New Constitutional Tribunal Judge Takes Oath as Nawrocki Praises His Conduct

Sławomir Patyra has taken the oath of office as a new judge of the Constitutional Tribunal in the presence of President Karol Nawrocki, who praised his responsible approach to constitutional procedures.

Oath of Office and Appointment

Sejm elected Dr. hab. Sławomir Patyra as a judge of the Constitutional Tribunal in June of this year. The election was necessary due to the expiration of the term of Tribunal judge Andrzej Zielonacki on June 28.

Sławomir Patyra took the oath of office in the presence of President Nawrocki. Following his election by the Sejm, judge Patyra sent a total of two letters to the president—one on July 3 asking to indicate a date for taking the oath, and a second reminder letter.

President Nawrocki on the Judge’s Conduct

When asked by journalists last week about the reasons for swearing in Sławomir Patyra, the president drew attention to the newly elected judge’s attitude and adherence to systemic procedures.

Karol Nawrocki stated that judge Patyra appears to be the only judge who did not take the oath before the column in the Column Hall, behaving like a responsible person who is a judge rather than participating in spectacles organized by the Marshal.

Who is Sławomir Patyra?

Dr. hab. Sławomir Patyra is a constitutionalist associated with Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin since 1994, where he has served as head of the Department of Constitutional Law at the Faculty of Law and Administration since 2019. He has also worked at the Kazimierz Pułaski University in Radom since 2013.

He is an academic lecturer, co-author of several textbooks, and a member of organizations including the Polish Constitutional Law Association. Since 2013, Patyra has been a legal advisor and a member of the District Chamber of Legal Advisors in Lublin, cooperating with the National Council of Legal Advisors since that time.

Tribunal Judge Appointments and Disputes

Patyra is the seventh person chosen by the Sejm this year as a judge of the Constitutional Tribunal, with the other six chosen in March. Two of them—Magdalena Bentkowska and Dariusz Szostek—were invited to the Presidential Palace in April to take the oath.

Meanwhile, regarding the other four judges, a presidential application regarding a competence dispute is pending before the Tribunal in connection with their taking the oath in the Sejm on April 9. The application emphasizes that actions taken in the Sejm did not produce any legal effects regarding assuming the office of a Constitutional Tribunal judge, and their situation remains a subject of dispute.

Supreme Court and Judicial Assessor Appointments

In a Wednesday, July 22 statement on X, Bogucki stated that the president would hand over appointments to four new Supreme Court judges on the same day. Bogucki added that the president also plans to appoint 211 district court assessors and 18 voivodeship administrative court assessors next week.

At the beginning of July, Minister of Justice Waldemar Żurek appealed to the president to allow lawyers who passed the judicial exam to begin their service, noting that graduates of the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution are waiting for invitations to the Presidential Palace to start working in courts.

According to the Law on the System of Common Courts, judicial assessors are appointed by the president upon the application of the National Council of the Judiciary, performing judicial duties for four years from taking office. Candidates must meet requirements for judges, complete training at the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution, and pass the judicial or prosecutor exam.

Constitutional Tribunal Ruling on Counter-signatures

According to Supreme Court Criminal Chamber judge Włodzimierz Wróbel, graduates have been waiting for several months for the president’s decision, relating to the Constitutional Tribunal ruling of June 25. The Tribunal ruled then that the requirement for a prime minister counter-signature for the effectiveness of appointing judicial assessors and filling certain Supreme Court positions is unconstitutional.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the constitution explicitly lists presidential acts not requiring counter-signatures, but stipulated that the catalog cannot be read solely literally. The Tribunal concluded that alongside expressly listed prerogatives, there is a category of derivative actions functionally necessary to execute the principal prerogative, pointing to assessor nominations as connected to principal counter-signature-free judge appointments.