The four judges—Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, Krystian Markiewicz, Maciej Taborowski, and Marcin Dziurda—were part of a group of six candidates elected by the Sejm last month to fill vacancies on the 15-member tribunal. Under Polish constitutional law, judges elected by parliament are required to take an oath before the president to formally assume office. However, President Karol Nawrocki, who is backed by PiS, did not invite all six candidates to the presidential palace. Last week, Nawrocki allowed only two of the judges to be sworn in, citing a need to restore the tribunal’s quorum of 11 judges. He argued that there were “serious doubts” regarding the legality of the appointment of the remaining four, suggesting that the Sejm may have violated its own procedural rules during their election.
The government, led by Tusk, firmly rejects the president’s interpretation of his powers. Officials argue that the president has no constitutional authority to select which judges elected by parliament can take office, viewing Nawrocki’s actions as an overreach that undermines the democratic process. After repeated requests to the president went unanswered, the four judges organized a separate swearing-in ceremony on Thursday within the Sejm. The ceremony was conducted in the presence of the Sejm speaker, a notary, and four former presidents of the tribunal. Following this alternative oath, the judges traveled to the tribunal building accompanied by the two judges who had already been recognized by Nawrocki.
Despite this procedural workaround, the president of the Constitutional Tribunal, Swieczkowski, refused to admit the four judges to their posts. This action places the tribunal in a state of limbo, where the composition of the court is contested and its operational capacity is threatened. The core of the dispute lies in who holds the ultimate authority to define constitutional legitimacy in Poland. For the Tusk government, the recognition of all elected judges is essential to restoring the tribunal’s credibility and independence. For the institutions controlled by PiS allies, the challenge to the four appointments serves as a mechanism to maintain influence over the judiciary and potentially block reforms favored by the current government.
The tribunal’s quorum requirement of 11 judges is central to the legal maneuvering. Nawrocki’s chief of staff, Zbigniew Bogucki, contended that only two new judges were necessary to meet this threshold, thereby justifying the exclusion of the other four. By refusing to recognize the additional judges, the tribunal’s leadership has created a situation where the court may be unable to convene fully, raising questions about its ability to issue rulings on pending cases. This institutional paralysis affects governance broadly, as the tribunal is the final arbiter of constitutional disputes, including those involving the separation of powers and the rights of citizens.
The standoff reflects a wider struggle over the trajectory of Poland’s rule of law. The current government has sought to reverse changes made to the judiciary during the PiS era, aiming to align institutions with international standards. However, the resistance from the tribunal’s leadership and the president’s office complicates these efforts. The refusal to acknowledge the four judges is not merely an administrative hurdle; it is a political statement that challenges the supremacy of the parliamentary election process. Critics of the tribunal’s stance argue that this selective recognition sets a dangerous precedent, allowing executive figures to veto democratic mandates.
As the crisis deepens, the uncertainty surrounding the tribunal’s composition remains unresolved. The path forward is unclear, with no immediate indication of a compromise between the government and the tribunal’s leadership. The next significant political development will likely depend on whether the judiciary finds a legal mechanism to override the president’s refusal or if the political impasse persists, further straining Poland’s domestic and international standing. The situation underscores the fragility of democratic institutions when key actors dispute the boundaries of their constitutional authority.
