Thousands of divorced couples were amazed to find out: they may still be married

Thousands of couples in Poland who were sure they were divorced years ago are now discovering a disturbing reality: it is possible that they are still married as far as the country is concerned. This unusual situation was born as a direct result of the ongoing political and legal struggle surrounding the Polish legal system, a struggle that is now seeping into the everyday lives of ordinary citizens.

The case made headlines in the last days of January in the town of Gizycko in northeastern Poland. A divorced couple came to court to settle the division of property between them, a matter that seems completely routine. But during the discussion they were told something surprising: in the eyes of the authorities, their divorce never took place.

At the heart of the case is a decision by a local judge who ruled that the original ruling that approved their divorce was legally void. The reason for this was that one of the judges who signed it was appointed as part of reforms carried out by the right-wing nationalist “Law and Justice” (PiS) government, which ruled Poland between 2015 and 2023 and promoted a legal revolution that caused a great uproar. Judges appointed at that time are now called “new judges” in Poland.

The current government headed by Donald Tusk, identified with a pro-European line, is trying to cancel or reduce the effects of those reforms. Courts in the European Union previously determined that the changes promoted by the then Minister of Justice, Zbigniew Zivru, harmed the independence of the judicial system. Since then, the government has faced a complex dilemma – how to dismantle the mechanism that was created, without undermining the legal certainty of citizens who have already received final judgments.

It is not clear how many cases similar to that of the Begzycko couple exist across Poland, but the potential scope is large. About 57,000 divorces are registered in the country per year, and tens of thousands of routine cases, including divorces, inheritances and mortgages, have been discussed over the years by judges appointed under the controversial system.

Lawyer Kinga Skabinska Pouchka from a Warsaw office argued that the decision in Gizicko was wrong and should be overturned on appeal. According to her, a court hearing a property dispute should not have questioned the validity of a final divorce judgment. She emphasized that this ruling should be considered an exception and not a binding precedent.

In contrast, other jurists warn that even single rulings may lead to wide consequences. Lawyer Bartosz Staszyk from the city of Wrocław said that a system that begins to widely question its own judgments has ceased to be a stable system. According to him, no one wants to inform thousands of citizens that their divorces, inheritances or judgments are invalid, but even such a move can start in a single case.

The root of the conflict lies in the National Council of the Judiciary, the body responsible for appointing judges. In 2017, the “Law and Justice” government changed the appointment rules so that most council members were elected by the parliament and not by judges. By the time the EU courts ruled on the issue, hundreds of judges had already been appointed or promoted under the new system, including those who handled day-to-day civil cases.

The Tusk government is now trying to minimize the damage. One of the proposals being advanced in parliament would allow childless couples to divorce administratively at the civil registry offices, without the need for a legal process. Justice Minister Voldemort Jurek called the Gizicko ruling “very troubling,” and warned that the “Now Judges” crisis has reached the most sensitive areas of citizens’ lives, family, finances, and the basic sense of legal certainty.

Jurek blamed Ziobru’s past reforms, and also pointed the finger of blame at current President Karol Nabrotsky, an ally of the Law and Justice party, whose veto threats are holding back legislation aimed at restoring the rule of law. According to him, the citizens of Poland should not pay the price for political decisions over which they had no influence.

On the other hand, lawmakers from the “Law and Justice” party and their allies were quick to use the case as proof of the collapse of the institutions under the Tusk government. Giovro himself, who is staying in Budapest where he received political asylum from the possibility of arrest in Poland, claimed that the government is ready to sow chaos and anarchy to undermine his reforms, even at the cost of destroying the lives of ordinary citizens.

In a stormy debate in the parliament, the representatives of “Law and Justice” called the proposed divorce outside the court “an attack on the institution of marriage”. Conservative legal groups and right-wing media have accused the government of effectively admitting that the justice system is dysfunctional.

Ahead of the parliamentary elections expected next year, the fight for the justice system becomes a real political bet. The main question is who will the voters place the responsibility for the chaos – on the creators of the reforms during the “law and justice” period, or on those who are now trying to cancel them. Although Tusk’s “civilian coalition” is still leading in the polls, support for its coalition partners is eroding, raising the possibility that Tusk will lose power even if his party finishes first.