Poland’s constitutional crisis intensified on Thursday after the president of the country’s Constitutional Tribunal refused to recognize four judges elected by parliament, despite their attempts to assume office through an alternative oath-taking ceremony in the Sejm, the lower house of parliament.
The dispute has further widened the institutional standoff between Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s government and state bodies still influenced by the previous Law and Justice (PiS)-aligned establishment. The latest confrontation raises fresh concerns over the authority to determine constitutional legitimacy in Poland.
At the centre of the controversy are four judges—Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, Krystian Markiewicz, Maciej Taborowski, and Marcin Dziurda—who were among six individuals elected by parliament last month to fill vacancies on the 15-member Constitutional Tribunal.
Under Poland’s constitutional framework, judges elected by the Sejm are required to take an oath before the president before they can formally assume their duties. However, President Karol Nawrocki, who is backed by the PiS political camp, reportedly invited only two of the six judges to the presidential palace to be sworn in, effectively excluding the remaining four from taking office.
The presidency defended the decision, with Nawrocki’s chief of staff, Zbigniew Bogucki, arguing that only two additional appointments were necessary to restore the tribunal’s quorum of 11 judges. He also raised concerns about the legality of the remaining four appointments, alleging that there were procedural irregularities in the parliamentary selection process.
The presidential office maintained that it was acting within constitutional limits and suggested that the Sejm may have violated its own rules when electing the judges. The government, however, strongly rejected this interpretation, insisting that the president does not have the constitutional authority to selectively approve or reject judges elected by parliament.
Alternative oath-taking in parliament
After repeated attempts to secure presidential swearing-in ceremonies failed, the four excluded judges proceeded to take an alternative oath in the Sejm on Thursday. The ceremony was attended by the Speaker of the Sejm, a notary, and four former presidents of the Constitutional Tribunal, signaling an attempt to legitimize the process through parliamentary authority.
Following the ceremony, the four judges, together with the two already recognized by the president, arrived at the tribunal building. However, Tribunal President Bogdan Święczkowski refused to admit the four newly sworn judges into office.
“I cannot recognize them as judges of the Constitutional Tribunal because I have not been informed by the president that they took the oath before him,” Święczkowski told reporters. He dismissed the parliamentary oath-taking as a “performance” and a “media spectacle” designed for political effect.
His decision immediately drew criticism from government officials, who accused him of exceeding his authority and reinforcing what they described as an unconstitutional bottleneck created by the presidency.
Maciej Berek, a minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, argued that Święczkowski’s remarks undermined the president’s own position by acknowledging that all six judges were properly elected by parliament.
“By congratulating all six judges on their election, he confirmed that they were legally chosen,” Berek said. “The president has usurped a power that does not exist in the Constitution.”
Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek also confirmed that the government is preparing a contingency strategy, though he declined to disclose details. He hinted that “Plan B” could involve alternative legal mechanisms to allow the judges to assume office despite presidential resistance.
Legal dispute over presidential authority
At the heart of the crisis is a fundamental constitutional question: whether the president’s role in the appointment of Constitutional Tribunal judges is purely ceremonial or whether it grants discretionary power to block appointments.
Most constitutional scholars in Poland argue that once parliament elects a judge in accordance with legal procedures, the president is constitutionally obliged to administer the oath and cannot selectively refuse candidates. This interpretation has also been supported by some legal experts traditionally aligned with conservative circles, including figures close to PiS.
The controversy has even created divisions within the political right. Reports indicate that PiS temporarily suspended one of its own MPs after he publicly stated that the president had no legal basis to swear in only two of the six judges.
Despite this, President Nawrocki’s office maintains that the Sejm’s election process was flawed and that the presidency has a duty to withhold recognition until the matter is clarified. His team has reportedly suggested referring the dispute back to the Constitutional Tribunal itself for adjudication.
That proposal has raised additional concerns among legal experts, who warn that it could create a circular legal dilemma: a tribunal whose legitimacy is being questioned would be asked to decide whether its own membership is valid.
Broader constitutional deadlock
The latest standoff is part of a long-running constitutional dispute in Poland that began in 2015 when the Law and Justice party first attempted to reshape the judiciary, including the Constitutional Tribunal. Since then, the court’s independence and legitimacy have been repeatedly challenged.
Following the return of Donald Tusk’s pro-European coalition government in 2023, the administration has refused to recognize several tribunal rulings, arguing that some judges were unlawfully appointed during the PiS era and that the court’s decisions are therefore politically compromised.
In response, the government has stopped publishing certain tribunal rulings in official journals, effectively limiting their legal enforceability. PiS and President Nawrocki have accused the current administration of undermining the Constitution and attempting to seize control of judicial institutions.
The result is an escalating institutional divide that now risks producing two competing versions of constitutional authority: one aligned with the government and parliament, and another aligned with the president and the tribunal’s current leadership.
Legal analysts warn that such a split could create long-term uncertainty over the validity of constitutional rulings, undermine investor confidence, and deepen political polarization in one of the European Union’s key member states.
As the dispute continues, Poland faces the prospect of an unresolved constitutional impasse that could further erode trust in its highest legal institutions and complicate governance at the national level.
