Poland’s Justice Minister and Prosecutor General, Adam Bodnar, publicly thanked the Supreme Court for its swift ruling in the case of a drunk prosecutor. At first glance, this might seem routine. But the twist? The decision came from the Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Chamber—the very body Bodnar and his political allies have deemed illegitimate and vowed to dismantle. Even more ironically, the ruling was issued by a single judge, Marek Motuk, who has previously been labeled a “neo-judge” and openly criticized by the current leadership of the judges’ association Iustitia.
The legal community was quick to react. Dr. Konrad Wytrykowski, a retired Supreme Court judge, quipped: “Thank you, Minister, for ending the false narrative about neo-judges and illegal Supreme Court chambers.”
A Drunken Crash and Legal Consequences
The case that triggered the storm unfolded near Gniezno, where a traffic collision led police to discover that the perpetrator was Paweł B., a prosecutor from the Poznań District Prosecutor’s Office. He refused an immediate breathalyzer test, but toxicology later confirmed he was under the influence of alcohol while driving.
Under Polish law, a prosecutor cannot face criminal charges without prior approval from a disciplinary court. Similarly, they cannot be detained without authorization—unless caught in the act, which was the case here.
As a result, the disciplinary chamber of the Supreme Court moved swiftly. In an expedited ruling, it allowed criminal proceedings against the prosecutor and lifted his immunity. This paved the way for the Internal Affairs Division of the National Public Prosecutor’s Office to formally charge Paweł B.
A Win for the Prosecution
The justice ministry did not miss the opportunity to celebrate its efficiency. Minister Bodnar took to social media platform X to praise the involved institutions:
“Such behavior is unacceptable in the prosecution service. Thank you to the Police, the District Prosecutor in Poznań, the National Prosecutor’s Office, and the Supreme Court for their swift action.”
But this very post sparked intense debate in legal and political circles.
End of the “Neo-Judge” Debate?
What made Bodnar’s praise controversial is the fact that the ruling was issued by the Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Chamber—an institution he has repeatedly declared illegitimate. Even more, the decision was handed down by Judge Marek Motuk, appointed after 2017, and therefore branded by Bodnar’s camp as a “neo-judge.”
Judge Motuk was recently lambasted by Bartłomiej Przymusiński, the new head of Iustitia, for refusing to lift immunity in a separate case. “This system is rigged—one neo-judge protects functionaries of the old system,” Przymusiński had commented at the time.
Now, Bodnar’s public praise for Motuk’s ruling has left many observers scratching their heads.
A Narrative Unraveled?
Prosecutor Andrzej Golec was quick to point out the inconsistency: “Following your own logic, Minister, does this mean the ruling allowing prosecution has no legal effect?”
Other lawyers suggested that Bodnar had—perhaps unintentionally—put an end to the ideological battle over the legitimacy of “neo-judges” and the Supreme Court chambers they serve in.
“I thank the Minister for finally ending the false narrative about neo-judges and illegal chambers in the Supreme Court,” wrote retired judge Wytrykowski.
The Ad Vocem Association added a sharper tone:
“This collision wasn’t just a problem for one prosecutor—those few drinks will echo across the whole ‘neo-prosecutor’ system. Thank you, Minister, for your statement, which marks the end of judicial chaos. As of April 22, 2025, Poland’s era of ‘fighting democracy’ in the judiciary is over. No more ‘neo-judges’ and constitutional confusion. Bravo!”
Lawyer Bartosz Lewandowski echoed the sentiment:
“Bravo! Minister Bodnar has just confirmed that the Supreme Court—featuring a post-2017 appointee like Judge Motuk—is, in fact, the Supreme Court. Sometimes, the obvious takes time to sink in.”
Is the Battle Truly Over?
The key question remains: Has this truly ended the coalition’s selective recognition of Supreme Court rulings? Or will their acceptance only continue when verdicts are politically convenient?
It’s worth recalling an earlier Supreme Court ruling that recognized Dariusz Barski as the legitimate National Prosecutor. At that time, Bodnar’s response was starkly different:
“The neo-judges of the Supreme Court are defending their positions and politicizing the justice system. They aim to block the process of accountability. Today’s opinion from three neo-judges is not a valid Supreme Court ruling and has no legal force. I will not back down from restoring an independent judiciary and prosecution service for the citizens.”
The contrast is hard to ignore. Bodnar’s thank-you note may have inadvertently said more than intended.