Top EU court rules Polish Constitutional Tribunal is not independent

The European Union’s top court delivered a significant blow to Poland’s judicial system on Thursday, ruling that the country’s Constitutional Tribunal lacks independence and impartiality due to politicized appointments made during the previous conservative government’s tenure.

In its landmark decision, the EU Court of Justice determined that Poland’s highest judicial body “infringed the principle of effective judicial protection” and “disregarded the primacy, autonomy, effectiveness and uniform application of EU law.” The ruling marks another chapter in the ongoing tensions between Poland and EU authorities over judicial independence.

The Constitutional Tribunal, which serves as Poland’s highest court for reviewing the constitutionality of laws and international agreements, underwent substantial changes between 2015 and 2023 under the right-wing Law and Justice (PiS) party. During this period, PiS implemented sweeping judicial reforms that effectively established political control over key courts, including the Constitutional Tribunal and the Supreme Court.

The EU court specifically cited the problematic appointments of three judges and the president of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal under the Law and Justice government. These appointments, according to the ruling, fundamentally undermined the court’s status “as an independent and impartial tribunal established by law within the meaning of EU law.”

This judicial conflict placed Poland at odds with the European Commission, which responded by challenging several of Poland’s reforms before the EU’s top court and suspending billions of euros in funding to the country. The financial penalties have had significant economic implications for Poland, affecting infrastructure projects and other initiatives that rely on EU support.

Typically, such a ruling from the EU’s highest court would prompt national reforms to restore judicial independence—a fundamental requirement for EU membership. However, Poland faces unique political obstacles in implementing these changes.

Since coming to power in late 2023, Poland’s new liberal government, led by Prime Minister Donald Tusk, has struggled to reverse the controversial judicial reforms. Two successive justice ministers have attempted to restore the Constitutional Tribunal’s independence but have encountered significant roadblocks.

The primary challenge stems from Poland’s current president, Andrzej Duda, who maintains political alignment with the former ruling party. Duda has either vetoed or threatened to veto legislative changes aimed at undoing the judicial reforms implemented by his political allies. This executive resistance has created a constitutional impasse that complicates Poland’s ability to comply with EU requirements.

Current Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek expressed support for the EU court’s decision, writing on social platform X: “This ruling obliges our state to take action. We must rebuild a genuine, independent Tribunal together. This is a fundamental issue for the state and citizens. We are ready for this task.”

The ruling highlights ongoing concerns about democratic backsliding in several EU member states, with judicial independence serving as a cornerstone of the bloc’s values. Poland’s case represents one of the most significant challenges to the EU legal order in recent years, raising questions about how the union can effectively enforce compliance with its fundamental principles.

For ordinary Polish citizens, the consequences of this legal battle extend beyond institutional conflicts. An independent judiciary is essential for protecting individual rights and ensuring that government actions remain within constitutional boundaries. The continuing uncertainty surrounding the Constitutional Tribunal’s legitimacy creates potential risks for legal stability and the protection of civil liberties.

As Poland navigates this complex judicial landscape, the European Commission will likely maintain pressure for meaningful reforms, potentially affecting the release of additional EU funds that remain frozen due to rule-of-law concerns.