Head of Poland’s Judicial Council Resigns Amid Dispute

The news in Polish

1. zrezygnować
   przestać pełnić funkcję albo z czegoś dobrowolnie odstąpić ↩︎
2. funkcja  (f.)
   stanowisko albo rola, jaką ktoś lub coś pełni ↩︎
3. przewodnicząca  (f.)
   osoba, która kieruje zebraniem, organizacją lub instytucją ↩︎
4. spór  (m.)
   sytuacja, gdy dwie strony się nie zgadzają i kłócą się o coś ↩︎
5. decyzja  (f.)
   postanowienie, wybór tego, co zostanie zrobione ↩︎
6. skład  (m.)
   grupa osób tworzących razem jakieś ciało, np. zespół, komisję lub sąd ↩︎

Translation

Text comprehension

Question 1: Why did Dagmara Pawełczyk‑Woicka resign from her position as head of the National Council of the Judiciary?

Question 2: What must the First President of the Supreme Court decide now?

Vocabulary

Polish	English
zrezygnować	to resign
funkcja  (f.)	function / post / role
przewodnicząca  (f.)	chairwoman / chair
spór  (m.)	dispute / quarrel
decyzja  (f.)	decision
skład  (m.)	composition / line-up

Read the full story

The head of Poland’s National Council of the Judiciary (Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa, KRS), Dagmara Pawełczyk‑Woicka, has announced her resignation, deepening a long‑running conflict over how judges in Poland are chosen and who should control this process.

Pawełczyk‑Woicka revealed on the social media platform X that she had stepped down from the role of chair of the KRS on 15 May. She explained that she was resigning in response to a protective order issued by the Constitutional Tribunal (Trybunał Konstytucyjny, TK) and to what she described as the lack of reaction from the Sejm, the lower house of the Polish parliament, to that decision.

The Constitutional Tribunal’s order, dated 12 May and requested by MPs from the opposition party Law and Justice (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, PiS), instructed the Sejm to pause the election of new judge‑members of the KRS until the Tribunal issues a final ruling in the case. Despite this, on 15 May the Sejm proceeded and selected 15 judges to sit on the Council, including candidates put forward by both the ruling coalition and opposition parties.

In her post, Pawełczyk‑Woicka stated that, in her view, the KRS should continue to meet in its previous composition because of the Tribunal’s order. She noted that the absence of a chairperson now creates a duty for the First President of the Supreme Court, Małgorzata Manowska, to convene a plenary session of the Council to choose a new leader. She also pointed to an open question: whether this session should take place with the newly elected members from 15 May, whom she described as chosen “in breach of the law”, or with the outgoing line‑up. She wrote that this decision rests with the First President.

The KRS is a key body in Poland’s justice system. It has 25 members: 15 judges chosen by the Sejm, the presidents of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court, the minister of justice, one representative of the president of Poland, four MPs and two senators. The fiercest dispute focuses on the 15 judge‑members elected by parliament, because they largely determine whether the Council is seen as independent from political influence or not.

The controversy dates back to 2017, when the then ruling coalition led by PiS changed the law so that parliament, not judges themselves, would elect the 15 judicial members of the KRS. Before 2017, these members were chosen directly by the judicial community, giving judges the main say in who sat on the Council. The 2017 reform has since been at the centre of domestic and international debates over the rule of law in Poland.

The current government has tried to reverse the 2017 changes and restore the earlier model of judge‑based selection. However, President Karol Nawrocki vetoed the bill that would have brought back the old system. In response, the governing majority introduced what has been described as a “plan B”: courts held internal primaries in which judges could express their support or opposition to proposed candidates for the KRS. The Sejm then chose the new Council members from among these names.

Supporters of this approach in the ruling camp argue that the primaries returned real influence to judges over who represents them, even though the Sejm still carried out the formal vote. However, parts of the opposition insist the process is unlawful, claiming that only a full legal reversal of the 2017 reform would be acceptable. They argue that the current selection method remains rooted in the contested rules introduced under PiS.

The Sejm’s 15 May vote, held despite the Constitutional Tribunal’s order, followed those contested procedures. Among the 15 new judge‑members, 13 were backed by the parties in the governing coalition, while one was nominated by PiS and one by the right‑wing Confederation (Konfederacja). Under the existing law, at least one candidate from each parliamentary club must appear on the final list that MPs vote on, which meant that opposition candidates also had to be included.

Pawełczyk‑Woicka’s departure was accompanied by sharp comments about internal tensions within the Council. In a later message on X, she criticised Judge Dariusz Zawistowski, accusing him of improperly issuing instructions to staff in the KRS office. She asserted that he was not authorised to do so, writing that only the head of the Council’s office has such employer‑style powers. Her post described unnamed opponents in strong terms, underlining the depth of the institutional conflict.

Pawełczyk‑Woicka had recently signalled that she was preparing to leave the role. She wrote earlier in May that a particular KRS meeting would be the last one she chaired, and she publicly thanked her colleagues. She also congratulated Judge Łukasz Piebiak on his nomination as a Council member. Piebiak, associated with the conservative legal grouping “Lawyers for Poland” (Prawnicy dla Polski), in turn thanked citizens for what he described as strong support for his candidacy and those of his allies.

Pawełczyk‑Woicka became a member of the KRS in 2018 and took over as its chair in 2022. Before that, she served as president of the District Court in Kraków. Her earlier appointment to that post by then justice minister Zbigniew Ziobro drew attention when, soon after taking office, she ordered a search of the office of her predecessor, Judge Beata Morawiec, who had been removed before the end of her term. These events contributed to her public image as an ally of Ziobro and of the previous government’s judicial reforms.

Experts and commentators have offered differing interpretations of the resignation. Political scientist Professor Danuta Plecka suggested on television that both Pawełczyk‑Woicka’s move and the recent actions of the Constitutional Tribunal may be seen as part of a broader political struggle aimed at weakening the current parliamentary majority. Journalist Jan Kwietniewski, by contrast, argued that the resignation was largely symbolic. In his view, once the Sejm had chosen a new judicial line‑up for the Council, Pawełczyk‑Woicka had already effectively ceased to be chair under existing rules, and her public announcement mainly served to underline her disagreement with the situation.

The combination of the Tribunal’s order, the Sejm’s vote, and the resignation of the KRS chair has left Poland’s judicial governance in a state of uncertainty. The immediate next step will depend on how the First President of the Supreme Court interprets the legal and political situation when deciding which version of the Council to convene to select a new chair. For observers outside Poland, the events highlight continuing tensions over judicial independence and the balance of power between courts, parliament and the president in the country’s evolving legal system.

Info: ‘Polish Learner News’ is a service from ‘Let’s Learn Polish’, a language school dedicated to teaching Polish online. As part of this, we offer various types of online Polish course options to support learners at different levels.