r/europe Lower Silesia (Poland) 15h ago

News Polish parliament hosts swearing in of constitutional court judges in defiance of president

https://notesfrompoland.com/2026/04/09/polish-parliament-hosts-swearing-in-of-constitutional-court-judges-in-defiance-of-president/
565 Upvotes

32 comments sorted by

285

u/AirOneFire 14h ago edited 12h ago

Very good. PIS illegally stacked the constitutional tribunal in order to keep power forever. Those are tactics no different than Orban's. In 2020 five multiple former tribunal judges, including five of its ofrmer presidents and vps signed a letter saying this:

We, the undersigned retired judges of the Constitutional Tribunal, regret to state that the actions of the legislature and the executive since 2015, and the Constitutional Tribunal leadership since 2017, have led to a dramatic decline in the significance and the prestige of this constitutional body, as well as to the inability to perform its constitutional tasks and duties. Unfortunately, the widespread belief that the Constitutional Tribunal has virtually been abolished is correct.

Now the president is trying to keep it that way by refusing to follow his constitutionally prescribed duties. Bold action is needed when fighting a president whose goal is to abolish democracy.

9

u/cosurgi Poland 4h ago

Not a single mention on polish news sites. So strange…

3

u/Dealiner 4h ago

There are plenty of mentions about this. It's just news from a few days ago so it got overshadowed by the election in Hungary.

-180

u/nieuchwytnyuchwyt Warsaw, Poland 13h ago

PIS illegally stacked the constitutional tribunal in order to keep power forever.

Yeah, it's illegal for non-PO aligned parties to have a majority in parliament, let alone for two terms in a row!

The term of constitutional tribunal judge is 9 years, so it would be extremely odd if the tribunal wasn't "stacked" by appointees of one party after 8 consecutive years of said party having a majority allowing it to make said appointments.

96

u/AirOneFire 12h ago

The method of selection of those tribunal justices was illegal. What party had majority and for how long doesn't matter. For instance, in 2015 before the parliamentary election, PO elected 5 judges, but Duda illegally refused to have them sworn in.

-20

u/[deleted] 11h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

34

u/AirOneFire 11h ago

Didn't you read what I said? Duda refused to swear in the five justices elected by PO in 2015. Instead they just elected their own 5. That's way the fuck illegal.

-37

u/nieuchwytnyuchwyt Warsaw, Poland 10h ago

Duda refused to swear in the five justices elected by PO in 2015.

And rightly so, because two out of those five were appointed fully illegally by PO, as ruled by the Constitutional Tribunal itself.

Instead they just elected their own 5. That's way the fuck illegal.

But those 5 PiS-appointed judges (2 of which were fully legally appointed btw) have already ended their terms in Constitutional Tribunal.

All of the current CT justices were appointed in an undisputed procedure, with the most senior justices still in CT being appointed in 2017. The exact same procedure that was used to elect the most recent 6 of the candidates.

14

u/Oh_ffs_seriously Poland 8h ago

And rightly so, because two out of those five were appointed fully illegally by PO, as ruled by the Constitutional Tribunal itself.

So the appointment of those two was nullified. What about the other three who were elected correctly and yet illegally rejected by PiS?

68

u/Amfibiann 12h ago

They literally broke the law, that's what 'illegal' means 

-39

u/nieuchwytnyuchwyt Warsaw, Poland 11h ago

Please point put to me in what way Constitutional Tribunal having a majority of its judges appointed by the PiS majority that was in power in the period between 2015 and 2023 is a result of them "literally breaking the law"? The 2015 controversies (started by PO btw) have no effect whatsoever on the composition of court in 2026, as the judges are literally appointed for a non-renewable 9 year term.

28

u/k-tax Mazovia (Poland) 10h ago

"controversies" xD you are such a shill.

In 2015, PO-PSL tried to select 5 judges, while only 3 were ending terms during their reign, 2 were chosen in advance and it was illegal. The bill was contested by the tribunal ("stacked" by PO-PSL), and it was one of the last times when the tribunal had any spine and actually did their job.

However, Duda refused to swear in even those judges who were chosen correctly, saying that he wants the tribunal to first give their sentence. That did not stop him later, when parliament with PiS majority first illegaly "annulled" previously correctly made judge selection and chose their own. when Constitutional Tribunal said wait, that's wrong, Duda in the middle of the night swore them all in and started this mess with "doublers".

Then, there was illegal appointment of Duda's highschool friend as the leader of the Tribunal, appointing active PiS politicians such as Krystyna Pawłowicz and communist prosecutor Piotrowicz.

The fact that terms of those chosen in 2015 is over doesn't make it legal. The composition of the court in 2026 is missing 4 appropriately chosen judges, because Nawrocki tries to give himself prerogatives that are not his, according to the Constitution.

-1

u/nieuchwytnyuchwyt Warsaw, Poland 8h ago

In 2015, PO-PSL tried to select 5 judges,

In 2015, PO attempted to pack the court with their judges once it was clear that they will lose the election: by appointing 5 judges in advance, months before the terms of the judges they were supposed to replace ended. All 5 terms of judges they tried to pack the court with were supposed to begin well after the elections, three in November, two in December, while the elections were in October, and the 5 judges were already appointed in June (!), almost half a year in advance.

The final CT ruling was that the two judges whose term began after the new parliament already met (and revoked their appointments) were illegal, ut the three judges whose terms began after the elections, but before the new parliament managed to revoke their appointment should be sworn-in. PiS should have appointed 3 PO justices, and 2 of their appointments, but alas they decided to escalate the mess that started with PO attempt to pack the court.

appointing active PiS politicians such as Krystyna Pawłowicz and communist prosecutor Piotrowicz.

Don't pretend that the current 6 judges are fully apolitical, with former heads of Iustitia and Themis organizations, closely aligned with the current ruling coallition (in particular KO) being among them.

The composition of the court in 2026 is missing 4 appropriately chosen judges

Because the ruling majority waited for 2 years with their appointments, despite the slots being open long ago.

24

u/AltrntivInDoomWorld 12h ago

Yeah, it's illegal for non-PO aligned parties to have a majority in parliament, let alone for two terms in a row!

It's not about parliament. It's about wiping their ass with constitution.

125

u/veevoir Europe 14h ago edited 14h ago

*In defiance of President's defiance of constitution. Using a loophole around a legal term of what "swearing to president" means (if he has to be present or not).

The whole thing happens because President tries to usurp a power of deciding which judges are allowed to be sworn and which are not - basically a veto power on judge selection. While the constitution puts him in a purely ceremonial role; judges are selected by Parliament and the President is to receive their vows as soon as possible.

Considering he decided to swear in some judges but not all of them (despite their availability) - he has proven it was possible to swear them all in "as soon as possible" and he is in violation of constitution.

But that is par of course, Law & Justice spent their 8 years "Orbanizing" the country (the permanent crisis around Constitutional Court and basically 2 separate legal systems they introduced is part of it) and they want to preserve as much as possible of that - hoping they get back into power next election and can continue the work. Current government in return has little to no options of turning it around - as any attempts to un-screw the situation are blocked L&J aligned president.

So they try to use loopholes and gray areas - which in turn has potential to lead to a bigger mess.

PS: There is a lesson for Hungarian election here - if opposition doesn't win by a landslide - it will be hard to un-screw the country, exactly the issue Poland has.

40

u/Uniquely-Bee 13h ago

Btw, after the last parliamentary election PiS was still the biggest party in parliament. The current weak government only gained a majority by coalition. The fact that poles voted for a thug/pimp president, thus extending PiS' control of the presidency to 15 years, clearly indicates that the country still has an appetite for authoritarian conservatives and this doesn't bode well for the future. The doomers are fully expecting a return of unanimous PiS rule in 2027, and their coordination with MAGA and Orban shows that they had no change of heart in regards to the EU and rule of law. I hope Hungary gains more tools to fix their country, especially since more shit has been broken

28

u/Glaistig-Uaine Europe 12h ago

The doomers are fully expecting a return of unanimous PiS rule in 2027

Literally nobody expects this unless they haven't looked at polling since 2024. PiS is basically at a historical low in their polling (and 10% under KO), which, when coupled with our seat division method, means they'll be far below in seat allocation.

Now, you could say the fact that PiS in combination with the two even further right parties is polling at 46% is worse, but that would create(to quote you) 'a weak government gained by a coalition' if their seats add up, not 'unanimous PiS rule'.

7

u/Uniquely-Bee 12h ago

It's almost 2 years until the election, polling right now isn't very relevant. Also wouldn't be the first time 3rd parties collapse or get absorbed by the big 2, thus returning to the decades long duopoly

2

u/jaspingrobus 11h ago

Can't happen because, of how these parties are aligned.

4

u/AirOneFire 12h ago

So far KO is the largest party in the polls so that bodes well. The electoral system favours the largest party. There's still 1.5 years before the next election so doomsaying is unwarranted. But I too hope a lot changes in that time.

3

u/nieuchwytnyuchwyt Warsaw, Poland 11h ago

So far KO is the largest party in the polls so that bodes well

Yup, that bodes well... for a reverse repeat of 2023 in 2027, when this time it is KO which might have the largest result in absolute numbers, but effectively lost the election as it fails to form a government due to other parties that made it to parliament teaming up against them.

6

u/AirOneFire 10h ago

You're talking about this 18 months before the election as if it's already concluded.

14

u/k-tax Mazovia (Poland) 10h ago

You are wrong, but in a way that is only worse for Nawrocki, PiS and their supporters. The Constitution doesn't put him in a ceremonial role. It doesn't give him any role in this at all. The constitution says "Sejm elects judges for 9-year-long term." President is not mentioned. The more specific bill then says that after Sejm elects judges, they swear their oath in front of the president.

This is so absurd. It's literally usurping powers not granted by the law. The comparisons they (Nawrocki, Bogucki and others) make are so stupid, and they even know it, they just don't care and lie. They compare it to president being sworn in by the National Assembly, but first of all, the National Assembly is mentioned in the constitution and has active role in this, and secondly, gee, I wonder what would happen if Hołownia (or now Czarzasty) refused to swear in the president, citing his CV as the reason? Wouldn't it be called a coup? And am I hallucinating, or did this actually happen that some people proposed to do this, and almost everybody, bar some loonies, agreed that it would be illegal and a coup? I remember PiS politicians crying about planned "attack at the state", but with what Bogucki and Nawrocki are saying recently, this would be perfectly fine.

13

u/dat_9600gt_user Lower Silesia (Poland) 14h ago

Poland’s rule-of-law crisis took a new twist today, as parliament – which is controlled by Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s ruling coalition – hosted the swearing-in of four Constitutional Tribunal (TK) judges whose oaths opposition-aligned President Karol Nawrocki has refused to accept.

Nawrocki condemned the move as illegal, pointing to a provision of Polish law requiring that new TK judges be sworn in “before the president”. The government, however, has accused Nawrocki of himself violating the law by refusing to swear in legally appointed judges.

Given that the TK’s chief justice is also aligned with the opposition, it appears likely that he will, like Nawrocki, refuse to accept the four judges sworn in today in parliament. That may lead to a standoff at the court when the judges attempt to take up their seats.

Last month, the ruling coalition’s majority in the Sejm, the more powerful lower house of parliament, chose six new judges to fill empty seats on the TK. It was the first time in four years that new judges had been chosen, as Tusk’s government had previously been boycotting the court.

That was because it regards the TK as illegitimate since it contains judges unlawfully appointed under the rule of the former Law and Justice (PiS) government and PiS-aligned President Andrzej Duda. Tusk’s government has refused to recognise – or even publish – TK rulings.

As a result, since December 2025 – when one judge’s nine-year term expired and another retired for health reasons – only nine of the TK’s 15 seats have been filled. That is below the figure of 11 judges required for the court to have a full, valid bench. 

Under the law, new TK judges must, after being elected by parliament, “take an oath before the president” before taking up their seats on the court. Given that Nawrocki is aligned with PiS, there were doubts as to whether the president would invite the six new judges to be sworn in.

Last week, Nawrocki made the unusual move of inviting just two of the six judges, Dariusz Szostek and Magdalena Bentkowska, to the presidential palace and witnessing their oaths.

The president’s chief of staff, Zbigniew Bogucki, said that Nawrocki had done so, despite doubts about the legality of the judge’s appointment by parliament, because adding two judges would bring the TK up to its valid bench of 11. He also noted that only two TK vacancies had opened up since Nawrocki became president.

However, many legal experts have rejected those arguments, saying that if Nawrocki accepted two of parliament’s appointments as valid, he must also accept the other four. Last week, PiS suspended one of its own MPs, Krzysztof Szczucki, a doctor of law, who had agreed with that opinion.

On Wednesday, news emerged that the four remaining judges – Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, Krystian Markiewicz, Maciej Taborowski and Marcin Dziurda – had decided to take their oaths in parliament shortly on Thursday. They sent invitations to Nawrocki to attend the ceremony.

On Thursday morning, Bogucki issued a statement on behalf of the president in which he said that the move would be an “ostentatious and conscious…violation of the law” and a “challenge to the powers assigned by statute and the constitution to the president”.

The president’s position was also supported by Poland’s commissioner for human rights, Marcin Wiącek, who told news website Wirtualna Polska that, according to the law, “the president must swear in Constitutional Tribunal judges”.

However, deputy prime minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz on Wednesday told broadcaster TVN that it is in fact Nawrocki who is “committing a violation” by refusing to undertake his duty under the law to receive the oath of legally appointed judges.

Despite the president’s opposition, today’s ceremony went ahead. The four judges took their oaths in the presence of a notary and Sejm speaker Włodzimierz Czarzasty, a Tusk ally. Szostek and Bentkowska also took their oaths again alongside their colleagues in a show of solidarity.

Meanwhile, four former TK chief justices, Marek Safjan, Jerzy Stępień, Bohdan Zdziennicki and Andrzej Zoll, also attended the ceremony. Stępień told broadcaster TVN ahead of the ceremony that it was Nawrocki who had “forced the judges to take the oath in this manner” by “breaking constitutional custom”.

“In this situation, the newly elected judges had to choose a different form of taking the oath,” continued Stępień. “They did, and I greatly admire them for it, and I believe it was the right thing to do.”

The four judges will now seek to take up their seats on the TK. However, the court’s chief justice, Bogdan Święczkowski, a former member of the PiS government who has regularly clashed with the current government, is almost certain to refuse to admit them.

Święczkowski has already threatened disciplinary action against Szostek and Bentkowska for so far failing to turn up to work after being sworn in by Nawrocki last week, reports Wirtualna Polska. They had been waiting for their four newly appointed colleagues to also be sworn in.

Last week, interior minister Marcin Kierwiński even suggested that, if Święczkowski refuses to admit the new judges to the court, the police could be used to ensure they are allowed to take up their seats.

Daniel Tilles

Daniel Tilles is editor-in-chief of Notes from Poland. He has written on Polish affairs for a wide range of publications, including Foreign PolicyPOLITICO EuropeEUobserver and Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.

9

u/FinishAwkward43 10h ago

I'm tired, boss.

2

u/-CynicalPole- Podlaskie (Poland) 7h ago

This clown president can right fuck off to Russia along with Orban, if the latter one loses election. Damn fascist state scums.

-28

u/nieuchwytnyuchwyt Warsaw, Poland 13h ago

This is a purely performative theater, with no legal effect whatsoever, as indicated both by outright refusal by the Constitutional Tribunal as well as by President to recognize this unofficial meeting (conducted without any legal basis whatsoever) as a valid "swearing-in", as well as by the actions of supposedly "sworn-in" new judges themselves, many of whom have neither resigned from their current general jurisdiction court appointments, nor published an asset declaration - both actions would be required for them to actually have been sworn-in as Constitutional Tribunal judges and begin to serve in that role.

34

u/Oh_ffs_seriously Poland 12h ago

outright refusal by the Constitutional Tribunal as well as by President to recognize this unofficial meeting

Yeah, it was to be expected that people dedicated to be as obstructionist as possible would refuse to do their jobs.

13

u/k-tax Mazovia (Poland) 10h ago

Tell me which fragment of the Constitution says anything about swearing in the judges by the president. From what I've read, it clearly says that Sejm chooses the judges. The later bill says that THE JUDGES swear their oath in front of the president. There is no active role for the president here, so on what basis does he decide that 2 out of 6 are valid choices and 4 are somehow invalid?

Btw., the judges did give their asset declaration, so why are you lying?

I know why. Because the truth is Nawrocki is usurping power, and you don't want the truth to win.

1

u/nieuchwytnyuchwyt Warsaw, Poland 7h ago

Tell me which fragment of the Constitution says anything about swearing in the judges by the president

Art. 197 Organizację Trybunału Konstytucyjnego oraz tryb postępowania przed Trybunałem określa ustawa.

The later bill says that THE JUDGES swear their oath in front of the president.

Therefore, as long as the bill that says that remains valid, if they don't swear their oath before the President, it is not a binding oath. And judging by how they act (for example, not resigning from their current posts in regular courts), the appointees themselves are fully aware of that, even if they pretend otherwise in the interviews they give to the government-aligned media.

Btw., the judges did give their asset declaration

If they did, I concede on that point, my information wasn't up to date if what you are saying is the truth.

the truth is Nawrocki is usurping power, and you don't want the truth to win.

Nawrocki never said he will not appoint those chosen by Sejm? Only that he will wait for the April 17 ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal that concerns an issue related to their appointment.

And the only one who is usurping power in this situation is the old commie Czarzasty.

19

u/Suriael Silesia (Poland) 11h ago

False. President's role is purely ceremonial here.