A recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the case of Simoncini against San Marino stated that the removal of a judge due to a flaw in their appointment is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. This decision raises important questions for Poland, particularly regarding the issue of so-called 'neo-judges' who were appointed with the involvement of a problematic National Council of the Judiciary. The ruling's implications could lead to challenges against the legitimacy of these appointments.

The case at hand involved a judge who was removed from office because of a legal defect in his nomination, which was based on a poorly constituted judicial council. While the specifics differ from Poland's current situation, the ECHR's declaration emphasizes the need for proper judicial appointments that adhere to the principles outlined in the Convention. This ruling effectively suggests that Poland may need to reevaluate its judicial appointment processes, especially regarding judges appointed under questionable conditions.

Experts are examining whether the grounds for judicial appointment defects in the San Marino case are more severe than those currently scrutinized in Poland. The San Marino scenario revolved around whether only judges appointed for life could sit in the council, contrasting with the Polish context. The ruling carries significant implications for Minister Żurek and the Polish judiciary as it uncovers potential vulnerabilities in the current judicial framework and calls for adherence to international legal standards for safeguarding judicial independence.