Karol Nawrocki reacted to Maciej Berek's oath-taking. 'He is not a judge of the Constitutional Tribunal'

The ceremony concerned the oath of office for a Constitutional Tribunal judge. Such an oath formally confirms a person’s commitment to serve the Polish state, uphold the Constitution, and perform judicial duties independently. It is meant to begin the exercise of the office after the Sejm has elected the candidate.

The supplied headlines identify the event as Maciej Berek’s swearing-in. They do not provide the full wording, location, or legal procedure used. Nawrocki’s reaction is the striking point: he stated that Berek “is not a judge of the Constitutional Tribunal,” despite the ceremony being connected with that position.

The dispute therefore concerns more than the words spoken at the ceremony. It concerns whether all legal conditions for assuming the office were met, including a valid election and the required constitutional steps. Until institutions agree, Berek’s status remains politically and legally contested, and future Tribunal decisions could face challenges based on that dispute.

Maciej Berek is a Polish public official who was selected by the Sejm for a seat on the Constitutional Tribunal. The ceremony was intended to mark the start of his judicial office. Karol Nawrocki is the President of Poland, whose constitutional role includes participating in the formal process surrounding judges’ oaths.

The headlines focus on Nawrocki’s response to Berek’s swearing-in. Nawrocki said Berek “is not a judge of the Constitutional Tribunal.” That statement directly challenges the legal effect of the ceremony and the authority of the parliamentary appointment. The disagreement is therefore between an elected parliamentary body, a presidential office, and the Tribunal itself.

The wider significance is institutional. Berek’s status affects who may sit on the Tribunal and participate in its work. Nawrocki’s position can prevent recognition of the appointment, while the Sejm’s position supports it. Without an agreed procedure, the dispute can produce continuing uncertainty about the Tribunal’s membership and decisions.

Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal is the state body responsible for constitutional review. It examines whether statutes and other state acts comply with the Constitution. It can also resolve certain institutional disputes and assess complaints involving constitutional rights. The Tribunal is separate from ordinary courts and is designed to restrain unlawful action by public authorities.

A Tribunal judge takes part in deciding these cases. Judges study legal arguments, deliberate collectively, and vote on judgments or decisions. Their rulings can determine whether a law remains in force or loses legal effect. A judge must therefore act independently, rather than represent the government, parliament, or president.

The Berek dispute matters because membership determines who can participate in the Tribunal’s work. The headline reports Nawrocki’s claim that Berek is not a Tribunal judge, despite his swearing-in. If that disagreement continues, parties may question whether Berek could lawfully sit, vote, or help form the required majority in future cases.

Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal consists of 15 judges. Each judge serves one nine-year term, and the term cannot be renewed. This fixed arrangement is intended to protect judicial independence and prevent judges from depending on politicians for reappointment. The Tribunal should therefore operate with continuity even when governments change.

The Sejm elects Tribunal judges by individual resolutions. The president does not choose them, although the president normally receives their oath. This distinction is central to disputes such as Berek’s: parliamentary election and presidential participation are separate stages with different constitutional functions.

In practice, the system can become contested when one institution recognizes an election and another refuses to complete or accept a later step. The supplied headline captures that conflict through Nawrocki’s statement that Berek is not a Tribunal judge. Until the disagreement is resolved, the formal number of seats and the practical composition of the Tribunal may diverge.

A swearing-in ceremony is one step in assuming judicial office, not necessarily the entire legal process. A person must first be validly elected to a vacant seat. The relevant constitutional requirements must then be met, including the rules governing the oath and the judge’s authority to begin work. If an earlier step is defective, the ceremony may not cure it.

This is the issue suggested by the headlines. Maciej Berek took part in a ceremony described as his swearing-in, but Karol Nawrocki said he was not a Constitutional Tribunal judge. Nawrocki’s position implies that the disputed election, vacancy, procedure, or recognition of the appointment remains legally important.

The immediate result is uncertainty rather than a clear resolution. One institution may treat Berek as entitled to sit, while another may reject that status. Future Tribunal proceedings could then be challenged, especially if Berek participates in deliberations or affects the number of votes needed for a ruling. A final settlement requires an accepted constitutional interpretation or authoritative court decision.

Poland’s current conflict is rooted in disputes that began in 2015. The then-governing Sejm elected five Constitutional Tribunal judges near the end of its term. After the parliamentary majority changed, the new Sejm challenged part of that election and selected replacement candidates. The president swore in the replacements, while the earlier candidates were not accepted in the same way.

This created rival claims about who had been lawfully elected. Critics called some later appointees “duplicate” or “replacement” judges, while the authorities that supported them treated them as legitimate members. The dispute was never fully accepted by all state institutions. Similar disagreements later surrounded further vacancies and attempts to restore the Tribunal’s composition.

The Berek episode follows that unresolved pattern. His oath is reported, but Nawrocki denies that he is a Tribunal judge. The historical background explains why a seemingly formal ceremony can trigger a constitutional confrontation. Recognition of one appointment may validate or undermine earlier institutional positions and shape future efforts to rebuild trust in the Tribunal.

A judge’s disputed status can affect whether the Tribunal is properly composed. If that judge participates in a case, opponents may argue that the panel lacked lawful membership or the required voting majority. Even when a ruling is issued, uncertainty about the bench can make its legal force harder to accept and may encourage state bodies or litigants to challenge compliance.

The Berek controversy illustrates the mechanism. The headlines report his swearing-in, but Nawrocki says he is not a Constitutional Tribunal judge. If one side counts Berek and the other does not, they may calculate the Tribunal’s composition differently. That disagreement can affect panels, quorums, votes, and claims that judgments were issued by an improperly appointed body.

The broader consequence is a shift in institutional power. Parliament may defend its authority to elect judges, while the president may use recognition of the oath as a constitutional safeguard. The government and courts then face pressure to decide which rulings to follow. Prolonged conflict can deepen legal uncertainty and weaken confidence in constitutional checks and balances.