Polish courts trapped in networks of influence. When judges judge judges, justice loses
For years, the Polish judiciary has been facing a deep crisis of public trust. For an ordinary citizen, the most important issue today is not which side of the political dispute is right, but whether entering a courtroom still means having a fair, impartial and efficient trial. And this is precisely where the most serious problem emerges: the justice system increasingly gives the impression of being a closed structure, internally interconnected, resistant to public scrutiny and too heavily dependent on professional and personal relationships within the judicial environment.
There is nothing just about a system in which promotions, positions and influence are determined primarily by belonging to a particular circle, by personal connections or by acceptance within the professional community. Citizens do not want a court belonging to a professional clique. Citizens want a court of the state. A court in which law, competence and accountability matter — not who knows whom, who supported whom, and who belongs to the right association.
One of the central points of conflict remains the National Council of the Judiciary and the method of appointing judges following the changes introduced in 2017. For years, the public debate has been dominated by mutual challenges to the legality, authority and status of judges. Some are described as “better”, others as “worse”. Some present themselves as guardians of the rule of law, while others accuse their opponents of defending a closed, caste-like model of the judiciary. Regardless of political assessments, one thing is certain: a state in which judges themselves publicly delegitimise other judges ceases to be predictable.
The most dangerous element is precisely this mechanism of division. If citizens hear that a judgment may be challenged not because it is substantively wrong, but because it was issued by “this” or “that” judge, they begin to develop a justified sense of chaos. The court ceases to be a place of legal certainty and becomes a battlefield for influence. In such a reality, it is not one political party or one professional group that loses. The citizen loses.
Another pathology is the staffing paralysis. If the system really lacks approximately one thousand judicial positions, this is neither an academic dispute nor a problem affecting only the legal profession. It is a real tragedy for citizens who wait for months, and sometimes years, for their cases to be heard. Behind every vacant judicial position there is a specific human story: a divorce, child support, an inheritance, a dispute with a dishonest employer, a conflict with a bank, the defence of one’s good name, criminal liability. A state that cannot properly staff its courts is failing to fulfil one of its most fundamental functions: protecting the rights of its citizens.
The debate about the judiciary is too often conducted in the language of group interests. Some defend “their” judges, while others attack “those” judges. Some invoke the constitution, others invoke a democratic mandate, and still others rely on European institutions. Meanwhile, for society, something much simpler should matter most: whether the system is honest, transparent and equal for everyone. If citizens see circles of mutual protection, organisational dependencies and political sympathies operating within the courts, trust in judicial rulings will continue to decline.
The issue of double standards is equally disturbing. In every form of public authority, and especially in the justice system, hypocrisy destroys authority faster than even the harshest criticism. One cannot question the status of certain judges one day and then rely on their judgments the next when those judgments happen to be convenient. One cannot demand judicial independence while at the same time accepting pressure when it is directed against political or institutional opponents. The rule of law cannot be defended selectively.
The greatest problem of the Polish judiciary today is not merely one provision, one statute or one reform. The greatest problem is the lack of a common agreement that the courts cannot belong to any group. Not to politicians. Not to associations. Not to professional elites. Not to a closed caste. The court is supposed to serve the citizen, not the judicial environment. It is supposed to defend the law, not networks of influence.
That is why it must be said openly: building the justice system around people who know one another, support one another and mutually legitimise one another has nothing to do with justice. Justice begins where professional impunity ends. Where procedures are clear, accountability is real, and the citizen can be certain that their case is being decided not by a member of a network, but by an independent judge.
If Polish courts are to regain their authority, they do not need more slogans. They need a genuine break from networks of influence, double standards and the permanent war of everyone against everyone. The justice system must be rebuilt in such a way that citizens can once again believe that what matters in court is not personal connections, affiliation and influence, but facts, evidence and the law.
Without that, no reform will ever be genuine.