Public disclosure of the asset declarations of judges and assistant judges as well as the obligation to inform about assets constituting part of conjugal property K 2/23
On 2 December 2025, the Constitutional Tribunal delivered its ruling issued with regard to the application of the First President of the Supreme Court which concerned the public disclosure of the asset declarations of judges and assistant judges as well as the obligation to inform about assets constituting part of conjugal property.
The Constitutional Tribunal adjudicated that:
(1) Article 87(6) and (6a) in conjunction with Article 106zg(1) of the Act of 27 July 2001 on the Organisational Structure of Common Courts (Journal of Laws – Dz. U. of 2024, item 334, as amended);
(2) Article 8(1) of the Act of 25 July 2002 on the Organisational Structure of Administrative Courts (Journal of Laws – Dz. U. of 2024, item 1267) in conjunction with Article 87(6) and (6a) of the Act on the Organisational Structure of Common Courts;
(3) Article 28(5) and (5a) of the Act of 21 August 1997 on the Organisational Structure of Military Courts (Journal of Laws – Dz. U. of 2025, item 1614);
(4) Article 45(1) of the Supreme Court Act of 8 December 2017 (Journal of Laws – Dz. U. of 2024, item 622) in conjunction with Article 87(6) and (6a) of the Act on the Organisational Structure of Common Courts;
(5) Article 14(7) of the Act of 30 November 2016 on the Status of Judges of the Constitutional Tribunal (Journal of Laws – Dz. U. of 2018, item 1422)
– are inconsistent with Article 47 as well as Article 51(2) in conjunction with Article 31(3), as well as with Article 18 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland.
Moreover, the Tribunal decided to discontinue the proceedings as to the remainder.
The ruling was unanimous.
1/. The Tribunal declared the unconstitutionality of the provisions requiring that the asset declarations of judges and assistant judges be published in an open-access IT system which was freely available to an unlimited number of viewers without any time restraints. The Tribunal deemed that the mechanism for disclosing the said asset declarations publicly on-line in a manner that was qualitatively diverse and particularly extensive exceeded the scope of the standard arising from Article 47 and Article 51(2) of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 31(3) as well as from Article 18 of the Constitution.
2/. When conducting the constitutional review, the Tribunal weighed up – on the one side – the value of the transparency of public life and the right to information on public officials (Art. 61 of the Constitution) and – on the other side – the right to privacy, the right to informational self-determination and the right to the protection of marriage and family (Art. 47, Art. 51(2) and Art. 18 of the Constitution). While applying the test of proportionality under Article 31(3) of the Constitution, the Tribunal stated that the legislature had not proven the necessity of resorting to a measure in the form of a publicly available on-line publication for which there were no restrictions of access; nor had the legislature carried out an analysis of less burdensome solutions, such as a mechanism of confidential asset declarations with enhanced institutional checks, partial public disclosure [of the said declarations] limited to selected data categories, or conditional access. There are no grounds to assume that the general availability of judges’ asset declarations contributes to the achievement of any goals set by the legislature; indeed, the public disclosure of the said assets appears to merely satisfy the public’s curiosity.
3/. What determines the burden of interference, consisting in the on-line publication of asset declarations, is not only the substantive scope of disclosed information, but also, and primarily, the means and manner of the disclosure. An on-line publication which is indexable, easily copyable, and prone to secondary processing constitutes much more intrusive interference than the lack of confidentiality of court files or restricted access. What is also of significance here is the development of IT capacities as well as the global trend of information exchange.
4/. The Constitutional Tribunal stressed that a similar view had been expressed by European Courts, and in particular by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment of 22 November 2022 in the joined cases C-37/20 and C-601/20 as well as in its judgment of 5 June 2023 in the case C-204/21, and also by the European Court of Human Rights in its judgment of 9 March 2023 in the case of L.B. v. Hungary [application no. 36345/16], as well as by the Romanian Court in its judgment of 29 May 2025 in the case ref. no. 297/2025. In a vast majority of European countries, judges’ asset declarations are not published on-line. There is no reason for public disclosure of the asset declarations of Polish judges and assistant judges – including their conjugal property – in contrast to the confidentiality of such declarations in the case of German, French, British, Italian, Portugal, Greek, Croatian, Hungarian, and Czech judges.
5/. The Tribunal discontinued the review proceedings as to the remainder, leaving in force the mere obligation to file an asset declaration. The said obligation remains in place for the purposes of institutional checks, but it may not be a basis of an on-line publication of the aforementioned assets which is publicly available without any restrictions.
6/. As of the moment of the delivery of the judgment in the present case, the presumption of the constitutionality of the provisions under review is overturned.
The adjudicating panel in the present case comprised the following judges of the Constitutional Tribunal: Judge Stanisław Piotrowicz as the Presiding Judge; Vice-President of the Constitutional Tribunal Bartłomiej Sochański as the Judge Rapporteur; Judge Krystyna Pawłowicz; Judge Rafał Wojciechowski; and Judge Jarosław Wyrembak.