Constitutional Showdown Erupts Over Judicial Assessor Appointments in Poland

A sharp dispute between the Polish government and the President’s Office has erupted over the appointment of over 200 judicial assessors, dividing constitutional experts on the necessity of the prime minister’s countersignature.

Conflict Over Judicial Assessors

The dispute regarding the appointment of over 200 judicial assessors has escalated into an open conflict between the government and the Chancellery of the President. Zbigniew Bogucki claims that the prime minister’s signature was unnecessary, while constitutionalist Prof. Marek Chmaj evaluated the argumentation as contrary to fundamental constitutional principles.

The conflict concerns the validity of assessor nominations handed out on July 28, 2026, by President Karol Nawrocki. Prime Minister Donald Tusk subsequently signed documents regarding 200 assessors, judging that without a countersignature, the president’s official acts could not produce legal effects. The Chancellery of the President presents a differing interpretation, citing a June ruling by the Constitutional Tribunal.

Constitutional Basis and Countersignature

The basis of the government’s argumentation is Article 144 of the Constitution. According to its first paragraph, official acts of the President of the Republic of Poland require the signature of the Prime Minister for validity, which simultaneously transfers political responsibility for the act before the Sejm.

Exceptions exist under Article 144, paragraph 3, which contains a closed catalog of 30 presidential prerogatives not requiring the prime minister’s signature. This includes the appointment of judges, but the Constitution does not explicitly list the appointment of judicial assessors.

According to Prof. Marek Chmaj, this has decisive significance. The constitutionalist points out that since appointing assessors is not included in the catalog of prerogatives, the president’s act is subject to the general rule of countersignature, deriving directly from the Constitution.

The June 25, 2026 Ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal

The Chancellery of the President bases its stance on the Constitutional Tribunal’s ruling of June 25, 2026, case file K 2/26. The Tribunal reviewed regulations concerning several presidential competencies related to the Supreme Court and the appointment of judicial assessors.

In the case of assessors, the Tribunal questioned the interpretation of Article 106, paragraph 1 of the Law on the System of Common Courts, according to which effective appointment requires the prime minister’s signature. The majority of the panel assessed this action as functionally related to the constitutional prerogative of appointing judges.

Prof. Marek Chmaj interprets the ruling differently, stating that the decision concerned the interpretation of a statutory provision rather than removing the requirement resulting directly from Article 144 of the Constitution.

Donald Tusk Signs Assessor Documents

Following the ceremony at the Presidential Palace, the documents went through court presidents to the National Council of the Judiciary and then to the Chancellery of the Prime Minister. Donald Tusk signed the documents concerning 200 assessors on August 5.

The Prime Minister’s Chancellery concluded that the constitutional requirement of a countersignature was thus met, relying also on the stance of the National Council of the Judiciary from July 29. The Prime Minister argued that the goal was to secure the legal situation of the assessors and the rulings they issue.

President Karol Nawrocki pointed out during the July 28 ceremony that over 200 people arrived at the Presidential Palace, presenting the nominations as an important element in supplementing judicial staff and improving the functioning of the justice system.

Zbigniew Bogucki Questions the Prime Minister’s Signature

Zbigniew Bogucki assessed that the subsequent signing of documents by Donald Tusk produced no legal effects, viewing assessor nominations as the exclusive competence of the head of state, confirmed by the June Constitutional Tribunal ruling.

Prof. Marek Chmaj evaluated that such argumentation omits the structure of constitutional responsibility for the president and prime minister. A countersignature does not mean taking over the head of state’s competence, but rather taking political responsibility for the act.

The constitutionalist deemed Bogucki’s statement an intentional manipulation, noting that the head of the President’s Office must know the principle that all official acts not listed in the closed catalog of prerogatives require the prime minister’s signature.

Status of Judicial Assessors and Legal Consequences

A judicial assessor performs adjudicatory duties and enjoys guarantees of independence, but their status is not identical to that of a judge appointed for an indefinite period. Assessorship is a stage leading to the office of judge.

The conflict may carry practical dimensions. Should the effectiveness of nominations be questioned, litigation parties could attempt to challenge the court’s composition and the correctness of issued rulings. The prime minister justified his signatures by the necessity to remove such risks, while the President’s Office maintains that the countersignature was superfluous and legally ineffective.