We are pleased to announce the favorable judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court for clients of Jabłoński Koźmiński Law Firm, issued in unprecedented cases concerning the appointment of the chairman of the judges’ assembly within the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court.

What were the cases about?

Case number II GSK 432/25 involved a complaint by Supreme Court judges K. Weitz and D. Zawistowski against the Prime Minister’s countersignature on the decision made by the President of the Republic of Poland regarding the appointment of the chairman of the judges’ assembly of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court.

On September 9, 2024, the Prime Minister, in accordance with Article 54 § 3 of the Proceedings before Administrative Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as: the “PPSA”), upheld the judges’ complaint, revoked the contested act, and declined to countersign. Simultaneously, the Prime Minister, fulfilling his obligation under the PPSA, forwarded the complaint to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court dismissed the complaint, pointing out that:

• Filing a complaint against the Prime Minister’s countersignature of an official act by the President of the Republic of Poland must be considered inadmissible.
• The termination of administrative court proceedings due to the acceptance of the complaint in the self-control process by invalidating the countersignature is not possible, as the administrative court does not have jurisdiction over the Prime Minister’s countersignature review.

The Supreme Administrative Court did not agree with the previous argument and overturned the decision of the Voivodeship Administrative Court, which dismissed the complaint, and discontinued the proceedings.

In the Resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court of July 10, 2025, ref. No.: II GSK 432/25, it was indicated that:

• The Court of First Instance wrongly determined that the complaint should be dismissed because the administrative court lacked jurisdiction to consider it. Properly acting, the Court should have discontinued the proceedings stemming from the complaint because the contested act was removed from legal circulation by the authority as a result of upholding the complaint under Article 54 § 3 of the PPSA.
• After the administrative body used its self-review powers, an administrative court receiving a complaint against a repealed act may not review the legality of that act, including examining its legal nature from the court’s perspective. An act issued by an administrative authority under self-review pursuant to Article 54 § 3 of the Administrative Procedure Code (PPSA) acquires a separate legal status. This means that if a party disagrees with the content of the self-review decision, it may file a complaint. When considering a complaint against a self-review act, the administrative court will also be authorized to examine whether it was issued in violation of the provisions of Article 54 § 3 of the Administrative Procedure Code.

What does this Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment mean in practice?

The Prime Minister, acting within the framework of his self-control, revoked the previously issued countersignature and issued an act that acquired independent legal validity. This means that until the decision in question is successfully appealed to an administrative court and eliminated from legal circulation, it remains binding and has legal effects.

Case ref. No.: II GSK 251/25 concerned the complaint of Supreme Court judges K. Weitz and D. Zawistowski against the resolution of the President of the Republic of Poland of August 17, 2024, No. 1131.18.2024, regarding the appointment of the chairman of the assembly of judges of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court dismissed the complaint, pointing out that:

• The resolution of the President of the Republic of Poland, as an official act, does not have the nature of an administrative case, ergo it is not subject to the jurisdiction of administrative courts.
• The resolution constitutes the implementation of the autonomous and discretionary powers of the President of the Republic of Poland.
• The declaration of withdrawal of the complaint in connection with the self-audit could not be assessed as effective, because the withdrawal of an inadmissible complaint could not have been effective.

The Supreme Administrative Court did not agree with the above argument and overturned the decision of the Voivodeship Administrative Court dismissing the complaint, thereby discontinuing the proceedings.

In the Resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court of July 22, 2025, ref. No.: II GSK 251/25, it was indicated that:

• The Supreme Administrative Court disagrees with the Court of First Instance that the complaint in this case was inadmissible.
• According to the Supreme Administrative Court, the President of the Republic of Poland, although he is not a public administration body in the systemic sense, the acts issued by him, such as resolutions, may – contrary to the position of the Court of First Instance – constitute acts within the scope of public administration when the President of the Republic of Poland, within the framework of issuing a given act, acts as a public administration body in the functional sense.
• Assuming the role of an administrative body in the functional sense in the Act on the Supreme Court opens the way to judicial review of the actions of the President of the Republic of Poland in the discussed scope. Adopting a different interpretation would lead to a violation of the principles arising from Article 2 and Article 45, Section 1 of the Constitution, because, in essence, a Supreme Court judge would be deprived of the possibility of questioning any actions affecting the scope of his rights and obligations arising from the legal relationship between this entity and the state.
• The appealed decision of the President of the Republic of Poland should have been considered an act referred to in Article 3 § 2 Point 4 of the PPSA; the Court of First Instance had no grounds to dismiss the complaint filed against this decision and to find that the case was not subject to the jurisdiction of administrative courts.
• The complainants’ declaration of withdrawal of the complaint should be considered effective, as the complaint was admissible. The complainants withdrew their complaint and requested that the proceedings be discontinued, indicating that on September 9, 2024, the Prime Minister upheld the complainants’ complaint against the countersignature in its entirety, annulled the countersignature against the contested decision, and refused to grant the countersignature.

What does this Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment mean in practice?

The Supreme Administrative Court clearly states that in certain situations, the President of the Republic of Poland assumes the role of a public administration body in a functional sense. Consequently, his actions may be subject to administrative judicial review.

Thus, the appointment by the President of the Republic of Poland, pursuant to Article 15 § 3 in connection with Article 13 § 3 of the Act on the Supreme Court, of the chairman of the assembly of judges of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court is subject to the cognition of administrative courts.

Advocate Dr Michał Jabłoński – Managing Partner and Seweryn Sasin – Senior Associate, lawyers from Jabłoński Koźmiński & Partners Law Firm, handled the cases of the Supreme Court judges.

Congratulations to the entire team!