Chaos at Poland’s constitutional court as government-backed judges seek to oust chief justice

Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal became the scene of a direct confrontation between rival groups claiming authority over the court. Police surrounded the grounds and stopped Chief Justice Bogdan Święczkowski from entering. His supporters, including opposition lawmakers, cut through the fence with a power tool and tried to get inside.

At the same time, a government-backed judge said Święczkowski had been suspended. The tribunal’s website announced a “break in the activities” of Święczkowski and deputy chief justice Bartłomiej Sochański. The legal basis cited was a rule allowing an immediate break in a judge’s duties when the judge is caught committing an offence.

Święczkowski and opposition politicians called the action an illegal “coup d’état.” President Karol Nawrocki, aligned with the opposition, ordered his plane to return to Warsaw. Riot police remained deployed as the government and president fought over who could control the court.

Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal, known as the TK, is the country’s constitutional court. In general, such a court checks whether laws and important state actions comply with the constitution. It protects the legal order by deciding constitutional disputes and setting limits on government power. The article focuses on the tribunal’s leadership and membership, rather than listing all its formal powers.

The TK has a 15-person bench. Its judges are chosen by parliament, but Polish law requires them to swear an oath “before the president.” That requirement has become a major point of conflict because President Karol Nawrocki refused to swear in five recently chosen judges.

The tribunal’s role now matters because the government rejects its legitimacy and has ignored its rulings. The dispute over who may sit on the bench and lead it could affect whether future decisions are accepted by the government, president, courts, and public.

Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal has a 15-person bench. This year, parliament chose eight new judges as the governing coalition began filling vacancies that had accumulated while the government refused to nominate replacements. The appointments were intended to restore the court’s empty seats.

President Karol Nawrocki refused to swear in five of those eight judges. He cited concerns about their selection or qualifications. The five then held their own ceremonies in parliament and submitted their oaths to the president’s office. Chief Justice Bogdan Święczkowski refused to accept them as members of the court.

On paper, parliament’s eight nominees would give the ruling coalition’s choices a majority. In practice, the five refused oaths remain outside the tribunal’s accepted membership. The result is a contested bench, with competing claims about who is entitled to serve and vote. That dispute now overlaps with the struggle over the chief justice’s position.

The tribunal’s legitimacy has been disputed because three of its judges were unlawfully appointed under the former Law and Justice, or PiS, government. The article says PiS was widely seen to have brought the court under political control. That history damaged confidence in the tribunal’s membership and independence.

When Donald Tusk’s coalition took power in 2023, it refused to recognise the court’s legitimacy. The government ignored the TK’s rulings and initially refused to nominate judges for vacancies on the 15-person bench. It treated the disputed appointments as a reason to reject the court’s authority rather than simply continue its work.

The conflict later widened. Parliament began choosing replacement judges, while President Karol Nawrocki refused to swear in five of them. Chief Justice Bogdan Święczkowski also refused to accept those judges. The original dispute over three appointments therefore developed into a broader struggle over membership, leadership, and institutional legitimacy.

The tribunal cited Article 130 of the law on common courts as the basis for suspending Chief Justice Bogdan Święczkowski and deputy chief justice Bartłomiej Sochański. That provision allows a court president or the justice minister to order an immediate break in a judge’s official duties when the judge is caught committing an offence.

The legal route was disputed because the Constitutional Tribunal is not a common court. Constitutional-law scholar Marcin Matczak said the justice minister oversees common courts but cannot exercise that authority over the TK. He described the proposed legal basis as nonexistent for many reasons.

Some information suggested the suspension instead relied on Article 19 of the law on the status of TK judges, combined with Article 130 of the law on the Supreme Court. The article does not establish whether that interpretation will prevail. It shows that the takeover attempt rests on a contested legal mechanism.

A takeover attempt could make the tribunal’s rulings even harder to recognise. The government already rejects the TK’s legitimacy and has ignored its decisions. If rival groups control the court or claim to appoint its leaders, parties may challenge whether decisions were issued by a properly constituted tribunal.

The clearest example involves five judges chosen by parliament. President Karol Nawrocki refused to swear them in, but they held ceremonies in parliament and submitted their oaths. The European Court of Human Rights ordered that they be allowed to take their positions. Święczkowski refused to accept them and argued that the ECHR lacked authority to issue that order.

The confrontation therefore raises a second European issue. Continued refusal to follow the ECHR order could leave Poland further out of compliance with that decision. The article does not state what legal penalty or final resolution will follow, only that the standoff has deepened.

Judicial independence matters because judges must decide legal questions without pressure from political leaders. If a government can control judges or remove them for inconvenient decisions, constitutional rights and legal limits become weaker. Independent courts give citizens and institutions a place to challenge abuses of power.

A constitutional court performs that checking role by reviewing laws and state actions against the constitution. It can prevent parliament or the government from exceeding their authority. In Poland, the tribunal’s importance is clear from the struggle over its 15-member bench, its chief justice, and whether its rulings should be followed.

The article shows the risks when independence and legitimacy are disputed at the same time. The government rejects the TK, the president blocks five judges’ oaths, and the court’s leadership is contested. Unless the institutions agree on lawful membership and authority, constitutional decisions may remain politically contested rather than settling disputes.