The Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (HFHR) has notified Poland’s Prosecutor General of a suspected offence by Julia Przyłębska, former president of the Constitutional Tribunal. The organisation analysed data on changes to adjudicating panels at the Tribunal between 2015 and 2020. During that period, panel compositions were changed in 885 cases and, in at least 176 of them, according to the HFHR, the reason was neither the death of a judge nor the expiry of a judge’s term. The Foundation believes that some of these actions may have amounted to an abuse of authority.
The case stems from a multi-year dispute over access to public information. The HFHR first asked the Constitutional Tribunal for data on changes to adjudicating panels in July 2020. It received the information only on 28 December 2025, after proceedings before administrative courts.
It was the analysis of those materials that led the Foundation to submit a formal notification to prosecutors.
885 panel changes, at least 176 cases raise concerns
According to data obtained by the HFHR, the composition of judicial panels was changed in 885 cases pending before the Constitutional Tribunal between 2015 and 2020.
A change of panel does not in itself mean that the law was breached. A judge may be replaced, for example, because their term has ended or for other circumstances provided for by law.
The Foundation nevertheless points to at least 176 cases in which the people heading the Tribunal allegedly changed previously designated panels for reasons other than the death of a judge or the end of a judge’s term.
According to the HFHR, in some cases the end of one judge’s term was also used as a reason to replace another judge on the panel. The organisation also describes instances in which the number of judges hearing a case was reduced, from a full bench to five or three judges.
Cases included the National Council of the Judiciary, public media and presidential pardons
The analysis did not concern only minor proceedings.
Among the cases in which panel changes allegedly occurred were proceedings concerning the functioning of the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS), the election of KRS members by the Sejm, rules for appointing the management of Telewizja Polska and Polskie Radio, and the legal effects of a presidential pardon.
The Foundation also lists cases concerning the transfer of prosecutors, recusal of judges, the use of materials obtained through operational surveillance and mandatory vaccinations.
The HFHR argues that the way some panel changes were made may have affected who held the majority in a particular adjudicating bench. This is, however, the position of the organisation filing the notification and will need to be assessed by law-enforcement authorities.
HFHR points to possible abuse of authority
The Foundation believes the actions described may meet the elements of an offence under Article 231 §2 of the Polish Criminal Code, concerning abuse of authority by a public official acting to the detriment of a public or private interest in order to obtain a personal benefit.
This is why media reports have referred to a possible sentence of up to 10 years in prison. Under the legal classification cited by the HFHR, the statutory penalty ranges from one to 10 years’ imprisonment. That does not mean, however, that such a sentence currently “threatens” the former president of the Tribunal in procedural terms. Prosecutors must first assess the notification and the evidence submitted.
A notification is not the same as criminal charges
At this stage it is particularly important to distinguish between reporting a suspected offence and establishing the criminal liability of a specific person.
The HFHR has presented its own analysis and legal assessment. It is now for prosecutors to decide whether there are grounds to open proceedings and take further steps.
Another issue is Julia Przyłębska’s status as a retired Constitutional Tribunal judge. Any attempt to hold her criminally liable would require her immunity to be lifted first.
The case may nevertheless have significance beyond the potential liability of one person. It concerns how adjudicating panels of the Constitutional Tribunal were formed and decisions taken in cases directly affecting Poland’s constitutional order and the functioning of public institutions.
Sources: Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Rzeczpospolita.
Source article: ManagerPlus.pl
