The Lawyers for Poland Association has accused Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek of attempting to use disciplinary powers in a way that could indirectly affect the composition of the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS) after the Ministry of Justice ordered an immediate suspension of Judge Łukasz Piebiak’s official duties.
The ministry announced on 15 June 2026 that Żurek had issued an order suspending Piebiak from official judicial duties under Article 130 §1 of the Act on the System of Common Courts. According to the ministry, the decision is to remain in force until a disciplinary court issues a resolution, but no longer than one month.
The ministry justified the measure by referring to what it described as the “extraordinary character” and seriousness of the acts of which Piebiak is suspected. It pointed to two ongoing prosecutorial proceedings, including one concerning the so-called “hate scandal” at the Ministry of Justice and another relating to alleged attempted court fraud and document forgery.
However, the dispute now goes beyond the question of Piebiak’s judicial duties. It also concerns whether the minister’s order may affect his role as a member of the National Council of the Judiciary. In media remarks, Żurek argued that Piebiak “will not be able” to perform duties in the KRS while suspended, saying that his presence in the Council is linked to his status as a judge.
Lawyers for Poland strongly rejects that interpretation. In a statement published on X, the Association argued that the Minister of Justice has no authority to interfere with the composition of the KRS through what it called the instrumental use of Article 130. In the Association’s view, an order suspending a judge’s official duties may concern only duties performed by that judge in court, not the exercise of a constitutional mandate in the National Council of the Judiciary.
The legal basis of the dispute is Article 130 §1 itself. The provision allows the president of a court or the Minister of Justice to order an immediate break in a judge’s official duties if the judge has been detained after being caught red-handed committing an intentional offence, or if the nature of the act attributed to the judge means that the dignity of the court or vital interests of the service require immediate removal from duties. The measure is temporary and remains subject to review by a disciplinary court.
Lawyers for Poland argues that this extraordinary mechanism cannot be extended to Piebiak’s mandate in the KRS. The Association stresses that membership in the Council is not a judicial function within a court division and is not an administrative court function. Rather, it is the exercise of a mandate in a constitutional body whose task is to safeguard the independence of courts and judges.
That distinction is significant because the Constitution expressly describes the KRS as the body responsible for safeguarding the independence of courts and judges. The Constitution also sets out the Council’s composition, including 15 judges chosen from among judges of the Supreme Court, common courts, administrative courts and military courts.
The KRS currently lists Piebiak as a member of the Council and as a judge of the District Court for the Capital City of Warsaw. The same KRS composition page also lists Waldemar Żurek as Minister of Justice, which underlines the institutional sensitivity of the dispute: the minister is himself an ex officio member of the body whose functioning is now affected by his decision.
The political context is equally important. On 15 May 2026, the Sejm elected 15 judges to the KRS. Piebiak was among those elected, having been indicated by Law and Justice. The election itself was controversial and took place despite a Constitutional Tribunal injunction, while PiS MPs boycotted the vote.
For Lawyers for Poland, the attempt to link Piebiak’s temporary suspension from judicial duties with his KRS mandate amounts to a dangerous precedent. The Association argues that such an interpretation would give the executive branch an indirect mechanism for influencing the composition and functioning of a constitutional body designed precisely to protect the judiciary from political pressure.
The case is therefore not only about one judge. It raises a broader constitutional question: whether a disciplinary measure aimed at judicial duties in court can be used to affect the work of a member of the National Council of the Judiciary. Lawyers for Poland says the answer is no — and warns that treating Article 130 as a tool for shaping the KRS would not defend the rule of law, but bypass it.