"We promote freedom"



Supreme Court and RRP. Can we count on funds from the EU Recovery Fund?


  • The amendment to the Act on the Supreme Court was intended to unlock funds for Poland from the EU Recovery Fund.

  • As the milestones related to judiciary are linked to the first payment of the funds, this means in practice - taking into consideration the principle that subsequent payments are conditioned on the continuation of reforms undertaken under previous tranches - that all remaining funds are mobilized upon compliance with judiciary requirements.

  • The new Professional Liability Chamber, due to the way it was established and the procedure for selecting members, raises doubts in the field of its independence from politicians.

  • Judges can still be held liable for the content of verdicts and for challenging the status of persons nominated to courts by the current National Council of the Judiciary, despite the fact that the CJEU found it to breach EU law. Refusal to sit with such persons in one composition of the court will also be considered a disciplinary misconduct

  • Introduced so-called judge's neutrality test is a mechanism that does not meet the requirements of EU law, and therefore does not constitute an effective response to the presence in courts compositions of persons appointed at the request of the present National Council of the Judiciary.

  • Granting judges who were subject to the decisions of the liquidated Disciplinary Chamber the opportunity to reassess their cases before the Professional Liability Chamber still violates their right to court.

  • The changes in the judiciary, undertaken with the intention of obtaining funds from the Recovery Fund so far, are insufficient and may not convince the Commission to pay out the first and subsequent installments.

Contact to the author:

Patryk Wachowiec, FOR legal analyst

See also:
Patryk Wachowiec