Introduction

Published in Beyond adjudication – Exploring the Multifaceted Role of Supreme Administrative Courts (Edward Elgar 2026), my book chapter explores the position of the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) within the Polish system of judicial power and it examines how administrative justice interacts with the ordinary judiciary. While administrative courts are traditionally understood as mechanisms for controlling public administration and ensuring the legality of executive action, the Polish experience demonstrates that their role may extend further, particularly in periods of institutional stress affecting the judiciary as a whole.

By analysing the constitutional framework, jurisdictional design, and selected strands of recent case law, the chapter shows how administrative courts have become increasingly relevant for questions of judicial independence, legal coherence, and access to justice. In this sense, administrative justice appears not only as a sectoral form of judicial review, but also as an institutional component of the broader constitutional balance. This perspective may be of interest beyond the Polish context, especially in comparative debates on the institutional safeguards of the rule of law in contemporary democracies.

Constitutional Position of Administrative Courts

Poland operates a dual judicial system in which administrative courts are institutionally distinct from ordinary courts. The Supreme Administrative Court stands at the apex of the administrative judiciary and is not subject to supervision by the Supreme Court. This separation is explicitly grounded in the Constitution of the Republic of Poland (https://www.sejm.gov.pl/prawo/konst/angielski/kon1.htm), which deliberately abandoned the earlier model of hierarchical unity in favour of functional differentiation within the judicial branch.

Administrative courts are entrusted exclusively with reviewing the legality of public decisions. Since 2004, they have functioned in a two-instance structure, with regional administrative courts and the SAC as the final instance. This institutional design reflects a clear constitutional choice to separate administrative adjudication from the adjudication of civil and criminal matters. The absence of organisational subordination between the SAC and the Supreme Court places both courts on an equal constitutional level, despite their distinct competences and areas of jurisdiction.

The Supreme Administrative Court as a Court of Last Instance

Within the administrative judiciary, the SAC performs a role comparable to that of a court of last instance. Under the Law on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts, it examines cassation complaints and adopts resolutions aimed at clarifying legal issues and ensuring consistency in administrative case law, with binding effect in the individual case concerned. Through these mechanisms, the SAC plays a central role in shaping the interpretation of public law and maintaining the coherence of administrative adjudication.

The SAC’s authority is therefore interpretative rather than managerial. Its influence derives from legal reasoning and the persuasive force of its judgments, not from administrative supervision over lower courts. This model of judicial leadership reinforces internal coherence within the administrative judiciary while preserving judicial independence at both institutional and individual levels.

Interactions with Ordinary Courts

Although Polish law does not recognize a general doctrine of binding precedent across judicial branches, administrative court judgments may exert binding effects beyond administrative justice. Pursuant to Article 170 of the Law on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts, final judgments bind not only the parties and the issuing court but also other courts and public authorities within the scope of their operative part.

This mechanism ensures a minimum level of systemic coherence while respecting the autonomy of ordinary courts. Only the operative part of the judgment is binding; the reasoning remains persuasive rather than mandatory. As a result, inter-judicial interaction takes the form of dialogue rather than hierarchy, allowing different branches of the judiciary to maintain interpretative autonomy while avoiding contradictory outcomes in concrete cases.

Jurisdictional Boundaries and Access to Justice

My chapter also highlights the importance of jurisdictional rules governing the relationship between administrative and ordinary courts. Administrative courts must decline cases that fall outside their jurisdiction, yet they are prevented from doing so if an ordinary court has already refused to hear the case. Similar safeguards operate in civil procedure, creating a coordinated system of jurisdictional responsibility.

This design reflects a clear priority: avoiding denial of justice where jurisdictional boundaries overlap or remain uncertain. From a comparative perspective, the Polish solution illustrates how access to a court may be protected without dissolving the structural distinction between judicial branches. It also demonstrates a pragmatic approach to jurisdictional conflicts, placing the individual’s right to judicial protection above formal considerations of competence.

Disciplinary Jurisdiction and the European Dimension

The SAC also exercises disciplinary jurisdiction over judges of all administrative courts. This function places the SAC at the intersection of judicial accountability and judicial independence. In recent years, its role has acquired particular relevance in light of broader European debates on protection of judicial independence and disciplinary regimes of judges and their compatibility with the rule of law, especially in the CJEU’s post-2018 case law (e.g. C-64/16, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses; Joined Cases C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, A.K. and Others; C-791/19, Commission v Poland).

The SAC’s activity contributes to aligning domestic disciplinary mechanisms with European standards of independence and impartiality, as developed in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The chapter situates this function within wider discussions on the institutional design of judicial discipline and the role of courts in safeguarding the autonomy of the judiciary in EU Member States, as articulated in cases such as C-64/16, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses, and C-791/19, Commission v Poland.

Conclusions

The Polish experience demonstrates that administrative courts may play a systemic role extending beyond traditional legality review. While remaining institutionally separate from ordinary courts, the SAC participates in a network of judicial interactions based on binding effects, mutual recognition of judgments, and shared constitutional principles.

In periods of heightened institutional tension, administrative justice may thus function as a stabilising element of judicial power. My chapter invites comparative reflection on the potential of administrative courts to safeguard not only the legality of administrative action, but also the institutional conditions necessary for judicial independence and effective judicial protection.

—

Posted by Jan Olszanowski (Phd; Adam Mickiewicz University, Faculty of Law and Adminstration, judge in District Court of Poznan).