The state of the Polish judiciary is thought-provoking. Is there really a division in Poland between “neo-” and “paleo-” judges? Can judgments issued by so-called “neo-judges” be deemed invalid? Should judges appointed after 2017 retire voluntarily?
Participants in the rule-of-law debate on Kanał Zero responded to these and many other questions. In addition to adv. Dr. Bartosz Lewandowski, managing partner at Khanzadyan Lewandowski & Partners, and the following individuals took part in the conversation:
- Prof. Marcin Matczak,
- Aleksander Stępkowski, judge of the Supreme Court,
- Jacek Tylewicz, spokesman for the Themis Judges Association.
The debate addressed the topic of so-called “neo-judges” – a term used by the media to refer to judges appointed by the National Council of the Judiciary of Poland after 2017. According to this narrative, the rulings they issued were allegedly defective because of the procedure for their appointment.
Advocate Bartosz Lewandowski emphasized, however, that such a thesis is not supported by legal provisions or the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal. He noted that maintaining this division is purely political and, in practice, undermines citizens’ trust in the justice system.
“An average citizen is not interested in who appointed a given judge and when. Citizens go to court for justice,” emphasized adv. Lewandowski.
Statistics confirm that motions to recuse a judge due to the timing of their appointment are rare – in civil and administrative cases, the problem is practically nonexistent. Some controversy arises primarily in criminal proceedings, where there are cases of judgments being overturned solely due to the appointment of a so-called “neo-judge.”
This discussion raises a fundamental question:
Who truly benefits from excluding judges appointed by the National Council of the Judiciary after 2017 from adjudicating – the citizen or political interests?
We recommend watching the full broadcast: