The article delves into the contentious issue of judgments made by judges appointed through the neo-KRS recommendations, which has sparked significant debate in the Polish publication 'Rzeczpospolita'. The concept of 'sententia non existens', or nonexistent judgments, is explored alongside broader discussions about the sources and ramifications of the ongoing constitutional crisis in Poland. It highlights the profound damage inflicted on the justice system and the various suggested paths to restoring the rule of law.

Supporters of the judicial changes instituted between 2015 and 2023 maintain that the arguments for questioning the legitimacy of these judges' appointments are not persuasive. They argue that claims regarding the flaws in judicial appointments are merely instrumental, viewing the law as a tool for political struggle and for undermining Poland's constitutional order. The ruling parties dismiss European court judgments that criticize the appointments of neo-judges as irrelevant, asserting that this legal fine point should not distract from the legitimacy of the current judicial system.

This ongoing debate not only affects the immediate legal landscape but also has significant implications for the rule of law in Poland. As the country grapples with its judicial independence, the discussion raises critical questions about governance, accountability, and the balance of power in a democracy. The resolution of these issues will be crucial for Poland's future as a member of the European Union and its adherence to shared democratic values, which are increasingly put to the test amid this judicial dispute.