European Commission urges Polish president to approve the appointment of new judges

Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal is the country’s constitutional court. It examines whether laws and official decisions fit the constitution, the highest legal framework in the state. That makes it an important check on parliament, the government and other public authorities. A functioning tribunal supports the rule of law because political leaders cannot simply decide that their actions are lawful.

The article shows why the court matters politically. Its current judges were appointed during the Law and Justice party’s rule from 2015 to 2023. Donald Tusk’s government has tried to replace them, while President Karol Nawrocki has blocked new appointments. The dispute became acute when police surrounded the court building and its chairman, Bogdan Święczkowski, was removed from his position.

The European Commission says Polish authorities must ensure the tribunal can operate according to the constitution. If the court cannot work normally, disputes over laws may remain unresolved. That can deepen the confrontation between the government and president and weaken confidence in Poland’s legal system.

President Karol Nawrocki is blocking appointments proposed by Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s government to Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal. The article does not list the number of proposed judges or explain each appointment individually. It says Tusk’s administration has long sought to remove the tribunal’s current judges, who were appointed during the Law and Justice party’s 2015–2023 rule.

The immediate issue is therefore control over the court’s membership. Nawrocki, a right-wing president, has prevented Tusk’s nominees from taking their seats. The conflict intensified when tribunal chairman Bogdan Święczkowski was removed from office and police surrounded the court building. The tribunal called that decision a coup, while Law and Justice supporters protested outside.

The European Commission says Polish authorities must ensure the tribunal can function in line with the constitution. Its request reflects concern that blocked appointments and institutional conflict could leave the court unable to perform its constitutional role. The article does not state whether Nawrocki will change his position.

Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal normally consists of 15 judges. This figure is established background knowledge and is not stated in the article. The court needs a properly appointed and functioning bench to review constitutional questions, issue decisions and perform its role as a check on public power. Membership therefore affects both its legal capacity and its public legitimacy.

The article describes a dispute over who should sit on the tribunal. Its current judges were appointed during the Law and Justice party’s 2015–2023 rule. Donald Tusk’s government has tried to replace them, but President Karol Nawrocki has blocked the government’s appointments. The conflict also involved the removal of chairman Bogdan Święczkowski and police surrounding the court building.

If seats are vacant, appointments are challenged, or judges refuse to recognise one another’s authority, the court may struggle to form valid panels or issue trusted rulings. The European Commission has urged Polish authorities to ensure the tribunal can operate according to the constitution. The article does not specify the tribunal’s current number of sitting judges.

Donald Tusk’s government wants to replace judges appointed while the Law and Justice party governed Poland from 2015 to 2023. The article presents this as a long-running struggle over the Constitutional Tribunal’s membership. It does not give a detailed explanation of the government’s legal arguments, so the precise reason for every proposed replacement cannot be established from the text alone.

The dispute concerns the court’s independence and authority. Tusk’s administration has nominated new judges, but President Karol Nawrocki has blocked those appointments. The confrontation escalated after tribunal chairman Bogdan Święczkowski was removed from his position and police surrounded the tribunal building. The court called the action a coup, and Law and Justice supporters protested outside.

More broadly, governments often seek such changes when they believe a previous governing party shaped a constitutional court too heavily. That is general political context, not a reason explicitly given in the article. The immediate result in Poland is institutional deadlock. The European Commission says the authorities must ensure the tribunal can function under the constitution.

If Poland’s government and president keep preventing the Constitutional Tribunal from operating normally, laws and official decisions may face uncertainty. A constitutional court is supposed to determine whether state action complies with the constitution. When its membership or authority is disputed, citizens, officials and courts may not know which rulings to trust. This can weaken legal stability.

The article describes a direct example of institutional breakdown. Nawrocki has blocked Tusk’s appointments, while the government has sought to replace judges appointed during Law and Justice’s 2015–2023 rule. The tribunal’s chairman, Bogdan Święczkowski, was removed from office, and police surrounded the building. The tribunal called the move a coup, while PiS supporters protested.

The longer-term risk, based on established constitutional principles, is a weaker separation of powers and greater political pressure on the courts. Tusk accused the conservative opposition of trying to destroy democracy and the rule of law. The European Commission is urging authorities to restore normal constitutional functioning, but the article does not say what will happen next.

The European Commission is the EU institution that monitors whether member states uphold EU law and shared values. Poland’s EU membership means its public institutions must respect principles such as judicial independence, effective legal protection and the rule of law. The Commission cannot simply run Poland’s courts, but it can raise concerns and use EU legal and political procedures when national actions affect those commitments.

In this case, the Commission’s spokesperson urged Polish authorities to ensure that the Constitutional Tribunal can operate according to Poland’s constitution. The request came while President Karol Nawrocki blocked appointments proposed by Donald Tusk’s government. The dispute also involved the removal of tribunal chairman Bogdan Święczkowski and police surrounding the court building.

The article records the Commission’s appeal but does not mention a specific infringement case, court action or sanction. In general, continued concerns could lead to further EU scrutiny and formal steps. The connection to EU membership is therefore practical: Poland’s domestic court conflict can also raise questions about its obligations under the Union’s legal order.

The rule of law means that everyone, including political leaders, must act under publicly known and enforceable law. Government decisions should be reviewed by independent institutions, and constitutional rules should apply even when they inconvenience those in power. This matters because democracy is not only about elections; it also requires lawful limits on authority and protection against arbitrary decisions.

A constitutional court protects that principle by examining whether laws and official actions comply with the constitution. Separation of powers divides authority among institutions, such as parliament, government, courts and the presidency. Each can limit the others. In Poland, the dispute over tribunal appointments shows why those safeguards matter. Nawrocki has blocked Tusk’s nominees, while Tusk’s government seeks to replace existing judges.

The article describes escalating consequences: the tribunal chairman was removed, police surrounded the building, and supporters protested. Tusk accused the opposition of seeking to destroy democracy and the rule of law. The European Commission called for the tribunal to function constitutionally. If checks remain blocked, trust in lawful government can decline.