top of page
Search

Promulgation of Constitutional Tribunal Judgements


Even in its first days, the '13 December' coalition government demonstrated its attitude towards the Constitutional Tribunal by undermining the status of its judges. It did so by adding an annotation to the Tribunal's verdicts published in the Journal of Laws of the Republic of Poland (issued by the Prime Minister), claiming that the Tribunal was not a legally constituted court due to the presence of an unauthorised judge. The published verdict was therefore released in a form that violated the basic rule governing the appointment of judges to the Constitutional Tribunal, thereby violating the right to a tribunal established by law.[1]

It should be noted that this annotation had no legal basis. Only acts signed by the approved body may be published in official journals.

As of March 6, 2024, the government has ceased publishing any rulings of the Constitutional Tribunal.

According to Polish law, the Prime Minister is responsible for issuing the Journal of Laws and the Polish Monitor, assisted by the Government Legislation Centre. The Act of 20 July 2000 on the Promulgation of Normative Acts requires the publication of Constitutional Tribunal judgements concerning normative acts appearing in the Journal of Laws.[2] The provision does not specify a deadline, the Constitution obliges immediate publication of the judgement by the Prime Minister, meaning as soon as the Tribunal transmits the documentation.[3]

The publication of Constitutional Tribunal judgements is therefore a systemic obligation arising directly from the Constitution. Judgements must be published immediately in the same official body that promulgated the normative act. If the act has not been promulgated, the judgment must be published in the Official Journal of the Republic of Poland (Monitor Polski).

Where an executive authority fails to fulfil a constitutional obligation, including the duty to publish judgements, such omission clearly constitutes a gross violation of the principle of cooperation between the judiciary, legislaturę, and executive.

Courts grapple with practical difficulties stemming from the failure to publish Constitutional Tribunal judgements. The Circuit Court in Zamość confronted the question of whether it could apply a provision found unconstitutional in a judgement that remained unpublished due to the Prime Minister's omission.

This Court submitted a legal question to the Constitutional Tribunal regarding the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Act on the Promulgation of Normative Acts. In its justification, it stressed that publication of Constitutional Tribunal judgements is a systemic obligation arising directly from the Constitution. It emphasised that the Republic of Poland is a democratic state governed by the rule of law and embodying principles of social justice. Article 10, Section 1 of the Constitution establishes the separation and balance of legislative, executive, and judicial powers. Article 10, Section 2 specifies that judicial power is exercised by courts and tribunals. Article 173 affirms that courts and tribunals from a separate and independent branche of government.

The Constitution contains no procedure permitting the refusal to publish or omitting judgements of the Constitutional Tribunal.

According to the referring court, the right to a fair trial requires that cases be heard by an independent court that cannot be restricted in the administration of justice by judicial or executive authorities, except as set out in the Constitution. Preventing an executive authority from ensuring the fair judgement violates the norms of international law, particularly Article 6, paragraph 1, sentence 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 July 1950. The accused in the case has the right to expect a resolution of their case within a reasonable time.[4]

In the court’s opinion, the separation of the judiciary from the other branches of government means that it is prohibited from influencing the judicial activity of courts. Court decisions may only be reviewed by higher courts, according to the principles and in the forms specified in the Constitution and statutes.

The right to a court means the right to have a case heard by an independent court, which cannot be influenced by decisions of the legislative or executive authorities in the administration of justice. From this perspective, the court cannot expect a ‘remedy for the constitutional crisis,’ which is currently a purely political perspective, to the detriment of proceedings in a case where the accused citizen expects adjudication within a reasonable time.

According to the Circuit Court in Zamość, the wording of the regulations on the promulgation of normative acts permits influence over the judicial activity of courts in a manner that violates constitutional provisions. Essentially, this formulation allows for the specific extra-constitutional oversight of the adjudicative activity of the Constitutional Tribunal, resulting in interference with the judicial functions of the courts.

The Zamość Circuit Court further held that the effective functioning of the state requires historical traditions to be superseded by solutions ensuring the efficient operation of state institutions, including courts and tribunals, and safeguarding citizens' rights and freedoms. The authority to announce Constitutional Tribunal judgements should therefore remain outside the executive branch and be statutorily delegated to the judiciary, as current practice indicates. The Prime Minister does not have constitutional authority to evaluate the performance of the Constitutional Tribunal and must adhere to the principle of legality.[5]

The legal question posed by the Circuit Court in Zamość triggered attacks in pro-government media on the referring judge.

Judge Paweł Zwolak was portrayed as ‘promoted to the Regional Court after 2018, among other things, for his role as former director of the Ministry of Justice's Department of Administrative Supervision of Courts’[6] and as ‘a neo-judge [...] a long-time employee of Zbigniew Ziobro's ministry, whose name has been mentioned in the media in connection with the so-called hate scandal.’[7]

The Minister of Justice, Waldemar Żurek, then undertook further retaliatory measures. He suspended and attempted to dismiss the president and vice-president of the Circuit Court in Zamość, as well as the presidents of the six district courts subordinate to them.[8] Such dismissals require a positive opinion from the relevant court board; however, the board of the Regional Court in Zamość unanimously issued a negative opinion on the minister's motions.[9]

In these circumstances, the Minister of Justice should have requested an opinion from the National Council of the Judiciary. He declined to do so, asserting that that the Council has been ‘formed contrary to the Constitution and international standards’ and ‘unable to issue an impartial opinion’.[10] On September 15, 2025, Waldemar Żurek nevertheless decided to dismiss the presidents.[11] This decision clearly contravenes the law and violates the provisions of the Act on the System of Common Courts.

On 23 September 2025, the Constitutional Tribunal issued a judgement on the legal question submitted by the Regional Court in Zamość and found that the statutory provision granting the Prime Minister exclusive competence to publish Constitutional Tribunal judgements in official journals was unconstitutional. The Tribunal reasoned that the effects of its judgement, and the obligation of all public authorities to apply it, occur upon announcement, not upon completion of the technical act of publishing them in the Journal of Laws of the Republic of Poland.[12]


[1] “According to the verdict of the European Court of Human Rights in case: Xero Flor in Poland LLC v. Poland from the day of 7.05.2021, complaint number 4907/18; Wałęsa v. Poland from the day of 23.11.2023, complaint number 50849/21; M.L v. Poland from the day of 14.12.2023, complaint number 40119/21, the Constitutional Tribunal bereft of characteristics of the legally appointed tribunal due to  the presence of an unauthorized member. According to this opinion, published verdict was released in a form which had been appointed with a violation of a basic rule having use in electing judges to the Constitutional Tribunal and as a consequence violating the core of the law to a  court appointed on a basis of the resolution”. (www.obserwator-praworzadnosci.pl)

 

[2] Article 21, paragraph 1, point 1 and Article 9, paragraph 1, point 6 of the Act of 20 July 2000 on the promulgation of normative acts (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2019, item 1461).

 

[3] Article 190, paragraph 2 of the Constitution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

bottom of page