MAIN POINTS
1
On January 21, 2026, a forcible entry was carried out at the offices of the National Council of the Judiciary in Warsaw. Approximately 100 police officers, accompanied by two military prosecutors acting pursuant to orders issued by Prime Minister Tusk, entered the premises and removed all relevant judicial files, including documentation concerning disciplinary proceedings involving judges politically associated with the Prime Minister, as well as files relating to the alleged coup d’état attributed to him.
2
During the course of this operation, physical force was reportedly used against judges and administrative staff present on the premises, and their personal liberty was unlawfully restricted. These actions, in the author’s assessment, constitute an unlawful intervention by the executive branch in the functioning of the judiciary and an infringement on the remaining institutional guarantees of judicial independence in Poland.
3
Legal counsel from Ordo Iuris were present during the operation, acting in their capacity as representatives of members of the Council, and observed the actions undertaken by the police and prosecutors.
4
It is further anticipated that the Supreme Court may be subjected to a similar intervention in order to obstruct the scheduled election of a new Chief Justice (President of the Supreme Court), which is expected to take place in late February or early March.
5
The timing of the operation is alleged to have been deliberate, having been conducted on a date when President Nawrocki was outside the country, attending the World Economic Forum in Davos.
The Disciplinary Prosecutor for Judges of the Common Courts is an important position in the Polish judiciary and an important element of the system of “checks and balances” within the separation of powers. Pursuant to the provisions of the Law on the System of Common Courts, the Disciplinary Prosecutor initiates disciplinary proceedings against judges who violate the duties incumbent upon them and acts as the prosecutor before the disciplinary court in such proceedings. Pursuant to Article 112 § 3 of the Act—Law on the System of Common Courts, the Minister of Justice appoints the Disciplinary Prosecutor for Judges of the Common Courts and two deputies for a four-year term; however, no provision authorizes the Minister to remove the Prosecutor before the end of the term.
Meanwhile, as early as the spring of last year, Adam Bodnar, the former Minister of Justice in Donald Tusk’s government, announced the dismissal of the Disciplinary Prosecutor for Judges of the Ordinary Courts—Judge Piotr Schab—after which, acting in an obviously unlawful manner, he announced the appointment of Judge Mariusz Ulman to that position. In August of last year, after Adam Bodnar had already been replaced by Waldemar Żurek as Minister of Justice, representatives of the Ministry of Justice attempted to enter the Disciplinary Prosecutor’s offices, located in the headquarters of the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS—a body which, pursuant to Article 186 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, safeguards the independence of courts and the independence of judges), demanding the handover of disciplinary case files. However, they were not admitted at the time, and Judge Dominik Czeszkiewicz, the director of the Ministry’s Department of Administrative Supervision who took part in the attempt, insisted in a press interview that:
I definitely won’t be going in with the police or a moving company. Let’s be serious. We will take legal action.
Shortly after that raid, Judge Mariusz Ulman, ceased posing as the Disciplinary Prosecutor, after which he gave a press interview, in which he said the following:
It is not possible to circumvent or change a statute, let alone the constitution, by regulations or by de facto action. Just as some in the judicial community wanted – by throwing the National Council of the Judiciary out onto the street, since such ideas also surfaced. The main allegation against me was that I didn’t remove the previous spokespeople from the KRS office. I have a somewhat different approach to the law, to the application of the law, and to the exercise of my office. That doesn’t mean, of course, that it can’t be done. You can go and throw it away, but that means that then we’re breaking the law.
Apparently, however, the leadership of the Ministry of Justice had a different view on the matter and decided not only to break the law but also to renege on its own commitments.
(…)
Source of cover photo: iStock
