Although the battle over judicial appointments may seem to the average citizen like an abstract debate among lawyers, it in fact concerns the foundations of the state: who has the final say in interpreting the law, which rules apply to citizens, and whether decisions by those in power are subject to independent review.
Why is the Constitutional Tribunal important to the average Pole?
The Constitutional Tribunal is the body whose main task is to ensure that all laws passed by both houses of Poland's bicameral parliament, the Sejm and the Senate, comply with the constitution, the country's supreme law.
For citizens, this provides legal security. If the government or parliament adopts a law, for example imposing unfair taxes or restricting freedom of speech, property rights or civil liberties, the Constitutional Tribunal has the power to declare such a provision unlawful and remove it from the legal system.
When this function is paralyzed or undermined:
- Legal uncertainty arises: Ordinary courts, government offices and citizens may not know which rulings and laws are actually in force;
- The risk of arbitrary government increases: A parliamentary majority may be able to pass any law without fear that it will be challenged by an independent body.
Origins of the dispute: How did it all begin??
The roots of the crisis date back to the fall of 2015, when the Law and Justice (PiS) party took power after the Civic Platform (PO)-Polish People's Party (PSL) coalition government.
- Oct. 8, 2015: The outgoing PO-PSL parliamentary majority elected five Constitutional Tribunal judges: three to seats whose terms were due to expire in November and two to seats becoming vacant in December, after the parliamentary election. The opposition criticised the appointments, and then-President Andrzej Duda did not receive the judges' oaths of office.
- Nov. 25, 2015: The newly elected lower house, the Sejm, now controlled by PiS, annulled those resolutions.
- Dec. 2-3, 2015: The Sejm elected five new judges, including Julia Przyłębska, Mariusz Muszyński, Henryk Cioch and Lech Morawski. That night, the president received the oaths of four of them, shortly before a hearing at the Constitutional Tribunal.
- Dec. 3, 2015: The Constitutional Tribunal, headed by Andrzej Rzepliński, ruled that the election of the three "November" judges was constitutional, while the election of the two "December" judges was unconstitutional.
- Dec. 9, 2015: The fifth judge, Julia Przyłębska, took the oath of office.
As a result, three judges elected by the new Sejm—Cioch, Morawski and Muszyński—took seats that, according to the ruling, had already been lawfully filled. Critics dubbed them dublerzy, or "double judges."
Legislative battle and paralysis (2016-2024)
The new parliamentary majority began changing the rules governing the Constitutional Tribunal. It passed successive amendments to the Constitutional Tribunal Act that, among other things, required the court to rule in a full panel of 13 judges and by a two-thirds majority. The Tribunal found those provisions unconstitutional. The government of Prime Minister Beata Szydło then refused to publish its rulings in the Dziennik Ustaw journal of laws, arguing that they had been issued in violation of the new provisions that were being challenged.
At the end of 2016, the term of Constitutional Tribunal President Andrzej Rzepliński expired. Julia Przyłębska took over as head of the Tribunal and allowed the "double judges" to participate in rulings. Her election was criticised for serious procedural irregularities, but the Tribunal continued operating with its new composition.
In subsequent years, the Constitutional Tribunal issued several high-profile rulings, including a 2020 ruling tightening abortion laws and a 2021 ruling on the primacy of the Polish Constitution over EU law. The rulings drew criticism from international institutions:
- European Court of Human Rights: In May 2021, the court ruled that a Constitutional Tribunal panel that included a "double judge" was not a "tribunal established by law."
- European Commission and Venice Commission: Both repeatedly pointed to violations of the rule of law in Poland under the previous government.
A new phase of the conflict: 2026 and the battle for a majority
After the change of government in the fall of 2023, the new governing coalition—the Civic Coalition, the Third Way and the Left—sought to reset the status of the Constitutional Tribunal through parliamentary resolutions and new legislation, including by withholding publication of its rulings.
The situation escalated dramatically in spring 2026, when the terms of another group of judges expired.
On April 1, President Karol Nawrocki received the oaths of two new judges. The other four were not given the opportunity to take their oaths at the presidential palace and instead did so, along with two judges who had already been sworn in, during a ceremony in parliament.
The central issue in the dispute became whether an oath taken in the Sejm in the president's absence has legal effect and whether the president has the right to refuse to receive the oath.
Parties to the dispute
|
Actions and positions
|
Legal argument
|
|
Parliamentary majority and government
|
Election of new judges; having them take their oaths before a notary and former Constitutional Tribunal presidents in parliament.
|
Taking the oath before the president is a technical requirement; the president's unwillingness cannot block the will of parliament.
|
| President Karol Nawrocki |
Received the oaths of only two of the six elected judges and refused the others.
|
The president has the right to verify formal questions concerning the parliamentary procedure before receiving an oath.
|
|
Constitutional Tribunal head Bogdan Święczkowski
|
Refused to allow the "parliament judges" to hear cases and accused the government of a "coup d'état."
|
An oath taken without the president's participation is unlawful and invalid under the Constitutional Tribunal Act.
|
Escalation outside the Constitutional Tribunal: Oct. 30-31
On Friday, Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, citing her status as the judge with the longest judicial service, issued an order immediately suspending the official duties of Constitutional Tribunal head Bogdan Święczkowski and his deputy Bartłomiej Sochański.
The standoff reached a climax when seven judges elected by the current parliamentary majority barricaded themselves inside the Constitutional Tribunal in an attempt to assume office. In response:
- Opposition politicians held a demonstration outside the Tribunal building during which a police cordon prevented Święczkowski from entering the premises.
- Nawrocki cancelled a diplomatic visit to Senegal and appeared at the Constitutional Tribunal during the night, leading to a heated exchange, pushing and scuffles with judges present at the scene.
- Święczkowski issued his own order, including declaring days off for Tribunal employees, while Nawrocki began urgent consultations with parliamentary party leaders.
Ambassadors resign
The escalating row over the Constitutional Tribunal spilled over into foreign policy and Polish diplomacy, leading to the high-profile resignations of two ambassadors.
- Jakub Kumoch, Poland's ambassador to China, and Paweł Soloch, the country's envoy to Romania and a former head of the National Security Bureau (BBN), announced their resignations, directly citing the crisis over the Constitutional Tribunal and describing the government's actions as unlawful..
Foreign ministry responds
Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski acknowledged the diplomats' resignations while sharply criticising the manner in which they were submitted. He described publicly announcing resignations on social media as unprofessional and said the diplomats had ceased to represent Poland in the two countries.
Why is the world watching the standoff over Poland's Constitutional Tribunal?
Events surrounding the Constitutional Tribunal have attracted the attention of foreign media. They portray the conflict as a serious constitutional crisis in which both sides question the legality of the other's actions.
The international context of the dispute is particularly important for three reasons:
(1) Credibility as an ally: A country facing a deep dispute over the legality of its highest judicial institutions, with ambassadors resigning in protest against the actions of their own government, risks losing its position as a stable diplomatic partner.
(2) Business and investment risk: Foreign investors base their decisions on the stability of the legal system. A dispute over whether court rulings are lawful increases business risk.
(3) Compliance with international and EU law: The European Union and the European Court of Human Rights have for years maintained that a lack of judicial independence violates the EU's founding treaties and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Conclusion: What is at the heart of the problem?
The crisis surrounding the Constitutional Tribunal is not merely a dispute over individual judges or a political war between two camps. It is a systemic constitutional deadlock:
- On the one hand, the new parliamentary majority says it is attempting to restore the rule of law and reverse the consequences of decisions made between 2015 and 2023, using parliamentary resolutions and unconventional procedures such as oaths administered before a notary in parliament.
- On the other hand, Nawrocki and Święczkowski dismiss these measures as unlawful overreach, calling them a "coup d'état" and blocking changes on the basis of formal provisions of the law.
Poland has found itself in a deep constitutional crisis. The two sides of the dispute offer conflicting interpretations of the rules governing the appointment of judges and the functioning of the Constitutional Tribunal. The lack of an agreed way to resolve the conflict undermines confidence in state institutions and increases legal uncertainty.
Katarzyna Semaan
The author is a journalist at Polskie Radio dla Zagranicy.