The competent court’s determination of the existence or non-existence of a judge’s service relationship K 24/20
On 26 November 2025, the Constitutional Tribunal delivered its ruling on the application of the First President of the Supreme Court with regard to the competent court’s determination of the existence or non-existence of a judge’s service relationship.
The Constitutional Tribunal adjudicated that Article 189 of the Civil Procedure Code – insofar as it provides that the court’s determination of the existence or non-existence of a legal relationship or right comprises the commencement of a judge’s service relationship ensuing from the appointment of the judge by the President of the Republic of Poland upon the recommendation of the National Council of the Judiciary – is inconsistent with Article 179 and Article 180(1)-(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland.
The ruling was unanimous.
The Constitutional Tribunal assessed the constitutionality of Article 189 of the Civil Procedure Code as a basis of legal action brought to determine the status of judges and to verify whether they had been legitimately appointed. The Tribunal indicated that the said legal action constituted an appropriate tool for civil-law disputes arising from private-law relationships, namely those that might be considered in traditional court proceedings. By contrast, cases concerning the appointment of judges and their exercise of the judicial office are strictly systemic in nature and fall outside of the category of civil cases.
The Tribunal stressed that the appointment of a judge on the basis of Article 179 of the Constitution constitutes a public-law act, whereby the judge takes up the office and is granted the competence to permanently exercise judicial powers. The appointment of a judge may not be treated as an outcome of a contract or civil-law relationship. The Polish President’s prerogative in that respect is autonomous and is excluded from judicial review, although the exercise thereof depends on a motion of the National Council of the Judiciary, which is responsible for recommending candidates.
The Tribunal also clarified the meaning of Article 180 of the Constitution, which enshrines the principle of the irremovability of judges. The said principle serves to safeguard the stability of the administration of justice, and any departures therefrom are admissible only in the circumstances specified by statute and solely on the basis of a court’s ruling. A judge’s service relationship combines elements of an employment relationship with certain systemic elements, yet the latter are dominant, and hence the whole relationship may not be categorised as a civil-law one.
Therefore, the Tribunal deemed that Article 189 of the Civil Procedure Code may not be invoked for the purpose of verifying the validity of the appointment of a judge or the existence of his/her mandate. Permitting such practice would infringe the Polish President’s prerogative, would lead to common courts’ interference with systemic matters, and would distort the constitutional separation of powers.
Consequently, the Tribunal held that Article 189 of the Civil Procedure Code – insofar as it was invoked for determining the status of judges – is inconsistent with the Constitution. Indeed, the stability of the appointment of judges constitutes the foundation for the functioning of courts, citizens’ trust and the proper administration of justice. Therefore, the said matters remain excluded from common courts’ jurisdiction.
The adjudicating panel in the present case comprised the following judges of the Constitutional Tribunal: Judge Wojciech Sych as the Presiding Judge; Judge Justyn Piskorski as the Judge Rapporteur; Judge Krystyna Pawłowicz; Vice-President of the Constitutional Tribunal Bartłomiej Sochański; and Judge Michał Warciński.