The judiciary of Poland ( ) includes all authorities exercising the judicial power of the Polish state on the basis of Chapter 8 of the Constitution. The Polish judiciary operates within the framework of civil law, like most of continental Europe.
The Constitution formally divides the judiciary into the courts () and the tribunals (). The courts process the vast majority of cases and are tasked with administering justice (). Administrative courts () review complaints challenging the legality of administrative proceedings. Military courts () are criminal courts for servicemembers stationed in Poland. All other cases (including cases where jurisdiction is not specifically mentioned) are processed in common courts (). The Supreme Court is the court of last resort in all non-administrative cases, while administrative matters go to the Supreme Administrative Court. Everyone has a guaranteed right to appeal to a court of higher instance, but appeals and cassations to the apex courts are limited by law; therefore, only a fraction of cases may reach them.
Two tribunals operate separately from the rest of the judiciary. The Constitutional Tribunal () rules on the compliance of challenged statutes with the Constitution and is the only court in Poland that can strike down laws and regulations. The State Tribunal (), which convenes very rarely, has exclusive jurisdiction over criminal trials of the highest state officials.
Court judges are appointed by the president of Poland upon nomination by the National Council of the Judiciary (), an auxiliary body established for this purpose by the Constitution, and serve until they reach the mandatory retirement age of 65 or 70. They are assisted or supplemented by various other judicial officials in the court, including court assessors, law clerks (), registrars () and lay judges (). Professionals such as bailiffs () and probation officers () act on the court's behalf to enforce judges' orders. In contrast to the court judges, the ones sitting in tribunals (with the exception of those sitting there ex officio) are elected by the Sejm with a simple majority of its deputies.
Several issues plague the Polish judiciary. The courts are widely seen as too slow, and trust in the court system is low among the general population. Changes to the judiciary carried out from 2015 by the ruling United Right coalition, ostensibly aimed at remedying these handicaps, caused much controversy and provoked an ongoing constitutional crisis. The Law and Justice-led coalition was widely seen as trying to subjugate the courts to political control, which created a deep conflict between judges appointed before the conservative coalition made changes to the judiciary ("old judges") and their supporters and those appointed by the new rules ("neo-judges", ). The Constitutional Tribunal, widely seen as captured by the Law and Justice party, issued decisions aiming to thwart the application of the unfavourable rulings of the ECJ and the European Court of Human Rights by asserting they were issued outside the courts' competences and without regard to the Polish Constitution. These international courts found that several key parts of the Polish judiciary do not guarantee impartiality or are improperly constituted.
Structure
This section describes the legal state of the structure of the judiciary as of 21 December 2025.
Common courts
The common courts (), according to article 177 of the Constitution, are the courts of general jurisdiction, i.e. they rule on all cases in which the jurisdiction has not been explicitly transferred to other courts. This includes a broad range of cases, including in civil, criminal, labour, economic and insurance law. The territorial jurisdiction of these courts and their creation is regulated by the minister of justice.
Poland has a three-tier system of common courts. Most of the cases land in one of 319 regional courts (), whose rulings may be appealed to 47 district courts (). The latter courts also hear some cases in their original jurisdiction, which tend to be cases where high sums of money are disputed, the ones about serious crimes, and some that deal with narrow subjects, like intellectual property, surveillance warrants, competition law, and personal rights. District court rulings issued in the original jurisdiction may be appealed to one of 11 appeal courts (). The appeal courts also house trial disciplinary court panels for judges, but in select cases, trials are reserved for the Chamber of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court. After the courts of two instances have reviewed their cases, a cassation or its equivalent (see below) may be lodged in the Supreme Court in cases allowed by law.
Apart from their strictly judicial duties, the common courts in Poland maintain several registries. The National Court Register () maintains information about most companies in Poland; other such databases include the land and mortgage registry (), registry of press outlets, political parties, pension and investment funds, family foundations, ships, and pledges.
Military courts The military courts are specialised criminal courts for the Polish Armed Forces and its civilian personnel, as well as foreign soldiers and their personnel during their duties if international agreements allow them to be tried on Polish soil. There are seven garrison military courts () under the jurisdiction of two district military courts (), which roughly correspond to the regional and district common courts, respectively. The creation of military courts and their territorial jurisdiction are regulated by the minister of defence, while the minister of justice makes internal regulations for the courts. Judges in military courts must be officers in the Polish Armed Forces.
According to article 653 of Code of Criminal Procedure (KPK), most of the courts-martial begin in garrison military courts, whose ruling may be appealed to the district military court. Article 654 of KPK mentions exceptions to these cases, which include any cases that would have been otherwise tried by a , crimes committed by officers of the rank of major or higher, or by foreign servicemembers. The disciplinary panels of district military courts will also hold trials for disciplinary cases against military judges, except for those heard by the Chamber of Professional Responsibility as the original disciplinary jurisdiction.
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court () is the highest court for verdicts made in common and military courts. It is technically separate from both.
In its main capacity, it serves as a court of cassation reviewing selected verdicts of the courts of second instance, which cannot be appealed further (i.e., district courts or district military courts for cases originating in regional or military garrison courts, respectively; and appeal courts for cases originating in district courts). For some staturorily created regulatory colleges, cassations are also possible against the rulings of their disciplinary organs.
If the case originates within a district military court, a disciplinary panel either for common court judges (affiliated with an appeal court), military court judges (affiliated with a district military court), or for public prosecutors (affiliated with the minister of justice), the Supreme Court will process it as a court of second instance because all of these organs are directly below the Supreme Court in the judicial hierarchy. As an exception, any disciplinary cases against its own judges, or the most grave disciplinary cases against public prosecutors as well as against common or military court judges, are tried in the Supreme Court.
Among other duties, the Supreme Court reviews all complaints about referendums and parliamentary, European Parliament and presidential elections and certifies the validity of these. The Court is also able to present its opinion on the draft bills that affect the judicial interpretation of other legislation.
The Supreme Court is led by the , who is also ex officio the President of the State Tribunal and a member of the National Council of the Judiciary. It is legally divided into five chambers () headed by the Presidents of the Supreme Court. The Civil Chamber reviews civil, economic and family law cases; the Criminal Chamber rules on criminal matters and in all cases related to the military courts. The Labour and Social Insurance chamber issues rulings on labour law in cases not related to the Supreme Court judges themselves, which are reviewed by the Chamber of Professional Responsibility. The latter hears also disciplinary cases of common, military and Supreme Court judges, as well as those of public prosecutors. The Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs makes decisions about countrywide elections, while also ruling on some narrow areas of law (e.g. competition cases) and hearing complaints about technical issues of judgements (e.g. if a party to the case objects to the lack of independence of judges or the speed of processing the case).
Administrative courts
Before a party can seek redress in an administrative court, all administrative appeal options (if available) must be exhausted, thus making the challenged decision final. The bodies to which these appeals should be lodged are outlined in article 17-18 of the Code of Administrative Procedure. If unsatisfied with the outcome of the administrative appeal of the decision, the party may further challenge it by submitting the judgment for judicial review through a complaint to one of the 16 voivodeship administrative courts (, WSA).
The administrative courts in general hear complaints on decisions and administrative rulings of government bodies (article 3 of the Law on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts, or PPSA), though some decisions may be exempted from the administrative courts' jurisdiction by statute. They may not substitute the judgment of administrative organs and will only control the validity of their decisions according to administrative law. Administrative courts notably do not accept witness nor expert testimony other than that obtained during administrative procedures.
A cassation complaint may be brought to the Supreme Administrative Court (, NSA), which is the court of last resort for administrative law matters. Despite being called a cassation, it may be lodged against any ruling of the lower court due to the constitutional guarantee of judicial review, there being only two levels of administrative judiciary. It is also the court that resolves jurisdiction disputes between organs of local government, between and between these institutions and those of the central government. The NSA additionally hears disciplinary proceedings against administrative judges, both on trial and on appeal. This court is divided into three chambers: Finance (), which resolves tax-related issues, Commerce (), which deals with issues related to financial instruments and corporate law, and the General Administration () chamber which deals with issues not covered by the other two chambers.
Constitutional Tribunal