacancies at the Supreme Court, which was also sent to the Government's Legislative Center for publication in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Poland "Monitor Polski". The announcement was only published on June 29, 2018 (at which point the procedure for filling 44 vacancies only began), which Dworczyk, Head of the Council of Ministers, justified with certain clarifications and specifications in this matter. Some experts kontestieren the notice, because it is not countersigned by the Prime Minister ( Art. 144 para. 2 of the Polish Constitution. Retrieved on August 31, 2018 .  ). As can be seen from the correspondence between the offices of the President and the Prime Minister, this was also questioned by the latter, which led to the late publication in "Monitor Polski".

The First President of the Supreme Court, Małgorzata Gersdorf , did not contact the President of the Republic to extend her age limit within the deadline prescribed by law. It regards the retroactive effect , i.e. the lowering of the retirement age for judges already ruling at the Supreme Court, as unconstitutional. Furthermore, the constitutional term of six years for the first chairman of the court would be violated. The General Assembly of the Supreme Court passed a unanimous decision on June 28, 2018. According to Article 183 paragraph 3 of the Polish constitution, Gersdorf remains in office until April 30, 2020. On the other hand, the Chancellery of the President of the Republic of Poland and the Chancellery of the Prime Minister believe that they will be retired with the entry into force of the relevant regulations.

In a letter dated April 27, 2018, the judge of the Supreme Court Józef Iwulski announced his intention to remain in office until he was 70 years old without presenting a medical certificate. Nevertheless, the president's office announced that Iwulski would take over the official duties of the first chairman from July 4, 2018. Iwulski himself denies that he is the successor of Małgorzata Gersdorf. He only represents her during her absence. Since Iwulski was already 66 years old at the time and he had not applied for a legal increase in his retirement age, Duda is confronted with the accusation of breaking his own law.

Judges who had already reached the age of 65 were also involved in a hearing in the field of social insurance. In order to check the legality of the panel composition , the ECJ was asked five questions in the preliminary ruling procedure , which can be summarized as follows:

1. The compatibility of early retirement with the EU Treaty , the AEU Treaty and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights .
2. The admissibility of the President's legal competence to extend the retirement age.
3. Whether the retirement of judges by the executive branch does not constitute age discrimination .
4. How the prohibition of age discrimination is to be effectively implemented.
5. How a national court can maintain the status quo until the judgment of the ECJ.

In addition, on August 2, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a resolution suspending the application of individual provisions. Specifically, it is about the retirement age, which has been reduced to 65 years and the mandatory approval of the President for the extension of this. The court based its action on Article 755 (1) of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure, Article 267 (3) TFEU , Article 4 (3) EU , and the ECJ rulings in cases C-213/89 (paragraphs 21 to 23 ) and C-432/05 .

The presidential chancellery does not recognize the decision, since the suspension of the regulations was made without a legal basis. She notes that the Constitutional and Administrative Courts have already denied a similar application of Article 755 in their judgments.

annotation

1. ↑ "If claims have to be secured that are not related to monetary payments, the court will issue a security order which it considers appropriate in view of the circumstances, whereby none of the security methods that are used to secure monetary claims are excluded."

Consequences

On January 13, 2016, the European Commission initiated the rule of law protection mechanism in relation to Poland, with the aim of checking the compatibility of proposed legislation with fundamental European values. However, the PiS government ignored the recommendations of the commission, such as the publication of court judgments.

On January 19, 2016, there was a debate on the situation in Poland in the European Parliament , in which Beata Szydło took part. Criticism came from members of the EPP , to which the opposition PO belongs, as well as the liberal , left and green groups . There was encouragement from members of the conservative , to which the PiS belongs, from the EU-skeptical and right-wing parliamentary groups and from non-attached members.

The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe , called on by the Polish government, judged the legislative changes on March 11th as a weakening of the effectiveness of the Constitutional Court and, as a result, a threat to democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Poland. It certifies unconstitutional behavior of both the previous PO-PSL government and the current PiS government. The Hungarian representative in the Venice Commission voted against this assessment, as in his view it was on the one hand too one-sided and on the other hand the role of the president was not taken into account.

On April 13, 2016, the European Parliament passed a resolution with 513 votes from the Christian and Social Democratic, left, green and liberal groups (142 against and 30 abstentions) condemning the measures of the Polish government and "effectively paralyzing" the Constitutional Court is assessed as a threat to democracy, human rights and the rule of law. In particular, the resolution refers to the respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law under Article 2 of the EU Treaty .

On June 1, 2016, the EU Commission issued an official warning to Poland about the judicial reform. This is also the formal start of a three-stage process to protect the rule of law within the EU. This was introduced in 2014 and is being used for the first time.

On November 15, 2017, a majority of the European Parliament adopted a resolution expressing serious doubts about the rule of law in Poland. On December 20, 2017, the Commission decided to start sanctions proceedings under Article 7 against Poland. Although the procedure can lead to Poland's vote being withdrawn, this is unlikely due to the unanimous unanimity of all member states. On March 15, 2018, an action was brought before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) because of the law.

On March 1, 2018, Parliament again adopted a resolution against Poland (422 votes to 147), which among other things supports the Commission's sanctions procedure.

On July 2, 2018, has the European Commission (Juncker) an infringement procedure initiated because of the law on the Supreme Court. By lowering the retirement age to 65 years of entry into force on July 3, 27 of the court's 72 judges “will be forced to retire.” The former First President will be dismissed early despite her six-year term of office. Although it is possible for the President to extend the term of office, there are no criteria in this regard. “The Commission is of the opinion that these measures are contrary to the principle of judicial independence and the irrevocability of judges and thus to Poland's obligations under Article 19 (1) of the Treaty on European Union in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Union does not comply. ”On September 24, 2018 it was announced that the Commission is suing Poland before the ECJ. It is to be decided in the accelerated procedure. In addition, she wants to stop further forced retirement and re-appointments with interim injunctions and to reinstate judges who have already been sent into retirement. The ECJ complied with these demands with a decision of the Vice President on October 19, 2018.

On November 21, 2018, the PiS introduced a draft law that takes into account the decision of the ECJ: It provided for judges who retired early to return to their positions.

In April 2020, the European Union opened the fourth infringement procedure against Poland after a law punishing judges came into force in Poland in February 2020.

At the end of March 2021, the EU Commission (von der Leyen) filed a lawsuit with the ECJ against the judicial law that came into force in February 2020. According to the Commission, the law undermines the independence of Polish judges and contradicts the primacy of EU law over national law. According to the indictment, the law prevents Polish courts from implementing certain provisions of EU law protecting the independence of the judiciary and from turning to the ECJ in such cases. In addition, Poland is violating EU law by letting the disciplinary body of the Supreme Court - whose political independence is not guaranteed - continue to work. The Commission requested that the ECJ suspend the effects of previous decisions by the Polish Disciplinary Body.

On July 14, 2021, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg issued an order that Poland had to suspend parts of its judicial reform with immediate effect. The Vice-President of the European Court of Justice, Rosario Silva de Lapuerta , stated that the competences of the disciplinary body of the Polish Supreme Court should be reorganized. In their current form, they endangered the independence of the judiciary.

Web links

• " Judicial reform in Poland " dossier from the press review eurotopics from the Federal Agency for Civic Education .
• Commission recommendation of July 27, 2016 on the rule of law in Poland , accessed on December 16, 2017 (PDF).
• Katharina Waldoch: A novelty in European law: EU test procedures for the rule of law using the example of legislative changes in Poland , accessed on December 16, 2017 (PDF).
• Opinion 892/2017 , accessed on December 16, 2017 (PDF, English).
• Opinion No. 904/2017 , accessed on December 16, 2017 (PDF, English).

Individual evidence

1. ↑ zeit.de: EU Commission gives Poland an ultimatum on judicial reform
2. ↑ Przedstawiony przez Prezydenta Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej projekt ustawy o Trybunale Konstytucyjnym. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
3. ↑ Sejm wybrał Pięciu nowych sędziów Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. Kronika Sejmowa, p. 3, December 15, 2015. (Polish)
4. ↑ MP 2015 poz. 1038. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
5. ↑ MP 2015 poz. 1039. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
6. ↑ MP 2015 poz. 1040. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
7. ↑ Prezydent sądzi, że jest SADEM. In: Gazeta Wyborcza . November 20, 2015, accessed December 21, 2016 (Polish). 
8. ↑ PiS wycofał z Trybunału Konstytucyjnego skargę na nową ustawę o TK. In: Gazeta Wyborcza . November 12, 2015, accessed December 21, 2016 (Polish). 
9. ↑ PiS zablokuje rozprawę Trybunału ws. wyboru nowych sędziów TK? Piotrowicz: Chcemy dać in szansę zachowania się jak należy. In: Gazeta Wyborcza . November 26, 2015, accessed December 21, 2016 (Polish). 
10. ↑ Poselski projekt ustawy o zmianie ustawy o Trybunale Konstytucyjnym. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
11. ↑ PiS zmienia Trybunał Konstytucyjny. In: Rzeczpospolita . November 16, 2015, accessed October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
12. ↑ PO złożyła do Trybunału wniosek o zbadanie zgodności z konstytucją nowelizacji ustawy o TK autorstwa PiS. In: onet.pl . November 23, 2015, accessed December 21, 2016 (Polish). 
13. ↑ Nowelizacja ustawy o Trybunale Konstytucyjnym. In: trybunal.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
14. ↑ MP 2015 poz. 1131. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
15. ↑ MP 2015 poz. 1132. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
16. ↑ MP 2015 poz. 1133. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
17. ↑ MP 2015 poz. 1134. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
18. ↑ MP 2015 poz. 1135. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
19. ↑ Sejm podjął uchwały w sprawie braku mocy prawnej uchwał w sprawie wyboru sędziów Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. Kronika Sejmowa, p. 21, November 30, 2015.
20. ↑ MP 2015 poz. 1135. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
21. ↑ Jakich PiS ma ekspertów prawa. In: Polityka . December 16, 2015, accessed October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
22. ↑ Prof. UW, dr hab. Jarosław Szymanek: Biuro Analiz Sejmowych OPINIA ZLECONA. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
23. ↑ Prof. zw. Dr hab. Bogusław Banaszak: Biuro Analiz Sejmowych OPINIA ZLECONA. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
24. ↑ Na te opinie powoływał się PiS ws. TK: Procedura wyboru podlega dyskontynuacji, naruszona autonomia Sejmu. In: gazetaprawna.pl. November 26, 2015, accessed October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
25. ↑ Poselski project uchwały w sprawie zmiany Regulaminu Sejmu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Print nr 41. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
26. ↑ Sejm podjął uchwałę w sprawie zmiany Regulaminu Sejmu. Kronika Sejmowa, p. 22, November 30, 2015.
27. ↑ Istota i znaczenie postanowienia tymczasowego Trybunału Konstytucyjnego o zabezpieczeniu wniosku. In: trybunal.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
28. ↑ K 34/15 - postanowienie TK o zabezpieczeniu. In: trybunal.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
29. ↑ ^{a b c d} Andrzej Stankiewicz: Sejmowe awantury o TK. Rzeczpospolita , p. A4, December 23, 2015. (Polish)
30. ↑ Prezydent odebrał ślubowanie od sędziów TK. In: Rzeczpospolita . December 3, 2015, accessed December 21, 2016 (Polish). 
31. ↑ Renata Grochal, Ewa Siedlecka: Czy Trybunał Konstytucyjny zastopuje PiS. Gazeta Wyborcza , p. 4, December 2, 2015. (Polish)
32. ↑ ^{a b} Ewa Siedlecka: Prezydent nie wykonuje wyroku. Gazeta Wyborcza , p. 1, December 7, 2015. (Polish)
33. ↑ Małgorzata Kryszkiewicz: Trybunał nie zbada uchwał Sejmu. Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, p. B8, January 12, 2016. (Polish)
34. ↑ ^{a b} Ewa Siedlecka: Rzepliński dopuścił do orzekania dwoje sędziów z PiS. Gazeta Wyborcza , p. 4, January 13, 2016. (Polish)
35. ↑ ^{a b} Małgorzata Kryszkiewicz: Temida radzi sobie bez TK. Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, p. B6, June 27, 2017.
36. ↑ Wyrok Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z dnia 3 grudnia 2015 r. sygn. act K 34/15. In: dziennikustaw.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
37. ↑ Wszystko jasne: Duda never przyjmie przysięgi od trzech sędziów TK. Ale najlepsze jest uzasadnienie. In: Tok FM . December 8, 2015, archived from the original on December 25, 2015 ; Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
38. ↑ Print nr 200 Poselski projekt uchwały wzywającej Prezydenta Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej do wykonania wyroku Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z dnia 3 grudnia 2015 r. oraz odebrania ślubowań od sędziów Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
39. ↑ Wyrok Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z dnia 9 grudnia 2015 r. sygn. act K 35/15. In: dziennikustaw.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
40. ↑ Wyrok TK z 9 grudnia opublikowany w Dzienniku Ustaw. In: Wprost . December 18, 2015, accessed October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
41. ↑ ^{a b} Ewa Siedlecka: PiS wygasi Trybunał. Gazeta Wyborcza , p. 3, December 15, 2015.
42. ↑ Małgorzata Kryszkiewicz: Spór o publikację, czyli o pietruszkę. Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, p. A4, December 14, 2015.
43. ↑ K 34/15 - odpowiedź Prezesa TK na pismo KPRM z 10 grudnia 2015 r. dot. publikacji wyroku K 34/15. In: trybunal.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
44. ↑ Informacja o wszczęciu śledztwa w sprawie przekroczenia uprawnień w związku z zaniechaniem publikacji wyroku Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. In: warszawa.po.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
45. ↑ Dz.U. 2015 poz. 2129. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
46. ↑ Dz.U. 2015 poz. 2147. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
47. ↑ Informacja o umorzeniu śledztwa w sprawie niedopełnienia obowiązków w związku z zaniechaniem publikacji wyroku Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. In: warszawa.po.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
48. ↑ Orędzie prezydenta z 3 grudnia 2015. In: prezydent.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
49. ↑ Ruch Kukiz'15 chce zmian w konstytucji ws. TK; proponuje klubom spotkanie. In: Rzeczpospolita . December 15, 2015, accessed October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
50. ↑ Poselski projekt ustawy o zmianie ustawy o Trybunale Konstytucyjnym. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
51. ↑ Grzegorz Osiecki: PiS: Przy obecnym trybunale nie rozwalimy układu. Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, p. A3, December 17, 2015.
52. ↑ ^{a b} Ewa Siedlecka: Debata nad TK w Sejmie: bzdury-procedury. Gazeta Wyborcza , p. 5, December 23, 2015.
53. ↑ Senate przyjął nowelizację ustawy o Trybunale Konstytucyjnym. In: TVN24 . Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
54. ↑ Szczegóły głosowania: Ustawa o o zmianie ustawy Trybunale Konstytucyjnym: Wniosek o przyjęcie ustawy bez poprawek. In: senat.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
55. ↑ http://www.polityka.pl/tygodnikpolityka/kraj/1645260,1,prezydent-andrzej-duda-podpisal-nowelizacje-ustawy-o-trybunale-konstytucyjnym-co-sie-zmieni.read
56. ↑ ^{a b} Weszły w życie zmiany dotyczące funkcjonowania Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
57. ↑ Dz.U. 2015 poz. 2217. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
58. ↑ Andrzej Stankiewicz: Trybunał gotowy na wojnę for PiS. Rzeczpospolita , p. A8, December 30, 2015.
59. ↑ Stanowisko Prezydium Krajowej Rady Sądownictwa w sprawie uchwalonej 22 grudnia 2015 r. zmiany ustawy o Trybunale Konstytucyjnym (Dz. U. poz. 1064 ze zm.). In: krs.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
60. ↑ Novelizacja ustawy o TK. Procurator Generalny straszy paraliżem prac. In: Dziennik . December 23, 2015. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
61. ↑ RPO i HFPC apelują do prezydenta ws. noweli ustawy o TK. In: Rzeczpospolita . December 24, 2015, accessed October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
62. ↑ Print nr 122. Poselski project ustawy o zmianie ustawy o Trybunale Konstytucyjnym. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
63. ↑ Apel Zarządu "Iustitii" w sprawie Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. In: iustitia.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
64. ↑ "Wierzę, że ustawa wzmocni pozycję Trybunału Konstytucyjnego". In: prezydent.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
65. ↑ Apel Zarządu "Iustitii" w sprawie Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. In: iustitia.pl. Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
66. ↑ ^{a b} Ewa Siedlecka: Trybunał się nie poddaje. Gazeta Wyborcza , pp. 1, 6, December 31, 2015 - January 1, 2016.
67. ↑ Marek Domagalski: Trybunał: jest na szansa wyjście for klinczu. Rzeczpospolita , p. C2, January 11, 2016.
68. ↑ Wniosek Krajowej Rady Sądownictwa. In: trybunal.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
69. ^ Opinia amicus curiae Fundacji im. Stefana Batorego. In: trybunal.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
70. ↑ Opinia amicus curiae Naczelnej Rady Adwokackiej. In: adwokatura.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
71. ↑ Opinia Krajowej Rady Radców Prawnych występującej jako amicus curiae. In: kirp.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
72. ^ Opinia amicus curiae Helsińskiej Fundacji Praw Człowieka. In: hfhr.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
73. ↑ Stanowisko w sprawie podstaw orzekania przez Trybunał Konstytucyjny w przedmiocie zgodności z Konstytucją ustawy z dnia 22 grudnia 2015 r. o zmianie ustawy o Trybunale Konstytucyjnym. In: University of Silesia . January 8, 2016, archived from the original on August 11, 2016 ; Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
74. ^ Stanowisko Prokuratora Generalnego. In: trybunal.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
75. ↑ Kryzys na zamówienie. In: Polityka . May 4, 2016, Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
76. ^ ^{A b} Andrzej Stankiewicz: Sądny dzień Trybunału. Rzeczpospolita , p. A5, March 8, 2016.
77. ^ Andrzej Stankowiecz: Trybunał, decydujące stracie. Rzeczpospolita , p. A3, March 9, 2016.
78. ↑ ^{a b} Komunikat TK: Nowelizacja ustawy o Trybunale Konstytucyjnym. In: trybunal.gov.pl. Archived from the original on March 15, 2016 ; Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
79. ↑ ^{a b} Małgorzata Kryszkiewicz: Odmowa publikacji wyroku nic never there. Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, p. A3, March 10, 2016.
80. ↑ Ewa Siedlecka: Trybunał Konstytucyjny się nie poddaje. Gazeta Wyborcza , p. 1, March 10, 2016.
81. ↑ Szydło nie opublikuje wyroku Trybunału? Może odmówić? Sędzia Biernat odpowiada szefowej rządu. In: Dziennik . March 9, 2016, Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
82. ↑ Premier: never złamałam Konstytucji; nie mogę opublikować czegoś, co nie jest orzeczeniem. In: PAP . March 21, 2016. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
83. ↑ Ziobro: dzisiejsze orzeczenie TK nie ma mocy prawnej. In: Rzeczpospolita . March 9, 2016, Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
84. ↑ Ziobro powołuje się na "ośmiu wybitnych konstytucjonalistów". Kim są, co napisali? In: TVN24 . March 10, 2016, Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
85. ↑ Eksperci ministra Ziobry. Zdziwieni. In: TVN24 . March 24, 2016. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
86. ^ Ewa Siedlecka: Trybunał Konstytucyjny przystąpił do orzekania. Gazeta Wyborcza , p. 6, March 11, 2016 (Polish)
87. ↑ Prezes RCL: organem odpowiedzialnym za publikację wyroków TK jest premier. In: TVP Info . March 31, 2016, Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
88. ↑ 1700 zawiadomień, ale śledztwa nie będzie. Decyzja prokuratury trudna do zaskarżenia. In: TVN24 . April 27, 2016, Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
89. ^ Komunikat Prokuratora Okręgowego Warszawa - Praga w Warszawie w sprawie PO V Ds. 47.2016. In: warszawapraga.po.gov.pl. April 27, 2016, Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
90. ↑ Bez śledztwa w sprawie niedrukowania wyroku TK. Prokuratura: Nie trzeba publikować. In: prawo.gazetaprawna.pl. April 27, 2016, Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
91. ^ Ewa Siedlecka: Jak prokuratura uniewinniła rząd Beaty Szydło. Gazeta Wyborcza , p. 5, April 28, 2016.
92. ↑ Andrzej Stankiewicz: Zaczyna się chaos. Rzeczpospolita , p. A3, April 28, 2016.
93. ↑ Ludzkie prawo. Obywatelska samoobrona. In: Gazeta Wyborcza . October 10, 2016. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
94. ↑ Mariusz Jałoszewski: Sąd: Niepublikacja wyroku TK do prokuratury. Gazeta Wyborcza , p. 7, October 14, 2016. (Polish)
95. ↑ Przedwyborcze Manewry PiS i Trybunału. Rzeczpospolita , p. C2, November 17, 2016. (Polish)
96. ↑ Ewa Siedlecka: Duda ma kolejny kłopot z TK. Gazeta Wyborcza , p. 4, May 27, 2016. (Polish)
97. ↑ Postanowienie WSA w Warszawie z dnia 27 maja 2016 r. sygn. act IV SAB / Wa 172/16. In: orzeczenia.nsa.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
98. ↑ Postanowienie WSA w Warszawie z dnia 30 maja 2016 r. sygn. act IV SAB / Wa 187/16. In: orzeczenia.nsa.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
99. ↑ Postanowienie WSA w Warszawie z dnia 12 lipca 2016 r. sygn. act IV SAB / Wa 191/16. In: orzeczenia.nsa.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
100. ↑ Postanowienie WSA w Warszawie z dnia 3 sierpnia 2016 r. sygn. act IV SA / Wa 1585/16. In: orzeczenia.nsa.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
101. ↑ Postanowienie WSA w Warszawie z dnia 21 września 2016 r. sygn. act IV SAB / Wa 269/16. In: orzeczenia.nsa.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
102. ↑ Postanowienie NSA z dnia 25 kwietnia 2017 r. sygn. act I OSK 126/17. In: orzeczenia.nsa.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
103. ↑ Postanowienie NSA z dnia 25 kwietnia 2017 r. sygn. act I OSK 534/17. In: orzeczenia.nsa.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
104. ↑ ^{a b} Rząd opublikował 15 zaległych wyroków Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. In: Polskie Radio . Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
105. ↑ ^{a b} Odmowa publikacji wyroków umorzona. Rzeczpospolita , p. A5, February 13, 2017.
106. ↑ Obwieszczenie Marszałka Sejmu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z dnia 7 March 2016 r. w sprawie ogłoszenia jednolitego tekstu ustawy o Trybunale Konstytucyjnym. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
107. ↑ Ewa Ivanova: Wydawcy programów prawniczych mają twardy orzech do zgryzienia. Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, p. A6, April 11, 2016.
108. ↑ NSA never Czekal na opublikowanie przez Szydło orzeczenia TK. Zastosował je w swoim wyroku. In: Gazeta Wyborcza . August 16, 2016. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
109. ↑ Wyrok NSA z dnia 8 sierpnia 2016 r. sygn. act II FSK 1021/16. In: orzeczenia.nsa.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
110. ↑ Rząd opublikował zaległe wyroki Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. Poza dwoma. In: TVN24 . August 16, 2016. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
111. ↑ Wyroki Trybunału Konstytucyjnego oczekujące na ogłoszenie w Dzienniku Ustaw. In: trybunal.gov.pl. Archived from the original on July 25, 2017 ; Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
112. ↑ ^{a b c} Małgorzata Kryszkiewicz: PiS gumkuje wyroki starego trybunału. Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, p. 1, May 15, 2017.
113. ↑ ^{a b c} Małgorzata Kryszkiewicz: TK zastawia pułapki na obywateli. Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, p. B7, May 15, 2017.
114. ↑ Spotkanie Zespołu Ekspertów do Spraw problematyki TK. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
115. ↑ Komunikat. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
116. ↑ Tekst Raportu Zespołu Ekspertów ds. Problematyki Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
117. ^ Text of the Report of the Team of Experts on the Issues Related to the Constitutional Tribunal. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 . 
118. ↑ Spotkanie liderów ośmiu partii. In: PAP . March 31, 2016, Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
119. ↑ Głosowanie nr 61 on 16. posiedzeniu Sejmu. Item 26. Porz. dzien. Wybór sędziego Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
120. ^ Andrzej Stankiewicz: Awantura o sędziego TK. Rzeczpospolita , p. A3, April 15, 2016.
121. ↑ Burza wokół sędziego Pszczółkowskiego. "Postępuje kompromitacja Trybunału". In: Onet.pl . June 15, 2016, Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
122. ↑ TVP Info: po krytycznych wypowiedziach Zaradkiewicz poproszony o odejście z TK. In: TVP Info . April 29, 2016. Retrieved December 25, 2017 (Polish). 
123. ↑ Orzeczenia TK nie zawsze są ostateczne. In: Rzeczpospolita . April 19, 2016, Retrieved December 25, 2017 (Polish). 
124. ↑ Prof. Kamil Zaradkiewicz zdegradowany w Trybunale. In: Rzeczpospolita . June 27, 2016. Retrieved December 25, 2017 (Polish). 
125. ↑ Kamil Zaradkiewicz, były dyrektor jednego z zespołów, złożył pozew przeciwko TK. In: dziennik.pl . July 5, 2016, Retrieved December 25, 2017 (Polish). 
126. ↑ Prawnicy piszą list do prezesa TK ws. prof. Zaradkiewicza. Apelują o "szanowanie wolności obywatelskich". In: telewizjarepublika.pl. May 20, 2016. Retrieved December 25, 2017 (Polish). 
127. ↑ Sędziowie Trybunału Konstytucyjnego w obronie prof. Zaradkiewicza. In: TVP Info . June 29, 2016. Retrieved December 25, 2017 (Polish). 
128. ↑ Kamil Zaradkiewicz versus TK. Zagadkowa przemiana. In: Gazeta Prawna. July 23, 2016. Retrieved December 25, 2017 (Polish). 
129. ↑ Sędziowie Trybunału Konstytucyjnego piszą do Julii Przyłębskiej: Never możemy dłużej milczeć. In: wyborcza.pl. July 5, 2018, accessed July 5, 2018 (Polish). 
130. ↑ Trybunał Konstytucyjny: sędziowie domagają się od J. Przyłębskiej wyjaśnień. In: monitorkonstytucyjny.eu. July 5, 2018, accessed July 5, 2018 (Polish). 
131. ↑ Poselski projekt ustawy o Trybunale Konstytucyjnym (print nr 558). In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
132. ↑ Poselski projekt ustawy o zmianie ustawy o Trybunale Konstytucyjnym (print nr 569). In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
133. ↑ Obywatelski projekt ustawy o Trybunale Konstytucyjnym. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
134. ↑ Mamy 100 tysięcy podpisów pod naszym projektem ustawy o Trybunale Konstytucyjnym! In: KOD . May 5, 2016, Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
135. ↑ ^{a b} Ustawa z dnia 22 lipca 2016 r. o Trybunale Konstytucyjnym. In: prawo.sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
136. ↑ ^{a b} Weszła w życie ustawa o Trybunale Konstytucyjnym. In: sejm.gov.pl. August 16, 2016. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
137. ↑ Opinie Biura Analiz Sejmowych (print nr 558 z 29 kwietnia 2016 r.). In: orka.sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
138. ↑ Nowa ustawa o TK - stanowisko Komitetu Helsińskiego i HFPC. In: hfhr.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
139. ↑ Ustawa o Trybunale Konstytucyjnym. In: amnesty.org.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
140. ↑ Communication FOR: Nowa ustawa o TK to dalsze psucie zasad państwa prawa przez rządzących. In: for.org.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
141. ↑ Informacja o istotnych problemach wynikających z działalności i orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego w 2015 roku - wystąpienie Prezesa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego prof. Andrzeja Rzeplińskiego na plenarnym posiedzeniu Sejmu w dniu 22 lipca 2016 r. In: trybunal.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
142. ↑ Stanowisko Krajowej Rady Sądownictwa z dnia 29 lipca 2016 r. w przedmiocie uchwalonej przez Sejm Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej ustawy z 22 lipca 2016 r. o Trybunale Konstytucyjnym. In: krs.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
143. ↑ Stanowisko stowarzyszeń sędziowskich w sprawie ustawy z dnia 22 lipca 2016 r. o Trybunale Konstytucyjnym. In: iustitia.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
144. ↑ Apel Zespołu Ekspertów Prawnych przy Fundacji Batorego do Prezydenta RP. In: batory.org.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
145. ↑ Prezydent podpisał 8 Ustaw. In: prezydent.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
146. ↑ Wniosek grupy posłów (PO). In: trybunal.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
147. ↑ Wniosek grupy posłów (PSL i N). In: trybunal.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
148. ↑ Prezydent podpisał 8 Ustaw. In: trybunal.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
149. ↑ Wniosek Pierwszego Prezesa Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 5 sierpnia 2016 r. In: sn.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
150. ↑ Postanowienie Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z 3 sierpnia 2016 r. o rozpoznaniu sprawy na posiedzeniu niejawnym. In: trybunal.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
151. ^ Opinia amicus curiae Fundacji im. Stefana Batorego. In: batory.org.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
152. ↑ Opinia amicus curiae Naczelnej Rady Adwokackiej. In: adwokatura.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
153. ^ Opinia amicus curiae Krajowej Rady Radców Prawnych. In: kirp.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
154. ↑ Malgorzata Kryszkiewicz: Wielka gra o Trybunał Konstytucyjny. Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, p. B5, August 11, 2016. (Polish)
155. ↑ Prokuratura odmówiła śledztwa w sprawie wypowiedzi Kaczyńskiego. In: Gazeta Wyborcza . October 3, 2016, archived from the original on October 8, 2016 ; Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
156. ↑ ^{a b} Wyrok Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z dnia 11 sierpnia 2016 r. sygn. act K 39/16. In: trybunal.gov.pl. Archived from the original on October 3, 2016 ; Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
157. ↑ Michał Szułdurzyński: Trybunał: błędne koło. Rzeczpospolita , p. 1, August 12, 2016. (Polish)
158. ↑ Emilia Świętochowska: Wojny rządu for trybunałem CIAG dalszy. Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, p. B6, August 17, 2016.
159. ↑ Kraksa sędziego TK Lecha Morawskiego. Usłyszy zarzuty za spowodowanie wypadku? In: Gazeta Wyborcza . December 29, 2016. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
160. ↑ Śledztwo w sprawie prezesa TK. "Buta kroczy przed upadkiem". In: Polskie Radio . Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
161. ^ Ewa Siedlecka: Misja: zagłodzić Trybunał. Gazeta Wyborcza , p. 4, October 28, 2016.
162. ↑ Głosowania w dniu 16-12-2016 r. na 33. posiedzeniu Sejmu. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
163. ↑ Wniosek grupy posłów (PO i N). In: trybunal.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
164. ↑ Marek Domagalski: Trybunał pracuje bez sędziów PiS. Rzeczpospolita , p. C3, November 8, 2016. (Polish)
165. ↑ Zuzanna Dąbrowska: Kolejny pat w Trybunale. Rzeczpospolita , p. A3, November 8, 2016.
166. ↑ Ewa Siedlecka: Sędziowie PiS sparaliżowali TK. Gazeta Wyborcza , p. 7, November 8, 2016. (Polish)
167. ↑ Wyrok Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z dnia 7 listopada 2016 r. sygn. act K 44/16. In: trybunal.gov.pl. Archived from the original on November 13, 2016 ; Retrieved October 24, 2017 (Polish). 
168. ↑ Kuratorzy sądowi; proces legislacyjny Kp 4/15. In: trybunal.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
169. ↑ Odwołany termin rozprawy - Kuratorzy sądowi; proces legislacyjny Kp 4/15. In: trybunal.gov.pl. Archived from the original on December 25, 2016 ; Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
170. ↑ Marek Domagalski: Czy regulamin zablokuje ustawy naprawcze PiS. Rzeczpospolita , S. C1, November 9, 2016. (Polish)
171. ↑ Emilia Świętochowska: Lex Trynkiewicz: los bestii nadal nieprzesądzony. Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, p. B5, November 16, 2016. (Polish)
172. ↑ Komunikat Biura Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z 15 listopada 2016 r. In: trybunal.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
173. ↑ TYLKO U NAS. Sędzia Przyłębska dla wPolityce.pl: "L4 never było żadną ucieczką. Dlaczego prezes Rzepliński nie zażądał kontroli ZUS?" In: wpolityce.pl. December 4, 2016, Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
174. ↑ Małgorzata Kryszkiewicz: Wolta w TK. Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, p. B6, December 1, 2016. (Polish)
175. ↑ Marek Domagalski: Kontrowersyjny wybór kandydatów na Prezesa TK. Rzeczpospolita , S. C1, December 1, 2016. (Polish)
176. ↑ Komunikat Biura Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z dnia 1 grudnia 2016 r. In: trybunal.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
177. ↑ Przebieg procesu legislacyjnego. Druk 963. Poselski project ustawy o organizacji i trybie postępowania przed Trybunałem Konstytucyjnym. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
178. ↑ Przebieg procesu legislacyjnego: Poselski projekt ustawy o statusie sędziów Trybunału Konstytucyjnego (print nr 880). In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
179. ↑ Ustawa z dnia 4 listopada 2016 r. o statusie sędziów Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
180. ^ Opinia Sądu Najwyższego. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
181. ↑ Opinia Naczelnej Rady Adwokackiej. In: adwokatura.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
182. ^ Opinia Helsińskiej Fundacji Praw Człowieka. In: hfhr.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
183. ↑ Trybunał Konstytucyjny: Ustawy o Trybunale Konstytucyjnym. In: trybunal.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
184. ↑ Trybunał Konstytucyjny: Ustawy o Trybunale Konstytucyjnym. In: trybunal.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
185. ↑ ^{a b c} Marek Domagalski: Trybunał pod nową władzą. Rzeczpospolita , p. C3, December 21, 2016. (Polish)
186. ↑ ^{a b} Małgorzata Kryszkiewicz, Grzegorz Osiecki: Twarda linia Prawa i Sprawiedliwości. Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, p. A6, December 21, 2016. (Polish)
187. ↑ "Obserwator Konstytucyjny" zniknął z Sieci. In: Wirtualna Polska . December 21, 2016. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
188. ↑ niezniknelo.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
189. ↑ ^{a b c} Protokół z obrad Zgromadzenia Ogólnego Sędziów Trybunału Konstytucyjnego w dniu 20 grudnia 2016. In: hfhr.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
190. ↑ ^{a b} Załącznik do Protokołu Zgromadzenia Ogólnego Sędziów Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z dnia 20 grudnia 2016. In: hfhr.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
191. ↑ ^{a b} Załącznik do protokołu obrad Zgromadzenia Ogólnego sędziów Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z 20 grudnia 2016. In: hfhr.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
192. ↑ ^{a b} Prezes Przyłębska nielegalna? Złamała przepisy, które uchwalił PiS. In: Gazeta Wyborcza . January 5, 2017. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
193. ↑ ^{a b} Posiedzenie w sprawie wyłonienia kandydatów na prezesa TK nielegalne? In: hfhr.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
194. ↑ ^{a b c} Stanowisko Zespołu Ekspertów Prawnych przy Fundacji Batorego w sprawie ostatnich zmian prawnych i faktycznych dotyczących Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. (No longer available online.) In: batory.org.pl. Formerly in the original ; Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish).  ( Page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.    
195. ↑ Prezydent powołał Julie Przyłębską na Prezesa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. In: prezydent.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
196. ↑ Dzienniku Ustaw 2016. In: isap.sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
197. ↑ Ziobro zaskarżył do Trybunału Konstytucyjnego wybór trzech sędziów TK. In: Newsweek . January 12, 2017. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
198. ↑ Sprawy w trybunale. Wybór sędziów Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. U 1/17. In: trybunal.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
199. ↑ ^{a b} Małgorzata Kryszkiewicz: Sejm i RPO: wniosek Ziobry o zbadanie uchwał bezzasadny. Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, p. B7, February 20, 2017.
200. ↑ Prezes PiS komentuje wniosek Ziobry do TK: Trybunał decyzji Sejmu never Ocenia. Never sądzę, by 3 sędziom cokolwiek groziło. In: wiadomosci.dziennik.pl. January 13, 2017. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
201. ↑ Stanowisko Krajowej Rady Sądownictwa z dnia 13 stycznia 2017 r. w przedmiocie wniosku Prokuratora Generalnego z 11 stycznia 2017 r. o zbadanie zgodności uchwały Sejmu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z dnia 26 listopada 2010 roku w sprawie wyboru sędziów Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z Konstytucją Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. In: krs.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
202. ↑ Ewa Siedlecka: Trzej sędziowie - sztuczny problem ministra Ziobry. Gazeta Wyborcza , p. 3, January 16, 2017. (Polish)
203. ↑ Trybunał Konstytucyjny: Wybór sędziów Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. In: trybunal.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
204. ↑ Trybunał Konstytucyjny: Wybór sędziów Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. In: trybunal.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
205. ↑ Czy prezydent mówi prawdę i Trybunał Konstytucyjny wrócił do normalnej pracy? [SPRAWDZAMY]. In: wyborcza.pl. Retrieved July 5, 2018 (Polish). 
206. ↑ Piotr Szymaniak: Acct zastąpi sędziego Morawskiego? Jest szansa na compromise. Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, p. A5, July 13, 2017.
207. ↑ Przebieg procesu legislacyjnego. Printed nr 1778. Kandydat na stanowisko sędziego Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 25, 2017 (Polish). 
208. ↑ Poselski project ustawy o zmianie ustawy - Przepisy wprowadzające ustawę o organizacji i trybie postępowania przed Trybunałem Konstytucyjnym oraz ustawę o statusie sędziów Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved June 5, 2016 (Polish). 
209. ↑ Dziewięć ustaw z podpisem Prezydenta. In: prezydent.pl. Retrieved June 5, 2016 (Polish). 
210. ↑ Rzecznik TK: Julia Przyłębska zarządziła publikację trzech rozstrzygnięć Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z 2016 r. In: prawo.gazetaprawna.pl. June 4, 2016, Retrieved June 5, 2016 (Polish). 
211. ↑ Wyrok Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z dnia 9 marca 2016 r. sygn. act K 47/15
212. ↑ Wyrok Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z dnia 11 sierpnia 2016 r. sygn. act K 39/16
213. ↑ Wyrok Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z dnia 7 listopada 2016 r. sygn. act K 44/16
214. ↑ Poselski project ustawy o zmianie ustawy - Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych oraz niektórych innych ustaw. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved October 29, 2017 (Polish). 
215. ↑ Co jest w trzeciej ustawie o sądownictwie, której nie zawetował prezydent Andrzej Duda? In: Gazeta Wyborcza . July 24, 2017. Retrieved October 29, 2017 (Polish). 
216. ↑ Wszystko co musicie wiedzieć o o ustawie ustroju sądów powszechnych. Jak jest i jak ma być. In: gazetaprawna.pl. July 21, 2017, Retrieved April 4, 2018 (Polish). 
217. ↑ OD KADR SIĘ ZACZYNA Zmiana prezesów i wiceprezesów sądów powszechnych w okresie od sierpnia 2017 r. do lutego 2018 r. (PDF) In: obserwatoriumdemokracji.pl. Pp. 7–8 , accessed June 25, 2018 (Polish). 
218. ↑ USTAWA z dnia 12 kwietnia 2018 r. o zmianie ustawy - Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych, ustawy o Krajowej Radzie Sądownictwa oraz ustawy o Sądzie Najwyższym. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved June 25, 2018 (Polish). 
219. ↑ Sejm zmienił ustawy o KRS, SN i sądach powszechnych. Novelizacja trafi na biurko prezydenta. In: gazetaprawna.pl. April 12, 2018, Retrieved June 25, 2018 (Polish). 
220. ↑ Nowelizacje ustaw o ustroju sądów powszechnych, Krajowej Radzie Sądownictwa i Sądzie Najwyższym z podpisem prezydenta. In: rp.pl. May 4, 2018, Retrieved June 25, 2018 (Polish). 
221. ↑ ^{a b} Ustawa o Krajowej Radzie Sądownictwa. Co się zmieni po reformie. In: GazetaPrawna.pl. July 21, 2017. Retrieved December 18, 2017 (Polish). 
222. ↑ Andrzej Duda zawetuje ustawy o SN i KRS? Rzecznik prezydenta komentuje. In: Wprost . December 15, 2017. Retrieved December 18, 2017 (Polish). 
223. ↑ Tak PiS chce oddać całą sprawiedliwość w ręce Zbigniewa Ziobry. Pokazujemy to dot po punkcie [INFORMATOR]. In: Gazeta Wyborcza . July 18, 2017, Retrieved December 18, 2017 (Polish). 
224. ↑ Rządowy project ustawy o zmianie ustawy o Krajowej Radzie Sądownictwa oraz niektórych innych ustaw. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved December 18, 2017 (Polish). 
225. ↑ Przedstawiony przez Prezydenta Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej projekt ustawy o zmianie ustawy o Krajowej Radzie Sądownictwa oraz niektórych innych ustaw. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved December 18, 2017 (Polish). 
226. ↑ Zero złudzeń. Prezydencki projekt przerywa kadencję KRS. Nowych sędziów wybierze PiS. In: OKO.Press. September 26, 2017. Retrieved December 18, 2017 (Polish). 
227. ↑ Sądownictwo pod większym nadzorem. Co zmieni się po wejściu w życie ustaw o SN i KRS? In: GazetaPrawna.pl. December 18, 2017, Retrieved December 18, 2017 (Polish). 
228. ↑ ^{a b} Senate przyjął ustawy o Sądzie Najwyższym i KRS. Czy Andrzej Duda je podpisze? Jego kancelaria rozwiewa wątpliwości. In: Gazeta Wyborcza . December 15, 2017. Retrieved December 20, 2017 (Polish). 
229. ↑ ^{a b} Prezydent podpisał ustawy o Sądzie Najwyższym i Krajowej Radzie Sądownictwa. In: Gazeta Wyborcza . December 21, 2017. Retrieved December 23, 2017 (Polish). 
230. ↑ Sejmowa komisja wskazała 15 kandydatów do Krajowej Rady Sądownictwa. In: tvn24.pl. February 18, 2018, accessed March 7, 2018 (Polish). 
231. ↑ Wykaz sędziów - kandydatów na członków Krajowej Rady Sądownictwa wskazanych przez kluby poselskie. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved March 7, 2018 (Polish). 
232. ↑ Członkowie Krajowej Rady Sądownictwa zostaną wybrani najprawdopodobniej we wtorek. In: rmf24.pl. March 1, 2018, accessed March 7, 2018 (Polish). 
233. ↑ Sejm wybrał sędziów do Krajowej Rady Sądownictwa. In: tvn24.pl. March 6, 2018, accessed March 7, 2018 (Polish). 
234. ^ Co mówią o kandydatach do Krajowej Rady Sądownictwa ich dokumenty. In: tvn24.pl. February 18, 2018, accessed March 7, 2018 (Polish). 
235. ↑ Council of unqualified. In: sueddeutsche.de. March 7, 2018, accessed March 8, 2018 . 
236. ↑ ^{a b c d e f} Ustawa o Sądzie Najwyższym. Wszystko, co musisz wiedzieć o planowanych zmianach. In: Dziennik.pl . July 22, 2017. Retrieved December 23, 2017 (Polish). 
237. ↑ ^{a b c d e f g} Andrzej Duda podpisze ustawy o KRS i Sądzie Najwyższym. In: Polityka . December 20, 2017. Retrieved December 23, 2017 (Polish). 
238. ↑ ^{a b c d e f g} Senate przyjął bez poprawek ustawę o Sądzie Najwyższym. In: Gazeta Prawna. December 15, 2017. Retrieved December 23, 2017 (Polish). 
239. ↑ ^{a b c d e f} Poselski project ustawy o Sądzie Najwyższym. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved December 23, 2017 (Polish). 
240. ↑ ^{a b c d e f g} Przedstawiony przez Prezydenta Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej projekt ustawy o Sądzie Najwyższym. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved December 23, 2017 (Polish). 
241. ↑ ^{a b c d e f g} To już pewne - Duda podpisze ustawy, a PiS przejmie KRS i SN. Sądowa rewolucja w 5 point. In: Gazeta.pl. December 20, 2017. Retrieved December 23, 2017 (Polish). 
242. ↑ ^{a b c d e f g} Ustawy o Sądzie Najwyższym i Krajowej Radzie Sądownictwa. Co zmieniają? In: TVN24 . December 20, 2017. Retrieved December 23, 2017 (Polish). 
243. ^ Opinia Sądu Najwyższego. (PDF) In: Sąd Najwyższy. Pp. 10–11 , accessed June 26, 2018 (Polish). 
244. ↑ Politycy podważą wyroki, a potem ocenią to ludzie wybrani przez polityków. In: TVN24 . September 26, 2017. Retrieved December 23, 2017 (Polish). 
245. ↑ Tom Sundermann, Matthias Schwarzer, Joris Gräßlin: Shift to the right and judicial reform: "The EU is Poland's last salvation". In: www.ostsee-zeitung.de. May 17, 2019, accessed May 27, 2019 . 
246. ↑ Prezydent podpisał nowelizację o SN. In: gazetaprawna.pl. May 3, 2018, Retrieved August 4, 2018 (Polish). 
247. ↑ USTAWA z dnia 12 kwietnia 2018 r. o zmianie ustawy o Sądzie Najwyższym. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved August 4, 2018 (Polish). 
248. ↑ Opinia do poselskiego projektu ustawy o zmianie ustawy o Sądzie Najwyższym (print sejmowy nr 2390). In: obserwatoriumdemokracji.pl. Retrieved August 4, 2018 (Polish). 
249. ↑ Skarga nadzwyczajna już do zastosowania. In: www.lex.pl. April 3, 2018, Retrieved August 4, 2018 (Polish). 
250. ↑ USTAWA z dnia 10 maja 2018 r. o zmianie ustawy - Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych, ustawy o Sądzie Najwyższym oraz niektórych innych ustaw. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved August 4, 2018 (Polish). 
251. ↑ Kolejne zmiany zatwierdzone. Prezydent podpisał nowelizację ustawy o Sądzie Najwyższym. In: tvn24.pl. May 22, 2018, Retrieved August 4, 2018 (Polish). 
252. ↑ Komunikat FOR 12/2018: Kolejne zmiany w ustawach o sądach - kolejna część pozorowanego dialogu z Komisją Europejską. In: obserwatoriumdemokracji.pl. Retrieved August 4, 2018 (Polish). 
253. ↑ CDL-AD (2017) 031-e. In: venice.coe.int. P. 14 , accessed on August 4, 2018 (English). 
254. ↑ USTAWA z dnia 20 lipca 2018 r. o zmianie ustawy - Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych oraz niektórych innych ustaw. In: sejm.gov.pl. Retrieved August 4, 2018 (Polish). 
255. ↑ Dewastacja polskiego Sądu Najwyższego oraz niezależności sądownictwa: opis obecnej sytuacji. In: obserwatoriumdemokracji.pl. Retrieved August 4, 2018 (Polish). 
256. ↑ "Rządy prawem", a never rządy prawa. Sąd Najwyższy krytykuje projekt posłów PiS. In: tvn24.pl. July 17, 2018, accessed August 4, 2018 (Polish). 
257. ↑ PiS po raz piąty zmienia ustawę. Cel: Szybciej przejąć kontrolę nad Sądem Najwyższym. In: wyborcza.pl. July 12, 2018, Retrieved August 4, 2018 (Polish). 
258. ↑ jest zapowiedź publikacji obwieszczenia ws nowych sędziów SN. In: kancelaria.lex.pl. June 25, 2018, Retrieved August 6, 2018 (Polish). 
259. ↑ Duda zaczyna Nabor do Sądu Najwyższego. Sędzia Żurek: "Mamy prawo się bronić". In: wyborcza.pl. June 29, 2018, Retrieved August 6, 2018 (Polish). 
260. ↑ Wraca spór o kontrasygnatę pod obwieszczeniem ws wakatów w SN. In: lex.pl. July 16, 2018, accessed August 6, 2018 (Polish). 
261. ↑ Uprzejma prośba o "obwieszczenie obwieszczenia" wywołała wielotygodniowy spór. In: tvn24.pl. July 31, 2018, accessed August 6, 2018 (Polish). 
262. ↑ Kto następcą Gersdorf? Oto sędzia, który może przejąć obowiązki I prezesa SN. In: dziennik.pl. July 3, 2018, accessed July 8, 2018 (Polish). 
263. ^ Stanowisko w sprawie 'Białej Księgi' dotyczącej reformy wymiaru sprawiedliwości. In: sn.pl. Retrieved July 8, 2018 (Polish). 
264. ↑ Uchwały Zgromadzenia Ogólnego Sędziów SN z dnia 28 czerwca 2018 r. In: sn.pl. Retrieved July 8, 2018 (Polish). 
265. ^ Kancelaria Prezydenta: Małgorzata Gersdorf nie może pełnić funkcji I prezesa SN. In: onet.pl. July 3, 2018, accessed July 8, 2018 (Polish). 
266. ↑ KPRM: Prof. Gersdorf nie jest już prezesem SN. In: rp.pl. July 4, 2018, accessed July 8, 2018 (Polish). 
267. ↑ Oświadczenia sędziów Sądu Najwyższego, którzy ukończyli 65 rok życia. In: sn.pl. Retrieved August 6, 2018 (Polish). 
268. ↑ Zastępca czy następca pierwszej prezes Sądu Najwyższego. Kim jest Józef Iwulski i czy PiS like, co robi. In: wp.pl. July 4, 2018, accessed August 6, 2018 (Polish). 
269. ↑ Kancelaria Prezydenta: pracami SN kieruje sędzia Iwulski. In: lex.pl. July 5, 2018, accessed August 6, 2018 (Polish). 
270. ↑ Prezydent Lamie własna ustawę. Sąd Najwyższy to polityczna kompromitacja Andrzeja Dudy. In: wyborcza.pl. July 6, 2018, accessed August 6, 2018 (Polish). 
271. ↑ Pięć pytań SN do Tsue. Wyjaśniamy o co chodzi. In: gazetaprawna.pl. August 3, 2018, accessed August 6, 2018 (Polish). 
272. ↑ E-Note 1 - The requirements for initiating enforcement measures. In: europe-eje.eu. Retrieved August 6, 2018 . 
273. ↑ Komunikat Rzecznika Prasowego SN w związku z komentarzami po postanowieniu SN o przedstawieniu pytań prejudycjalnych do TSUE. In: sn.pl. August 3, 2018, accessed August 6, 2018 (Polish). 
274. ↑ Sąd Najwyższy zawiesza przepisy o "wycince" sędziów. In: polityka.pl. August 2, 2018, accessed August 6, 2018 (Polish). 
275. ↑ Stanowisko Kancelarii Prezydenta RP ws. postanowienia SN. In: prezydent.pl. August 3, 2018, accessed August 6, 2018 (Polish). 
276. ↑ Wiceszef kancelárií Prezydenta: Nie ma w polskim systemie prawnym żadnego zawieszenia stosowania przepisów ustawy. In: dziennik.pl. August 3, 2018, accessed August 6, 2018 (Polish). 
277. ↑ EU Parliament prepares proceedings against Poland. In: zeit.de . January 13, 2016, accessed December 24, 2017 . 
278. ↑ Artykuł 7. Jak doszło do odpalenia opcji atomowej i czym to grozi Polsce? In: Gazeta Wyborcza . December 21, 2017. Retrieved December 24, 2017 (Polish). 
279. ↑ Strive for fairness and mutual respect. Deutschlandfunk.de
280. ↑ Otcové prolévali krev za svobodu Polska i jiných narodu, hájila Szydlová změny. Deník.cz; Głos w obronie Polski w Parlamencie Europejskim. Radio Maryja
281. ↑ Komisja Wenecka nie zmienia zdania. Trybunał Konstytucyjny gwarantem praworządności , Gazeta Wyborcza, March 11, 2016
282. ^ Council of Europe Directorate of Communications: Press Release - DC 041 (2016) Poland should settle its constitutional crisis by respecting judgments of its Constitutional Tribunal: Venice Commission. March 11, 2016. Accessed June 2, 2016. "The opinion insists that both previous and present majorities of the Polish parliament (Sejm) have taken unconstitutional actions."
283. ↑ Węgier z Komisji Weneckiej był przeciwko opinii w sprawie polskiego TK , Wirtualna Polska, March 12, 2016
284. ^ Resolution: EU parliamentarians condemn Polish reforms. Der Spiegel, April 13, 2016
285. ↑ Markus Becker: EU warning due to judicial reform: Warsaw is stubborn. Spiegel Online, June 1, 2016, accessed on the same day
286. ↑ EU Parliament prepares proceedings against Poland. In: zeit.de . November 15, 2017. Retrieved December 24, 2017 . 
287. ↑ Commission v Poland Case C-192/18. In: curia.europa.eu. Retrieved June 26, 2018 . 
288. ↑ EU sets off political "atomic bomb" - but Poland has a stubborn plan. In: focus.de . December 20, 2017. Retrieved December 24, 2017 . 
289. ^ Rule of law threatened in Poland: EU Commission triggers Article 7 proceedings. In: juris.de. December 20, 2017. Retrieved December 24, 2017 . 
290. ↑ European Parliament supports criminal proceedings against Poland for judicial reforms. In: rsw.beck.de. Retrieved March 22, 2018 . 
291. ↑ Rule of law: Commission initiates infringement proceedings to protect the independence of the Polish Supreme Court. In: europa.eu. Retrieved July 2, 2018 . 
292. ↑ Rule of law: European Commission takes Poland to the European Court of Justice to protect the independence of the Supreme Court. In: europa.eu. Retrieved September 24, 2018 . 
293. ↑ Poland is suing the EU Commission for forced retirement of judges. In: handelsblatt.com. Retrieved September 24, 2018 . 
294. ↑ POSTANOWIENIE WICEPREZESA TRYBUNAŁU z dnia 19 października 2018 r. (PDF) Retrieved October 20, 2018 (Polish). 
295. ↑ Poland must stop judges' retirement. In: tagesschau.de. Retrieved October 20, 2018 . 
296. ↑ Poland reverses parts of the judicial reform, in: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , November 22, 2018, p. 6.
297. ↑ DER SPIEGEL: Judicial reform: Poland accuses EU of unlawful interference - DER SPIEGEL - politics. Retrieved April 30, 2020 . 
298. ↑ Markus Becker: European Court of Justice: EU Commission sues Poland over judicial law. In: Der Spiegel. Accessed March 31, 2021 . 
299. ↑ Poland must suspend parts of the judicial reform immediately , DLF, July 14, 2021.