As the term of the National Judicial Council (KRS) nears its end in three months, questions surrounding its legitimacy have arisen. The judicial members of KRS were selected by elected officials, which has been contested by legal experts, politicians, and even courts in Poland and Europe. The involvement of the parliament in this selection has led to a negative perception of the council, even introducing the prefix 'neo' to its judges, who are now referred to as 'neojudges.' This situation not only challenges the independence of the judiciary but also raises doubts about the stability of the legal system in Poland.

To address these challenges, a legislative amendment to the KRS law has been proposed, which is currently under review by the Polish government. This reform aims to shift the selection of judges back from parliament to the judiciary itself, allowing judges with a minimum of ten years of experience to apply for membership in the council. This change is seen as a potential remedy to the ongoing controversies surrounding the KRS and could restore some level of trust in the judicial system. However, the current state of legal proceedings and public confidence remains precarious as the reform awaits final approval from the president.

The implications of these developments extend beyond the immediate legal community; they touch on broader themes of judicial independence, democratic accountability, and the rule of law in Poland. Observers are keenly aware that any perceived instability in the judiciary can have far-reaching consequences for the country’s political landscape and its relationship with European institutions, which advocate for a consistent rule of law. As the reform process unfolds, the balance of power between judges and politicians will continue to be scrutinized, raising important questions about the future of Poland's legal framework and governance.