Police deployed during stand-off over control of top Poland court

Riot police entered the confrontation because supporters of Law and Justice gathered outside Poland’s Constitutional Court while the government challenged the court’s leadership. Officers were specifically deployed to prevent demonstrators from entering the court building. The standoff involved control of an institution that can decide whether legislation is legal.

The immediate trigger was Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek’s request to strip the court’s President Bogdan Święczkowski and Vice-President Bartłomiej Sochański of immunity from prosecution. He wants criminal charges brought against them for refusing to let five judges elected since March adjudicate. The court insists Święczkowski and Sochański remain its legally appointed senior justices.

The dispute intensified when President Karol Nawrocki entered the court after cancelling a trip to Senegal. The court called the government’s actions a coup, while Prime Minister Donald Tusk defended them as necessary to restore the rule of law. Police presence showed the legal dispute had become a physical security confrontation.

The confrontation is between Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s government and senior judges associated with the PiS-era Constitutional Court. President Karol Nawrocki, who is backed by PiS, has also entered the dispute by supporting the court and opposing changes sought by the government. The court’s leadership says its existing senior justices remain legally appointed.

Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek requested that President Bogdan Święczkowski and Vice-President Bartłomiej Sochański lose their immunity from prosecution. He says they should face criminal charges for not allowing five judges elected by parliament since March to adjudicate cases. One of those judges, Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, has been placed temporarily in charge of the court.

The request is part of Tusk’s effort to reverse PiS-era judicial changes and restore what he calls the rule of law. The court calls the government’s actions a coup. Critics, including lawyer Marcin Matczak, say the suspension lacks a legal basis and could damage the court for years.

President Karol Nawrocki has refused to swear in five Constitutional Court judges elected by parliament since March. The number matters because those judges cannot fully take their places on the court’s bench while the president withholds the required oath. Their exclusion is central to the wider struggle over who legitimately controls the institution.

Nawrocki says the judges’ selection procedure contained flaws. The Venice Commission, the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional matters, reached a different conclusion earlier this month. It said Nawrocki should swear in the judges so they could sit on the court’s bench. Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek says the existing court leaders blocked them from adjudicating.

The dispute remains unresolved. One of the five, Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, has been placed in temporary charge of the court. Meanwhile, the government is seeking criminal charges against the court’s president and vice-president, while Nawrocki and PiS supporters back the existing leadership.

A constitutional court is a specialised court that examines whether laws and major state actions comply with a country’s constitution. The constitution sets the basic rules for government and protects the legal limits within which parliament and ministers must act. A constitutional court provides an authoritative way to test legislation against those higher rules.

In Poland, the court’s power makes control of its membership especially important. The article says the court can decide on the legality of legislation. That means its judges can determine whether laws passed by parliament should be treated as valid under constitutional standards. The PiS-led government moved quickly after taking office in 2015 to appoint judges and gain a majority there.

European courts later ruled that three judges had been elected improperly because they duplicated positions already validly filled by the previous parliament. They said Poland’s Constitutional Court was no longer independent and impartial. Tusk’s government has used those rulings to stop publishing the tribunal’s decisions, deepening the constitutional conflict.

The Law and Justice government took office in 2015 and quickly appointed judges to Poland’s Constitutional Court. Its goal was to gain a majority on a body that can decide whether legislation is legal. This made the court a central arena in the political struggle over Poland’s laws and institutions.

The European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union later ruled that three of those judges had been elected improperly. Their appointments duplicated positions that the previous parliament had already filled validly. The European courts therefore concluded that the process had damaged the court’s legitimacy and independence.

They ruled that Poland’s Constitutional Court was no longer an “independent and impartial tribunal.” Tusk’s government has relied on those rulings to stop publishing the tribunal’s decisions. It has not been able to reverse all PiS-era changes because presidents Andrzej Duda and Karol Nawrocki used vetoes or refused appointments, keeping the dispute active.

When a government stops publishing a constitutional court’s rulings, the decisions become harder to treat as part of the country’s official legal record. That creates uncertainty for courts, lawmakers, officials and citizens about which interpretation of the constitution should guide future action. It also turns a legal disagreement into a direct institutional conflict.

In Poland, Tusk’s government has used European rulings as the basis for refusing to publish the Constitutional Court’s decisions. Those European courts said three judges were elected improperly and that the tribunal was no longer independent and impartial. The government therefore challenges the court’s composition, while the court says its senior judges remain legally appointed.

The immediate consequence is competing claims of legitimacy. The court calls the government’s actions a coup, while Tusk says restoring the rule of law requires decisive action. Lawyer Marcin Matczak warned that the confrontation could bury the court and damage the rule-of-law issue for two decades.

The rule of law requires courts to operate independently from politicians and to apply legal rules consistently. Judges must be able to decide cases according to law, without pressure from a government, parliament or political party. Courts must also be impartial, so people can trust that decisions are not predetermined by political interests.

The Polish dispute shows why judicial independence matters. The PiS-led government appointed judges to gain a majority on the Constitutional Court, while European courts later said three appointments duplicated positions already validly filled. Tusk’s government has tried to reverse the changes, but the court says its senior judges remain legally appointed. Both sides claim to be defending legality.

Political control can weaken public confidence and create competing legal authorities. In this case, rulings have stopped being published, judges have been blocked from taking seats, and police have guarded the court. Lawyer Marcin Matczak warned that images of armed police and politically imposed interpretations could produce a lasting anti-rule-of-law backlash.