Polish courts must examine disputed judicial appointments themselves — and set aside any national rule that stops them, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on Tuesday. The judgment, delivered in a case referred by a Poznań court, means ordinary trial judges can no longer pass appointment challenges to a special chamber, even where Polish law requires them to do so.

The case began as a routine business dispute in Poznań. One party sought to remove the judge mid-case, arguing she was appointed through a process tied to Poland's overhauled National Council of the Judiciary. The trial court asked the CJEU whether judges can be blocked from checking how their colleagues were appointed. The answer was blunt: they cannot. Where a genuine question about independence arises, courts must examine it directly, not defer to another body that cannot fully review the appointment's legality.

What does the ruling change?

The court anchored its holding in the supremacy of EU law. "The principle of the primacy of EU law requires national courts that are called upon to apply EU law, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, to disapply, of their own motion, the provisions of national law that fail to meet the requirements," the judges said. That applies even to rulings of Poland's Constitutional Tribunal.

The threshold for disqualification is not any flaw. A judge must be removed only where the defect is serious enough to raise "reasonable doubt in the minds of individuals as to the imperviousness of that body to external factors and its neutrality with respect to the interests before it."

The court also acknowledged the scale of the problem. "In view of the systemic nature of irregular appointments, a case-by-case assessment … cannot, in principle, suffice," the judges wrote, noting earlier that "irregular appointments to judicial posts are systemic in Poland." It left the national system to devise a coherent response ensuring only judges meeting basic independence standards remain on the bench.

Why does the scale matter?

The numbers are stark. More than 3,000 judges — roughly a third of Poland's bench — were appointed through the revamped council. Since a 2017 reform, most council members are chosen by Parliament rather than by fellow judges, a shift criticized by EU institutions and the European Court of Human Rights as opening the door to political influence.

Challenging those appointments has grown harder in practice. Reviews are largely funneled into a special chamber whose own independence has come under scrutiny. A 2023 CJEU ruling in Commission v. Poland already held that blocking judges from verifying whether courts meet independence standards violates EU law. Tuesday's judgment pushes that case law into everyday litigation — even a dispute over unpaid invoices.

How did commentators react?

Laurent Pech, dean and law professor at University College Dublin, said the ruling reduces a structural defect to a procedural issue by declining to treat the restructured council as fundamentally unconstitutional. The systemic problem "automatically undermines" judicial independence, he said, yet the court still requires individual testing, "indirectly incentivizing … systemic attacks on judicial independence."

Maciej Bernatt, law professor at the University of Warsaw, took a pragmatic view. He said Poland urgently needs reforms clarifying the status of thousands of judges, and noted the court confirmed that appointment through the council alone does not establish a lack of independence — specific, case-by-case doubts are required.

What happens next?

The case returns to the Poznań trial court, which must assess the judge's independence under EU law and, if necessary, remove her from the case. The judgment is binding and cannot be appealed.

Polish officials split on the implications. The justice ministry said the ruling confirms a systemic problem requiring a legislative fix. Deputy Justice Minister Dariusz Mazur rejected claims that the ruling invalidates all so-called "neo-judges," saying "the exact opposite is true," and argued it supports the government's reform agenda. The Polish ombudsman, Commissioner for Human Rights Marcin Wiącek, welcomed the ruling, saying appointments through the restructured council do not automatically invalidate a judge's status.

For practitioners, the practical consequence is immediate: any litigant raising a genuine independence question about a judge appointed since 2017 now triggers a direct judicial examination, with domestic procedural obstacles disapplied.