Rival Judges Claim Control of Poland’s Top Court

Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal faces competing claims to its leadership after five parliament-elected judges challenged its incumbent chiefs, bringing police to the court and prompting President Karol Nawrocki to abandon a foreign visit.

The confrontation has intensified a decade-long constitutional dispute between rival political camps.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk backs efforts to change the tribunal, while Nawrocki and the opposition Law and Justice party, known as PiS, accuse his government of acting unlawfully.

The next test comes on Tuesday, November 3. Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, one of the five judges, has summoned a general assembly to approve the tribunal’s proposed 2027 budget.

Its incumbent leadership rejects her authority, leaving the meeting’s status uncertain.

Competing Claims

Korwin-Piotrowska declared herself acting head on Friday after announcing the suspension of tribunal president Bogdan Swieczkowski and his deputy, Bartlomiej Sochanski.

The existing leadership refused to accept the decision.

The five judges were elected by the current parliamentary majority, but Nawrocki declined to administer their oaths.

They took them without him and were subsequently barred by the tribunal’s leadership from hearing cases.

Justice Minister Waldemar Zurek separately sought to lift Swieczkowski’s and Sochanski’s judicial immunity.

That could open the way to criminal charges over allegations that they obstructed the tribunal’s work.

Opposition supporters, who had spent weeks protesting outside the Warsaw court against the new judges taking their seats, were joined by more demonstrators and senior PiS figures.

Police reinforced their presence.

Nawrocki interrupted a state visit to Senegal, turning his aircraft back over Spain.

He reached the tribunal early on Saturday, disputed the rival judges’ authority and helped Sochanski enter the building.

“Last night, Poland’s constitutional order was violated, and a constitutional state institution was forcibly taken over,” the president said.

He called for police to leave and convened consultations with parliamentary party leaders.

A Decade of Deadlock

The tribunal can strike down legislation that breaches the constitution.

Its composition has been contested since 2015, when appointments made by both an outgoing centrist administration and its right-wing successor came under challenge.

Judicial changes during PiS’s eight years in government subsequently triggered disputes with European institutions over political interference and the rule of law.

Tusk’s coalition entered office in 2023 promising to reverse those changes.

It does not recognize the tribunal’s current legitimacy, while opposition-aligned presidents have blocked legislative attempts to overhaul it.

In October, the Venice Commission, the Council of Europe’s constitutional advisory body, concluded that the president’s appointment role did not allow him to prevent duly elected judges from taking office.

Tusk defended the intervention in a televised address on Saturday, blaming PiS, Nawrocki and former president Andrzej Duda for sustaining the impasse.

“Nobody had any doubt that the Tribunal, in the form imposed by PiS, was not a real court,” he said.

Calls for a Reset

The Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights questioned whether the confrontation would rebuild the tribunal’s standing, describing the escalation as “extremely harmful.”

The European Commission supported parliament’s authority to elect tribunal judges.

U.S. Ambassador Tom Rose warned against an escalation around the court, while emphasizing that Washington would not intervene in Polish domestic affairs.

With parliamentary elections due in 2027, Tusk faces pressure to fulfill his judicial reform pledge. The opposition has made resistance to the intervention a central political issue.

Talks hosted by Nawrocki on Saturday produced calls from parties including left-wing Razem and far-right Confederation for a constitutional reset: replacing the entire tribunal bench through a cross-party agreement.