The government’s attempt to lower the mandatory retirement age of judges is due to come into effect this week

The president of Poland’s supreme court fears she may be prevented from entering her place of work later this week, she told the Guardian, as a long-running standoff between the Polish government and the country’s judiciary threatens to reach a dramatic climax.

Earlier this year, the Polish parliament introduced a mandatory retirement age of 65 for supreme court judges, which would result in the instant dismissal of 27 of the 74 judges currently serving in the court. Because the new law envisages expanding the court to 120 judges, this would give the government the power to appoint almost two-thirds of supreme court judges from scratch.

The retirements are due to come into effect on Tuesday, but last week a general assembly of supreme court judges issued resolutions stating that the dismissals contravened constitutional guarantees of judicial independence and explicit provisions in the constitution guaranteeing the term of office of Małgorzata Gersdorf, the supreme court president. The resolutions stated that Gersdorf and all of the supreme court judges threatened with forcible retirement would continue to serve out their terms as normal.

Supreme court judges are expected to gather together before entering their court building on Wednesday morning, in a show of solidarity and defiance. It is unclear how the Polish government will react, but speculation is growing that the judges could be blocked from entering the building. A group of associations of Polish lawyers has called for protests in support of the judges in front of the supreme court on Tuesday and Wednesday.

“I will go to my office on Wednesday, but whether I will be let in is another matter,” said Gersdorf, whose constitutionally mandated six-year term is due to expire in April 2020. “It doesn’t happen in well-developed countries that the executive and the legislative branches destroy the judiciary. With no guarantees of basic freedoms, the fundamental rights of Polish citizens will be destroyed sooner or later.”

The uncertainty surrounding the future of the court deepened further this week, as the European commission announced on Monday its intention to take the Polish government to the European court of justice over the legislation, on the grounds that “these measures undermine the principle of judicial independence, including the irremovability of judges, and thereby Poland fails to fulfil its obligations under article 19(1) of the treaty on European Union read in connection with article 47 of the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union”.

The Polish government has been given one month to respond to the announcement, after which it could be ordered to desist from implementation until the ECJ has issued its ruling.

“Even if the commission cannot block the removal of the present judges, it could block the appointment of their successors, so 3 July is not the end of the story,” said Marcin Matczak, a law professor at the university of Warsaw. “But in the meantime, the judges need to take a stand, to send a message to Polish society that to remove them in this way would be a constitutional crime.”

'They’re trying to break me': Polish judges face state-led intimidation Read more

The government has accused the judges of involving themselves in politics, arguing that they should respect the will of the Polish parliament. “Just like every Pole, president Małgorzata Gersdorf is bound by the law, which she should follow,” said a spokesperson for the Polish justice ministry.

Gersdorf also acknowledged the possibility that the government would attempt to appoint an “interim” president of the court in her place, raising the prospect of two rival supreme court presidents, with one claiming to derive their legitimacy from legislation passed by the Polish parliament, and the other deriving legitimacy from the Polish constitution. “From a constitutional point of view, there is only one supreme court president,” said Gersdorf. “But the authorities will only respect their interim president, not me – I will be the supreme court’s president-in-exile.”

The government has argued that precedents for the curtailment of a supreme court president’s term already exist, citing the example of a supreme court president who died in 2014, four years into his six-year term.

“The government doesn’t seem to understand that there is a difference between a judge choosing to retire – or dying – and being forced out of his position by the executive,” said Matczak. “Political pressure is unconstitutional – death is not.”

Combined with legislation giving Poland’s ruling Law and Justice party (PiS) control of the body that appoints Polish judges, the dismissals would give the government effective control of the supreme court. In addition to serving as the country’s highest court of appeal in all civil and criminal cases, the court is also responsible for verifying the validity of elections.

The government is also set to introduce a new “disciplinary chamber” for Polish judges, “and a chamber of extraordinary control and public affairs”, which will give the government the power to reopen almost any case from the past 20 years and have it heard again by judges appointed by the ruling party.Last week, the Polish senate began hearings for the appointment of “lay members” of the supreme court, members of the public chosen by politicians to sit on the supreme court alongside professional judges, a new system introduced by Polish president Andrzej Duda as “a remedy that allows the natural legal order to be restored in accordance with the principle of social justice”.

Any confrontation between the government and supreme court judges could yet be postponed, however, as the national council of the judiciary, the body that appoints Polish judges, is yet to appoint any successors to the judges the government wants to force into retirement.