Warsaw judge stuck with colleague’s caseload finds no reprieve from EU

Experts on Poland's complex legal landscape questioned whether a judge's consent to reshuffle cases guarantees protection from possible corruption.(CN) — A hundred cases changed hands in a Warsaw courthouse, and the EU’s top court said Thursday the shuffle could stand if the judge who gave them up had done so freely.The Court of Justice of the European Union answered a request from Judge Aneta Łazarska of Warsaw’s Regional Court. While handling two commercial payment appeals among 56 cases reassigned to her, she asked whether the reshuffle and her inability to separately challenge it in court left her legally entitled to hear them.The original judge had moved divisions and asked to relinquish 100 cases. The court’s administrative body agreed without giving reasons. A January 2025 computerized draw redistributed them, sending more than half to Łazarska. She questioned both the unexplained withdrawal and the system that put so many cases on her desk.The EU court acknowledged that Polish law lacked precise withdrawal criteria and allowed decisions without reasons. But those shortcomings did not automatically disqualify the judge who received the cases.“Nothing in those explanations suggests that that transfer was nonconsensual or even arbitrary, or that the removal of cases was requested as a result of external influences capable of affecting that judge’s independence,” the court wrote.Provided the Warsaw court verified the request was voluntary, Łazarska had no obligation to stop hearing the appeals. Computerized reassignment also has to follow transparent, objective rules known beforehand and prevent officials from steering cases to particular judges.An automated draw, a published algorithm and public assignment records provide safeguards, the court said. Disclosing the underlying computer code was unnecessary and could facilitate cyberattacks. Unequal case numbers did not necessarily mean unequal workloads.Nor did Łazarska need a separate appeal against reassignment, provided courts could check whether they were properly constituted. That review must be available at a party’s request, or on a court’s own initiative where serious doubts arise.Benedetta Lobina, a researcher specializing in EU rule of law at Central European University’s Democracy Institute, found Advocate General Dean Spielmann’s advisory opinion from March this year more persuasive. His warning that consent could mask pressure from superiors or collusion supported clearer safeguards regardless of a judge’s agreement.“I think this key point is the most interesting of the case, because the court took a formalistic approach, instead of looking past the black letter of the law,” she said. Lobina saw a missed opportunity to strengthen independence, while welcoming the transparency benchmarks as guidance for other countries.Poland’s nationalist conservative Law and Justice party expanded political control over judicial appointments and discipline during its 2015–2023 rule, provoking clashes with EU institutions over judicial independence.Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s pro-European coalition replaced it in 2023 and now governs on a promise to repair those safeguards. The EU closed a special rule-of-law procedure in 2024 after assessing Poland’s reform commitments.But Tusk faces President Karol Nawrocki, backed by Law and Justice, whose veto power lets him block legislation. In February, Nawrocki rejected a bill that would have let judges, rather than Parliament, elect the judicial members of the council that nominates judges. The government argues the change would restore independence; Nawrocki called it unconstitutional.There were clashes Wednesday at the Constitutional Tribunal in Warsaw as Law and Justice supporters tried to prevent justices from entering. Tusk has vowed to restore neutrality to the court.Andrzej Olaś, an associate professor of civil procedure at Jagiellonian University in Kraków, said unexplained withdrawals left litigants poorly placed to assess whether consent was genuine. He proposed independent, secure audits of the allocation system. “Publishing an algorithm and draw reports does not prove that the underlying code implements the published rules,” he said.Olaś also warned that later rules allowing officials to choose two members of three-judge panels undermined the automated selection the court accepted and fell outside this ruling’s scope. He urged statutory withdrawal criteria, reasoned decisions, records of judges’ requests and random selection of entire panels to prevent challenges over their composition.The European Commission and Poland’s justice ministry did not respond to requests for comment. Neither did Łazarska.The EU ruling cannot be appealed. The Warsaw court must now verify the circumstances and apply the binding interpretation before deciding the payment appeals still on its desk.Courthouse News reporter Eunseo Hong is based in the Netherlands.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads