A dispute over appointments to Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal has led to potential resignations, as the head of the KPRP suggests a path forward.
Tribunal Impasse and Potential Resignations
A Tuesday session of the Justice Committee failed to resolve the ongoing issues surrounding Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal. However, according to KPRP head Zbigniew Bogucki, there is a possibility of accepting the oaths of two additional judges selected by the Sejm.
Bogucki stated that no one has indicated that the oath-taking will not occur, referring to Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, Krystian Markiewicz, Maciej Taborowski, and Marcin Dziurdy, who have been suspended since their selection by the Sejm on March 13, 2026. He also argued that the ruling coalition itself generated the problem.
Individual Mandates and ‘Dubler’ Theory
Bogucki reiterated that the terms of office of Constitutional Tribunal judges are individualized – meaning it should be clear who each judge succeeds. He suggested that, given one of the six vacant positions was previously held by Mariusz Muszyński, the current arrangement could be interpreted as each of the six newly elected judges being a 1/6 substitute for another.
Korwin-Piotrowska disputed this view, stating that the theory of “succession by proxy” is incorrect, pointing out that Muszyński’s term had simply expired.
Criticism of Presidential Conduct and Sejm’s Role
Government representatives, through Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek, repeated previous accusations regarding the arbitrary selection of the two judges invited to take the oath. Żurek argued that if the President had actually reviewed the backgrounds of all six candidates, it would have been unlawful.
Committee Chairman Paweł Śliz echoed this sentiment, claiming the President is attempting to usurp the Sejm’s powers.
Bogucki’s Assessment of Oath-Taking and Resignation
Citing Professor Ryszard Piotrowski, Bogucki suggested that participating in the oath-taking ceremony in the Sejm may have jeopardized the chances of the four judges receiving an invitation from President Nawrocki to the Presidential Palace. He believes that if judges, without waiting for the President’s decision on refusing to accept their oaths, assume that refusal has occurred and take the oath in a manner not provided for by law, they are effectively resigning from office.
However, Bogucki indicated that the situation will be different when filling the next two vacancies, praising the Speaker of the Sejm for initiating the procedure correctly and in accordance with Article 194 of the Constitution.
Tribunal President’s Absence and Dispute with Sejm
A “ping-pong” dynamic exists between the Presidential Palace and the Constitutional Tribunal regarding the four judges who have not been sworn in. The President was to submit his position in the Tribunal’s proceedings concerning the rules and procedures for selecting judges by April 17th.
However, his response amounted to a statement that it was “appropriate to refrain from submitting a position” as it could be interpreted as “an additional element of the current political dispute.”
The President’s complaint regarding a purported dispute of competence between himself and the Sejm was also submitted to the Tribunal, the resolution of which will determine how to approach the oath-taking that took place in Parliament. This issue, according to Tribunal President Bogdan Święczkowski, prevented judges from engaging in discussions with Sejm representatives, leading to his absence from Tuesday’s session.
Święczkowski also expressed strong criticism of the intention to hold a meeting, arguing that the Sejm is “one of the main perpetrators of the current constitutional crisis surrounding the Tribunal.” He noted that Sejm representatives have not participated in Tribunal hearings or held substantive positions in cases since 2024, prolonging proceedings.