Key documents
Legislation and rulings the site relies on. Court rulings are binding findings within each court’s jurisdiction; Venice Commission opinions are non-binding. Where another body contests a ruling, this is described as a dispute.
Legislation
Constitution of the Polish People's Republic of 1952
In its original form it entrusted oversight of the conformity of law with the Constitution to the Council of State. In 1976 the Council of State was given the duty to "watch over" the conformity of law with the constitution, and in 1979 it adopted a resolution specifying the procedure. The amendment of 26 March 1982 transferred this competence to the newly created Constitutional Tribunal (Art. 33a).1,2
Amendment of 26 March 1982 to the Constitution of the Polish People's Republic (Art. 33a – Constitutional Tribunal)
Adopted during martial law, it added provisions on the Constitutional Tribunal and the Tribunal of State to the PRL Constitution; on the same day the Sejm passed the Tribunal of State Act. Art. 33a(4) provided that the Sejm elects members of the Tribunal "from among persons distinguished by their legal knowledge". The implementing Constitutional Tribunal Act followed only on 29 April 1985. ELI metadata of the 1985 Act refer to act DU/1982/83; its Journal of Laws number (probably Dz.U. 1982 No. 11 item 83) and the full wording of Art. 33a were not verified.2,3,4
Constitutional Tribunal Act of 29 April 1985 (the 1985 Act)
Published on 14 May 1985 and in force from 1 January 1986; repealed with effect from 17 October 1997 by Art. 92 of the Act of 1 August 1997. The members of the Tribunal – a president, a vice-president and ten judges (Art. 13(1)) – were elected and dismissed by the Sejm (Art. 13(2)) for eight years, with half of the bench elected every four years (Art. 13(4)); the Act did not say who nominates candidates and had no separate procedure for choosing the president and vice-president, and the first bench received four- and eight-year terms counted from 1 December 1985 (Art. 34). A member took the oath before the Marshal of the Sejm (Art. 13(6)). Rulings that a statute was unconstitutional were considered by the Sejm, which could reject them by at least a two-thirds majority with at least half of the deputies present (Art. 6(4) of the original text = Art. 7(4) of the 1991 consolidated text). The Act was amended 13 times between 1987 and 1997; the titles of amendments DU/1994/593, DU/1995/59, DU/1996/367 and DU/1997/604 were not verified.4,5
Resolution of the Sejm of 31 July 1985 on the detailed procedure before the Constitutional Tribunal
According to an INPRIS report (P. Radziewicz), Art. 47 of the resolution provided that rulings finding statutes unconstitutional were forwarded to the Sejm, which considered them within six months and could amend or repeal the act or reject the ruling; the Tribunal could not re-examine a rejected ruling. The ELI record of the 1985 Act lists an implementing act DU/1985/184; it was not verified that this is the resolution in question (probably Dz.U. 1985 No. 39 item 184).6,4
Commissioner for Human Rights Act of 15 July 1987
One of the amendments to the 1985 Constitutional Tribunal Act: it made the Commissioner for Human Rights an applicant entitled to bring cases before the Tribunal. Date of effect as given by ELI.4,7
Amendment of 7 April 1989 to the PRL Constitution (the "April amendment") unverified
The notes mention it, without verification during the research session, as the possible constitutional basis of the Tribunal's power to issue universally binding interpretations of statutes, which it exercised from 1989 until the 1997 Constitution entered into force. The Journal of Laws number and the content of the relevant provisions were not checked.8,7
Act of 29 May 1989 on the transfer of the powers of the Council of State
Listed in ELI and in the notice of the 1991 consolidated text among the amendments to the Constitutional Tribunal Act. The notes link it to the Tribunal taking over from the Council of State the power to issue universally binding interpretations of statutes – a link that was not verified.4,7
Act of 1 December 1989 amending the Constitutional Tribunal Act
An amendment to the 1985 Act incorporated in the 1991 consolidated text. According to the notes it was probably this act that changed the oath formula of the Tribunal's members (replacing references to the socialist system with the undertaking "to safeguard the Constitution and the statutes") – not verified.4,7
Act of 20 December 1989 amending certain acts (including the Constitutional Tribunal Act)
One of the amendments to the 1985 Act incorporated in the 1991 consolidated text. The notes do not describe the scope of the changes to the Constitutional Tribunal Act.4,7
Act of 19 January 1990 amending the Constitutional Tribunal Act
An amendment to the 1985 Act incorporated in the 1991 consolidated text. The notes do not describe the scope of the change.4,7
Act of 17 May 1990 on the division of tasks and powers … between municipal bodies and government administration
Listed in ELI among the amendments to the 1985 Constitutional Tribunal Act (full title abbreviated in the notes). The scope of the change to the Tribunal Act is not described.4,7
Farmers' Social Insurance Act of 20 December 1990
Listed in ELI among the amendments to the 1985 Constitutional Tribunal Act. The notes do not describe the scope of the change to the Tribunal Act.4,7
Consolidated text of the Constitutional Tribunal Act of 29 April 1985 (Dz.U. 1991 No. 109 item 470)
It incorporates the first eight amendments to the 1985 Act and renumbers its provisions. The Sejm considered a ruling that a statute was unconstitutional within six months and could reject it by at least a two-thirds majority with at least half of the deputies present (Art. 7(1)–(4)). Art. 13 empowered the Tribunal to issue universally binding interpretations of statutes by a resolution of the full bench, and Art. 22(1) widened the list of applicants (among others the President, 30 senators, the Tribunal of State, the Commissioner for Human Rights, the President of the Supreme Audit Office and the President of the Supreme Administrative Court). The oath was still taken before the Marshal of the Sejm, and the formula included the undertaking "to safeguard the Constitution and the statutes" (Art. 15(6)).7
Act of 24 August 1991 amending the Commissioner for Human Rights Act and certain other acts
The last of the eight amendments incorporated in the 1991 consolidated text of the Constitutional Tribunal Act. The notes do not describe the scope of the change to the Tribunal Act.4,7
Standing Orders of the Sejm (resolution of the Sejm of 30 July 1992) unverified
Before 2015 the details of the procedure for electing the Tribunal's judges (including nomination deadlines) were set by the Standing Orders of the Sejm – as the applicants argued in K 34/15; the wording of Art. 30 in 1997–2015 was not verified. In 2026 the Chancellery of the Sejm relied on Art. 30(3)(1) and (5) (nomination deadlines set by the Marshal) and Art. 30(4) (a seven-day period before the vote "unless the Sejm decides otherwise"), which was shortened on 13 March 2026 in the absence of objections. The date and M.P. number of the 1992 resolution are given in the notes without verification.9,10,11,12
Constitutional Act of 17 October 1992 on the Mutual Relations between the Legislative and Executive Powers of the Republic of Poland and on Local Self-Government (Small Constitution of 1992) unverified
An interim constitutional act. According to the notes its Art. 77 kept in force, among others, the provisions of the 1952 Constitution on the Tribunal (Art. 33a); no change in the Tribunal's status resulting from the Small Constitution was established. The Journal of Laws number and the content of Art. 77 were not verified during the research session.13
Act of 15 May 1993 amending the Law on the System of Common Courts and the acts on the prosecution service, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Tribunal, the National Council of the Judiciary and the establishment of courts of appeal
Its Art. 4 amended Art. 26(1) of the 1985 Constitutional Tribunal Act (participation of a prosecutor from an appellate prosecutor's office). Date of effect as given by ELI.14,4
Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 2 April 1997 unverified
Arts. 188–189: the Tribunal rules on the conformity of statutes and other acts with the Constitution, on constitutional complaints and on matters concerning political parties, and settles competence disputes between central constitutional organs of the State; Art. 190: its rulings are universally binding and final, must be published without delay and are adopted by a majority, and an unconstitutional provision loses force on publication or on a date set by the Tribunal (up to 18 months for a statute, 12 for another act). Art. 194: 15 judges elected individually by the Sejm for nine years without re-election; the President of the Republic appoints the President and Vice-President of the Tribunal from candidates presented by the General Assembly (a prerogative under Art. 144(3)(21)); the Constitution does not mention a judge's oath or the start of a judge's term. Art. 195: independence of judges and a ban on membership of parties and trade unions; Art. 196: immunity (criminal prosecution or deprivation of liberty only with the Tribunal's prior consent); Art. 197: organisation and procedure are laid down by statute; also relevant are Art. 122(3)–(4) (preventive review at the President's request), Art. 126(3) (the President acts within the scope and on the principles set out in the Constitution and statutes), Art. 7 (legality) and Art. 173 (separateness of the judiciary). Art. 239: for two years after the Constitution entered into force (until 17 October 1999) the Sejm could reject, by a two-thirds majority, rulings finding earlier statutes unconstitutional (except rulings on questions of law), and proceedings and resolutions on universally binding interpretation of statutes were discontinued or lost force. The Constitution has been amended only in Art. 55 (2006) and Art. 99 (2009); the notes give the wording as a paraphrase from general knowledge, as the text could not be retrieved from ISAP.15,16,17,3,10,18
Constitutional Tribunal Act of 1 August 1997 (the 1997 Act)
Published on 1 September 1997; Art. 5(1) and Art. 88(2)–(3) applied from 9 September 1997 and the rest from 17 October 1997; repealed with effect from 30 August 2015 by the Act of 25 June 2015. Art. 5: the Tribunal has 15 judges elected by the Sejm for nine years (paras 1–2); candidates are nominated by at least 50 deputies or the Presidium of the Sejm, and the election requires an absolute majority with at least half of the statutory number of deputies present (para. 4); the judge takes the oath before the President of the Republic (para. 5), and refusal to take it "is equivalent to renouncing the office" (para. 6). The Act did not fix when a term begins, a deadline for nominations or a deadline for the oath (procedural details were in the Standing Orders of the Sejm), and the election rules were not changed until 2015. The President of the Republic appoints the President and Vice-President of the Tribunal from two candidates for each post presented by the General Assembly (Art. 15(1)), and lifting immunity required the Assembly's consent by a two-thirds majority (Art. 7). Transitional provisions: existing members became judges and completed eight-year terms counted from their election, the Sejm topped the bench up to 15 (Art. 88), for two years the Sejm could reject rulings on statutes adopted before the Constitution (Art. 89), and Art. 92 repealed the 1985 Act.19,20,21,22
Act of 12 May 2000 amending the Commissioner for Human Rights Act, the Code of Civil Procedure and certain other acts
Listed in ELI among the acts amending the 1997 Constitutional Tribunal Act. The scope of the change was not established.23,20
Act of 9 June 2000 amending the Constitutional Tribunal Act and certain other acts
Published on 7 July 2000 and in force three months later; the only separate amendment of the 1997 Act before 2015. It introduced retirement status for the Tribunal's judges after their term (Art. 6(2a), except for those returning to their previous post), allowed the Tribunal to rule on an act that had lost force where necessary to protect rights and freedoms (Art. 39(3)), set a three-month time limit for a constitutional complaint from service of the final decision (Art. 46(1)) and required representation by an advocate or legal adviser (Art. 48(1)). It did not change the rules for electing judges.24
Law on the System of Common Courts of 27 July 2001 (PUSP)
The statute on the ordinary courts, applied to Tribunal judges "accordingly" in some matters: Art. 30 of the Status Act refers to it for disciplinary matters not regulated in that chapter, and Art. 18a refers to its Arts. 101–103 (death benefits). Art. 130 § 1 allows "the president of a court or the Minister of Justice" to order an immediate break in a judge's official duties until a disciplinary court decides, for no longer than one month, where the judge was detained in the act of committing an intentional offence or where the nature of the act is such that "the dignity of the court or essential interests of the service require the judge's immediate removal from duties"; for a court president only the Minister of Justice may order the break (§ 2), and the disciplinary court, notified within three days, must without delay either suspend the judge or set the order aside (§ 3). Art. 129 (suspension by a disciplinary court) is described in the notes without verified wording. The Law was also one of the acts amending the 1997 Constitutional Tribunal Act; the current consolidated text is Dz.U. 2024 item 334.25,26,20,27
Act of 24 August 2001 – Provisions introducing the Code of Procedure in Petty Offence Cases
Listed in ELI among the acts amending the 1997 Act, but not included in the header of the unified text. The scope of the change was not established.28,22
Act of 8 July 2005 on the General Counsel to the State Treasury
Listed in ELI among the acts amending the 1997 Constitutional Tribunal Act. The scope of the change was not established.29,20
Act of 20 March 2009 amending the Law on the System of Common Courts and certain other acts
Listed in ELI among the acts amending the 1997 Constitutional Tribunal Act. The scope of the change was not established.30,20
Act of 9 October 2009 amending the Prosecution Service Act and certain other acts
Listed in ELI among the acts amending the 1997 Constitutional Tribunal Act. The scope of the change was not established (the notes hypothesise that it concerned the Prosecutor General's participation in proceedings after the offices of Prosecutor General and Minister of Justice were separated).31,20
Classified Information Protection Act of 5 August 2010
Listed in ELI among the acts amending the 1997 Constitutional Tribunal Act. The scope of the change was not established.32,20
Act of 24 September 2010 amending the Ombudsman for Children Act and certain other acts
Listed in ELI among the acts amending the 1997 Constitutional Tribunal Act. The scope of the change was not established (hypothesis in the notes: participation of the Ombudsman for Children in complaint proceedings).33,20
Medical Activity Act of 15 April 2011
The last of the ten acts amending the 1997 Constitutional Tribunal Act listed in ELI. The scope of the change was not established.34,20
Presidential bill on the Constitutional Tribunal (print No. 1590, Sejm of the 7th term) unverified
A bill sent to the Sejm by President Bronisław Komorowski together with two other bills (faster proceedings, a "transparent" procedure for selecting candidates, deadlines for written reasons); its outline was prepared by former Tribunal judges under the direction of the President of the Tribunal. As a bill it never entered into force: the Sejm's work on it (from 29 August 2013; the subcommittee worked for more than a year and a half) ended with the adoption of the Act of 25 June 2015. The subcommittee dropped the possibility for bodies outside the Sejm to nominate candidates, and the transitional Art. 137 was not in the bill – it was added in committee on 12 May 2015. The date of submission (10 or 11 July 2013) was not confirmed in the Sejm print.35,36
Constitutional Tribunal Act of 25 June 2015 (the June 2015 Act)
The Sejm passed it on 27 May 2015 (261 for, 144 against, 11 abstentions; PO, PSL and SLD for, PiS and United Right against) and dealt with the Senate amendments on 25 June 2015; President B. Komorowski signed it on 21 July 2015 and it was published on 30 July 2015; Art. 91 of the Act of 22 July 2016 (in force from 16 August 2016) repealed it. Arts. 17–21: 15 judges elected individually by an absolute majority for nine years, without re-election; age 40–67 (Art. 18); nominations by the Presidium of the Sejm or at least 50 deputies no later than three months before a term expires (Art. 19); oath before the President (Art. 21(1)), refusal being equivalent to renouncing the office (Art. 21(2)); like the 1997 Act, it fixed neither the start of a term nor a deadline for the oath. Art. 12: the President of the Republic appoints the President and Vice-President of the Tribunal from two candidates of the General Assembly; Art. 43 applied the Supreme Court Act accordingly, "including as regards the service relationship". The transitional Art. 137 (proposed in committee by PO deputy R. Kropiwnicki) gave 30 days from entry into force to nominate candidates for seats falling vacant in 2015; its exact wording was not retrieved. In judgment K 34/15 of 3 December 2015 the Tribunal held Art. 137 consistent with Art. 194(1) of the Constitution as regards terms ending on 6 November 2015 and inconsistent as regards terms ending on 2 and 8 December 2015, and held Art. 21(1) unconstitutional if understood otherwise than as obliging the President to take the oath "without delay".37,38,39,40,41,42,10,43
Resolution of the Sejm of November 2015 amending Art. 30 of the Standing Orders of the Sejm unverified
According to the Polish Wikipedia, on 26 November 2015 the Sejm amended Art. 30 of its Standing Orders, which governs the procedure for electing the Tribunal's judges. In the voting record of the 2nd sitting of the 8th-term Sejm, vote No. 29 of 25 November 2015 concerned a "Standing Orders resolution"; it was not checked whether this is the same amendment. The M.P. number, exact date and content of the amendment were not established.44,45
Act of 19 November 2015 amending the Constitutional Tribunal Act
A PiS bill (committee report – print No. 20 of the 8th-term Sejm, 18 November 2015); signed by President A. Duda, published on 20 November 2015, in force 14 days later. Changes: the President of the Republic appoints the President and Vice-President of the Tribunal for three years from at least three General Assembly candidates, with one reappointment allowed (Art. 12(1)–(2)); nomination of a judge 30 days before the end of a term (Art. 19(2)); oath before the President "within 30 days of the election" (Art. 21(1)) and the term running from the oath (new Art. 21(1a)); repeal of Arts. 136–137 and a new Art. 137a (seven days for nominations for terms ending in 2015); expiry of the terms of the sitting President and Vice-President after three months (Art. 2). In judgment K 35/15 of 9 December 2015 (Dz.U. 2015 item 2147) the Tribunal held unconstitutional, among others, the possibility of reappointing the President and Vice-President, the words "within 30 days of the election", Art. 21(1a), Art. 137a as regards the seat vacated on 6 November 2015, and Art. 2.46,47,48,49
Resolution of the Sejm of 25 November 2015 "on declaring the lack of legal force" of the resolution of 8 October 2015 electing Roman Hauser as a judge of the Tribunal
Adopted at the 2nd sitting of the Sejm of the 8th term (print No. 42, vote No. 23 at 23:46:34): 270 for, 40 against, 1 abstention, 149 not voting; published in Monitor Polski on 26 November 2015 and signed by Marshal M. Kuchciński. It refers to the resolution of 8 October 2015 (M.P. 2015 item 1038) and, like each of the five resolutions of that day, calls on the President not to accept the oath of the person named in it. In decision U 8/15 of 7 January 2016 the Tribunal discontinued proceedings concerning these resolutions, treating them as an expression of a political position without legal effect on the earlier election. The Sejm resolution of 6 March 2024 (M.P. 2024 item 198) declared this resolution to be without legal force.50,45,48,51
Resolution of the Sejm of 25 November 2015 "on declaring the lack of legal force" of the resolution of 8 October 2015 electing Andrzej Jakubecki as a judge of the Tribunal
Adopted at the 2nd sitting of the Sejm of the 8th term (print No. 43, vote No. 24 at 23:47:32): 273 for, 43 against, 1 abstention, 143 not voting; published in Monitor Polski on 26 November 2015 and signed by Marshal M. Kuchciński. It refers to the resolution of 8 October 2015 (M.P. 2015 item 1039) and, like each of the five resolutions of that day, calls on the President not to accept the oath of the person named in it. In decision U 8/15 of 7 January 2016 the Tribunal discontinued proceedings concerning these resolutions, treating them as an expression of a political position without legal effect on the earlier election. The Sejm resolution of 6 March 2024 (M.P. 2024 item 198) declared this resolution to be without legal force.52,45,48,51
Resolution of the Sejm of 25 November 2015 "on declaring the lack of legal force" of the resolution of 8 October 2015 electing Bronisław Sitek as a judge of the Tribunal
Adopted at the 2nd sitting of the Sejm of the 8th term (print No. 44, vote No. 25 at 23:48:26): 273 for, 42 against, 1 abstention, 144 not voting; published in Monitor Polski on 26 November 2015 and signed by Marshal M. Kuchciński. It refers to the resolution of 8 October 2015 (M.P. 2015 item 1041) and, like each of the five resolutions of that day, calls on the President not to accept the oath of the person named in it. In decision U 8/15 of 7 January 2016 the Tribunal discontinued proceedings concerning these resolutions, treating them as an expression of a political position without legal effect on the earlier election. The Sejm resolution of 6 March 2024 (M.P. 2024 item 198) does not list this resolution; instead it declared the resolution of 8 October 2015 electing Bronisław Sitek itself to be without legal force.53,45,48,51
Resolution of the Sejm of 25 November 2015 "on declaring the lack of legal force" of the resolution of 8 October 2015 electing Krzysztof Ślebzak as a judge of the Tribunal
Adopted at the 2nd sitting of the Sejm of the 8th term (print No. 46, vote No. 27 at 23:50:13): 273 for, 42 against, 1 abstention, 144 not voting; published in Monitor Polski on 26 November 2015 and signed by Marshal M. Kuchciński. It refers to the resolution of 8 October 2015 (M.P. 2015 item 1040) and, like each of the five resolutions of that day, calls on the President not to accept the oath of the person named in it. In decision U 8/15 of 7 January 2016 the Tribunal discontinued proceedings concerning these resolutions, treating them as an expression of a political position without legal effect on the earlier election. The Sejm resolution of 6 March 2024 (M.P. 2024 item 198) declared this resolution to be without legal force.54,45,48,51
Resolution of the Sejm of 25 November 2015 "on declaring the lack of legal force" of the resolution of 8 October 2015 electing Andrzej Jan Sokala as a judge of the Tribunal
Adopted at the 2nd sitting of the Sejm of the 8th term (print No. 45, vote No. 26 at 23:49:20): 272 for, 42 against, 1 abstention, 145 not voting; published in Monitor Polski on 26 November 2015 and signed by Marshal M. Kuchciński. It refers to the resolution of 8 October 2015 (M.P. 2015 item 1042) and, like each of the five resolutions of that day, calls on the President not to accept the oath of the person named in it. In decision U 8/15 of 7 January 2016 the Tribunal discontinued proceedings concerning these resolutions, treating them as an expression of a political position without legal effect on the earlier election. The Sejm resolution of 6 March 2024 (M.P. 2024 item 198) does not list this resolution; instead it declared the resolution of 8 October 2015 electing Andrzej Jan Sokala itself to be without legal force.55,45,48,51
Act of 22 December 2015 amending the Constitutional Tribunal Act
According to a Tribunal communiqué, the Act introduced, among other things: General Assembly resolutions by a two-thirds majority with at least 13 judges present; a full bench of at least 13 judges, with full-bench judgments adopted by a two-thirds majority; hearing cases in order of receipt; hearing deadlines of six months (full bench) and three months (other benches); disciplinary proceedings on application by the President or the Minister of Justice; and dismissal of a judge by the Sejm on a motion of the General Assembly. According to encyclopaedic sources the Senate passed it without amendments on 23–24 December, the President signed it on 28 December 2015 and it entered into force on publication (the notes do not give the publication date). In judgment K 47/15 of 9 March 2016 (12 judges) the Tribunal held the whole Act inconsistent with Arts. 7, 112 and 119(1) of the Constitution and with the principle of proper legislation (Art. 2). The government of B. Szydło refused to publish that judgment; it was published only on 5 June 2018 (Dz.U. 2018 item 1077) with a heading stating that it had been issued in breach of the Act of 25 June 2015 and concerned an act that had lost force.48,56,44,57
Consolidated text of the Constitutional Tribunal Act of 25 June 2015 (Dz.U. 2016 item 293)
The only consolidated text of the 2015 Act found in the ELI search; no consolidated text of the 1997 Act was published between 1997 and 2015. According to the Polish Wikipedia a consolidated text of the Tribunal Act was published on 7 March 2016; the notes do not establish whether this is that item.41,44
Constitutional Tribunal Act of 22 July 2016 (the July 2016 Act)
Published on 1 August 2016 and in force 14 days later (Art. 92); Art. 91 repealed the Act of 25 June 2015. Art. 6 governed the election of judges and the oath before the President; Art. 89 required publication within 30 days of rulings issued before 20 July 2016 in breach of the 2015 Act, except those concerning acts that had lost force; Art. 90 required the President of the Tribunal to "include in adjudicating benches and assign cases to" judges who had taken the oath before the President but had not taken up their duties. In judgment K 39/16 of 11 August 2016 the Tribunal held, among others, Arts. 89 and 90 unconstitutional; the judgment was published on 5 June 2018 (Dz.U. 2018 item 1078). The Act was repealed with effect from 20 December 2016 by Art. 3 of the Implementing Provisions Act of 13 December 2016, although its Art. 18(1), (4) and (5) remained in force until 1 January 2018.58,59,60
Act of 30 November 2016 on the Organisation of the Constitutional Tribunal and the Procedure before It (the Organisation Act)
Passed on 30 November 2016 (228 for, 200 against, 6 abstentions); in force from 3 January 2017, with Arts. 1–6 applying from 20 December 2016 and Arts. 16–32 from 1 January 2018; its only amendment is Dz.U. 2019 item 125 and its consolidated text Dz.U. 2019 item 2393; according to ELI it is in force and has not been repealed. The General Assembly presents candidates for President and Vice-President to the President of the Republic (Art. 6(2)) and adopts resolutions by an absolute majority with at least two-thirds of the judges present; the President of the Tribunal must be present, except for the resolution on candidates for President (Art. 8(1)–(2)). The President of the Republic appoints the President of the Tribunal from the Assembly's candidates for six years, without reappointment (Art. 10); until an appointment the judge with the longest aggregate service directs the Tribunal's work, and only judges who took the oath before the President take part in the Assembly selecting candidates (Art. 11(2) and (5)). The Vice-President deputises within the scope of the President's written authorisation, and where authorising the Vice-President or another judge is not possible the judge referred to in Art. 11(2) deputises (Art. 12(2)–(4)); the Rules of Procedure are published in Monitor Polski (Art. 15(2)). A full bench means at least 11 judges (Art. 37(2)), and the President assigns benches in alphabetical order (Art. 38(1)); the provision on publication of rulings (Art. 114) was not verified because the retrieved text breaks off at Art. 109.61,62,63,64
Act of 30 November 2016 on the Status of Judges of the Constitutional Tribunal (the Status Act)
Published on 19 December 2016; in force from 3 January 2017, with Arts. 1–6, 16, 17, 19, 31 and 35 applying from 20 December 2016; consolidated text Dz.U. 2018 item 1422; amended by Dz.U. 2017 item 1947 and Dz.U. 2026 item 26 (from 1 January 2027); in force according to ELI. Art. 2: the Tribunal consists of 15 judges elected by the Sejm for nine years; Art. 4: an elected judge takes the oath before the President of the Republic, and refusal to take it is equivalent to renouncing the office; Art. 5: the service relationship arises upon taking the oath, and the President of the Tribunal assigns cases. Art. 18: the mandate expires on, among other things, death, renunciation, a final conviction for an intentional offence or a final disciplinary ruling removing the judge from office; Art. 19: matters not regulated are governed accordingly by the rules on Supreme Court judges; Arts. 20–23: criminal prosecution requires the consent of the General Assembly (application to the President of the Tribunal, resolution by an absolute majority within one month). Arts. 24–29: disciplinary liability before disciplinary courts composed of Tribunal judges (three and five judges), with penalties ranging from a warning to removal from office; Art. 30: disciplinary matters not regulated are governed accordingly by the Law on the System of Common Courts and the Code of Criminal Procedure; the Act contains no provision on suspending a judge or on an "immediate break" in duties. Art. 4(1) was the subject of the Tribunal's judgment of 12 May 2026 (K 3/26), which held it unconstitutional insofar as it is understood as obliging the President to take the oath; the government does not treat that judgment as binding.65,66,27,67,68
Implementing Provisions Act of 13 December 2016 (for the Organisation Act and the Status Act of 30 November 2016)
Passed on 13 December 2016 (229 for, 198 against, 4 abstentions) and published on 19 December 2016; Arts. 1–3, 12 and 16–22 apply from 20 December 2016, the rest 14 days after publication, and Arts. 4, 5 and 8 from 1 January 2018; Arts. 1–3 set the entry into force of the Organisation Act and the Status Act and repeal the Act of 22 July 2016. Arts. 17–18: until a President of the Tribunal is appointed, the President of the Republic by decision entrusts the duties of President to the judge with the longest service (in the judiciary or in legal posts in central administration – exact wording to be confirmed), and the acting President assigns cases to judges who took the oath before the President of the Republic; Art. 11(2) of the Organisation Act does not apply. Art. 19: Tribunal rulings adopted in breach of the 2015 and 2016 Acts are published upon an order of the acting President, except those concerning acts that have lost force. Arts. 20–22: a procedure for presenting candidates for President with only judges sworn before the President of the Republic taking part, a candidate needing at least five votes and no two-thirds quorum under Art. 8 of the Organisation Act. On this basis the President of the Republic, by decision of 20 December 2016 (M.P. 2016 item 1229), entrusted the duties of President to J. Przyłębska; the Act did not carry over the rule of Art. 90 of the Act of 22 July 2016.60,69,70,71
Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Tribunal – General Assembly resolution of July 2017 (M.P. 2017 item 767)
The Rules of Procedure are adopted by the General Assembly (Art. 6(2) of the Organisation Act) and published in Monitor Polski on the President's order (Art. 15(2)). According to the ELI search the Assembly adopted new Rules on 27 July 2017; another note presumes 3 July 2017. ELI metadata of the Organisation Act list M.P. 2017 item 767 and M.P. 2020 item 103 as implementing acts (the nature of the latter was not established); the Rules' provisions on deputising for the President were not verified.61,72,63
Act of 3 November 2017 amending, among others, the Status Act (Dz.U. 2017 item 1947)
ELI metadata list it among the acts amending the Status Act. Its title and the scope of the change are not established in the notes.65
Supreme Court Act of 8 December 2017 unverified
Cited in the chain of cross-references invoked in A. Korwin-Piotrowska's order of 30 October 2026: Art. 19 of the Status Act (rules on Supreme Court judges applied accordingly) → Art. 10 § 1 of the Supreme Court Act → Art. 130 § 1 of the Law on the System of Common Courts. The exact wording of Art. 10 § 1, and whether the Supreme Court Act contains its own equivalents of Arts. 129–130 of that Law, were not established.73,74
Act of 2018 on the publication of the Tribunal's 2016 judgments unverified
A PiS bill filed on 22 March 2018; according to the Polish Wikipedia the Sejm passed it on 12 April 2018, the President signed it on 2 May 2018 and it entered into force on 23 May 2018. On 29 May 2018 the President of the Tribunal, J. Przyłębska, ordered the publication of judgments K 47/15, K 39/16 and K 44/16; K 47/15 and K 39/16 were published on 5 June 2018 (Dz.U. 2018 items 1077 and 1078). The Journal of Laws number of this Act, its exact date and its link to Art. 19 of the Implementing Provisions were not verified.44,56,59
Consolidated text of the Status Act (Dz.U. 2018 item 1422)
According to ELI the only consolidated text of the Status Act; the summaries of Arts. 1–38 in the notes are based on it. It does not include the change made by Dz.U. 2026 item 26 (from 1 January 2027); the exact wording of Arts. 3, 4, 19 and 26 still needs to be confirmed in ISAP.27,65
Consolidated text of the Organisation Act (Dz.U. 2019 item 2393)
The text on which discussions of the provisions on the General Assembly, the President and benches in the disputes of 2023–2026 are based. ELI metadata show no amending acts from 2020–2026 but record a Tribunal ruling published in Dz.U. 2023 item 2698 (which provision it concerns was not established). The retrieved text breaks off at Art. 109.63,75,61
Consolidated text of the Law on the System of Common Courts (Dz.U. 2024 item 334)
The most recent consolidated text of the Law according to ELI; earlier consolidated texts: Dz.U. 2013/427, 2015/133, 2016/2062, 2018/23, 2019/52, 2020/365, 2020/2072 and 2023/217. The wording of Art. 130, invoked in A. Korwin-Piotrowska's order of 30 October 2026 concerning the President of the Tribunal, was verified against this text (via arslege.pl).25,26
Senators' draft amendment to the Constitution concerning the Constitutional Tribunal (2024)
An initiative of senators of the governing coalition filed in early March 2024; work in the Senate was announced on 2 May 2024. The draft provided, among other things, for diffuse constitutional review by the courts, a four-year cooling-off period for persons holding political office and a three-year term for the President of the Tribunal; according to the European Commission it was meant to prevent mass elections of judges within a single Sejm term. On 24 July 2024 the draft was still in the Senate; its further fate, print number and any submission to the Sejm were not established.76,77,78
Resolution of the Sejm of 6 March 2024 on remedying the effects of the constitutional crisis of 2015–2023 in the context of the activity of the Constitutional Tribunal
Adopted by the Sejm of the 10th term (print No. 226; 240 for, 197 against, 0 abstentions), published on 11 March 2024 and signed by Marshal S. Hołownia; its preamble invokes Arts. 7 and 194(1) of the Constitution, Art. 6(1) of the ECHR, the Tribunal's judgments K 34/15 and K 35/15 and the ECtHR judgments Xero Flor and M.L. v. Poland. In it the Sejm states that ten resolutions of 2015–2018 (the election of B. Sitek and A.J. Sokala of 8 October 2015; three resolutions of 25 November 2015 concerning the election of R. Hauser, A. Jakubecki and K. Ślebzak; the election of M. Muszyński, H. Cioch and L. Morawski of 2 December 2015, of J. Piskorski of 15 September 2017 and of J. Wyrembak of 26 January 2018) were adopted in flagrant breach of the law and have no legal force, and that M. Muszyński, J. Piskorski and J. Wyrembak are not judges of the Tribunal. It questions J. Przyłębska's status as President (appointment without a General Assembly resolution; alternatively, expiry of the six-year term on 21 December 2022), calls for the Tribunal to be "re-created" with the participation of the opposition and appeals to the Tribunal's judges to resign. The European Commission described the resolution as not legally binding; in judgment U 5/24 of 28 May 2024 the Tribunal held it inconsistent with Art. 7 read with Art. 87(1) and Art. 10 read with Arts. 173 and 190(1) of the Constitution (the judgment was not published).51,79,78,80
Act of 12 July 2024 concerning the National Council of the Judiciary (referred to the Tribunal)
According to the European Commission's 2025 Rule of Law Report, the President referred this Act, together with the Constitutional Tribunal Acts of 13 September 2024, to the Constitutional Tribunal, and in July 2025 it had not entered into force. The Tribunal's decision in the matter (as of 31 December 2025) was not established.81
Constitutional Tribunal Act of 13 September 2024 (never entered into force)
A deputies' bill (print No. 253) filed on 6 March 2024; the Sejm passed it on 24 July 2024 (242 for, 202 against), dealt with the Senate amendments on 13 September 2024 (hence the date "13 September 2024") and sent it to the President on 16 September 2024. It provided, among other things, for a 14-day deadline for the President to take a judge's oath and – if he failed to act – an oath before a notary, a wider range of bodies nominating candidates, election of judges by a three-fifths majority, and disciplinary benches including retired judges. On 7 October 2024 President A. Duda referred it to the Tribunal for preventive review (Art. 122(3) of the Constitution). In judgment Kp 3/24 of 29 July 2025 (11 judges; dissenting opinions by J. Stelina, W. Sych and A. Zielonacki) the Tribunal held, among others, Art. 16(2), Art. 20(2)–(3) and Arts. 34–35 unconstitutional and inseparably linked to the whole Act, which in the Tribunal's view obliged the President to refuse to sign it; the Act never entered into force.82,77,78,83,18,84
Act of 13 September 2024 – Provisions introducing the Constitutional Tribunal Act (never entered into force)
A deputies' bill (print No. 254) filed on 6 March 2024; the Sejm passed it on 24 July 2024 (242 for, 200 against) and accepted the Senate amendments on 13 September 2024; the President referred it to the Tribunal on 7 October 2024, and the Tribunal examined it together with the Constitutional Tribunal Act under case number Kp 3/24. It provided, among other things, for repealing the three 2016 Acts, treating rulings issued with the participation of "persons not authorised to adjudicate" as "null", ending the term of the President of the Tribunal early, handing his duties to the longest-serving judge, and giving the other judges one month to retire. In Kp 3/24 (29 July 2025) the Tribunal held, among others, Art. 10, the provisions using the notion of a "person not authorised to adjudicate" and Art. 14(1) (ending the President's term) unconstitutional and inseparably linked to the whole Act; the Act never entered into force. The European Commission attributed the bills to the government, while Sejm records show them as deputies' bills.85,77,78,18
Council of Ministers Resolution No. 162 of 18 December 2024 on counteracting the negative effects of the constitutional crisis in the judiciary
Invoking the Sejm resolution of 6 March 2024 and the case law of the ECtHR (including Xero Flor and M.L.) and the CJEU, the Council of Ministers takes the position that the Tribunal in its current composition cannot perform its tasks under Arts. 188–189 of the Constitution (§ 1(1)–(2)), that Art. 7 of the Constitution also covers the publication of acts (§ 1(3)) and that "it is not permissible to publish documents issued by an unauthorised body" (§ 1(5)). § 2 concerns the National Council of the Judiciary and the Supreme Court (including a recommendation of a "non-confrontational" annotation to published acts of those bodies, not of the Tribunal); implementation is entrusted to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice (§ 3), and the resolution took effect on adoption (§ 4). It became the formal basis for not publishing the Tribunal's rulings, a practice the government had followed since March 2024; the Venice Commission (as reported on 6 December 2024) recommended publishing judgments, if necessary with an annotation.86,78,87
Act of 18 December 2025 amending the Social Insurance System Act and certain other acts
Published on 12 January 2026; it enters into force in stages (27 January, 13 April and 1 October 2026 and 1 January 2027) and amends about 34 statutes. It amends the Status Act with effect from 1 January 2027; which provisions are affected was not established (the notes presume insurance-related matters). It does not amend the Organisation Act.88
Resolution of the Sejm of March 2026 on the measures necessary to ensure that the Constitutional Tribunal meets the requirements of an independent and impartial tribunal established by law unverified
Adopted by 235 votes to 197 with 0 abstentions; the draft was tabled by a group of more than 30 deputies of KO, the Left, PSL-TD, Centrum and Polska 2050. Sources differ on the date – 12 or 13 March 2026 (the M.P. heading will settle it). According to press reports, the resolution states that the Tribunal "has ceased to perform its function as an impartial and independent body", invokes the case law of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the ECtHR and the CJEU and the resolution of 6 March 2024, and considers it necessary to compose the Tribunal in line with the standard of a tribunal established by law, including by electing judges to the vacant seats; on 13 March 2026 the Sejm elected six persons to vacant seats on the Tribunal. The title comes from the Prawo.pl database of acts; the text was not retrieved from Monitor Polski.89,90,91,92
Constitutional Tribunal
U 1/86: Ruling on the Council of Ministers regulation on perpetual usufruct and the sale of state property
The Tribunal's first ruling. On an application by the Presidium of the Wrocław Provincial People's Council (23 January 1986), a bench of Kazimierz Działocha (presiding), Stanisław Pawela (rapporteur) and Remigiusz Orzechowski found, as the applicant had asked, that the Council of Ministers regulation of 16 September 1985 on perpetual usufruct and the sale of state property was non-compliant. The government representative had asked for dismissal and the Prosecutor General had supported the application; Orzechowski wrote the first dissenting opinion in the Tribunal's history and dissented again after a request for a full-bench hearing was refused.2,1
: Ruling on a provision allowing land prices to be set by a mere declaration (Ombudsman's application)
On an application by the Ombudsman, Prof. Tadeusz Zieliński, the Tribunal held unconstitutional a provision allowing the authorities to set land prices by a mere declaration. According to Tygodnik Powszechny, the Sejm neither accepted nor rejected the ruling. The case number has not been established.93
W 6/93: Resolution interpreting Art. 7(2) of the Tribunal Act (effect of the Sejm not considering a ruling)
Universally binding interpretation adopted by the full bench, presided over by Vice-President Leonard Łukaszuk, on the Ombudsman's application: the Sejm must consider a Tribunal ruling that a statute is unconstitutional; if it does not do so within six months, the ruling stands and the statute loses force on the day the President of the Tribunal publishes a notice. Dissolution of the Sejm and Senate suspends the time limit.94,6
court findingK 29/15: Discontinuance of the case on the Tribunal Act of 25 June 2015 (PiS MPs’ motion)
The Tribunal discontinued the proceedings brought on 23 October 2015 by a group of PiS MPs concerning numerous provisions of the Constitutional Tribunal Act of 25 June 2015, after the applicants withdrew the motion on 10 November 2015.95
K 34/15: Judgment on the Constitutional Tribunal Act of 25 June 2015
The Tribunal held that Art. 137 of the Constitutional Tribunal Act of 25 June 2015 is consistent with Art. 194(1) of the Constitution as regards the judges whose terms ended on 6 November 2015, and inconsistent as regards the judges whose terms ended on 2 and 8 December 2015. It also held that Art. 21(1) of that Act, if understood otherwise than as obliging the President to take without delay the oath of a judge elected by the Sejm, is inconsistent with Art. 194(1); it found the other reviewed provisions (including those on appointing the President and Vice-President and on immunity) constitutional and otherwise discontinued the proceedings. In its reasons it said that the Sejm of a given term elects judges to seats falling vacant during that term, and that the President has no power to refuse to take the oath or to assess the constitutionality of the basis of the election.96,10,97
court findingK 35/15: Judgment on the amendment to the Tribunal Act of 19 November 2015
The Tribunal found the procedure by which the Act of 19 November 2015 was passed constitutional, but held unconstitutional: allowing the President and Vice-President to be reappointed (Art. 12(1), second sentence), the words „within 30 days of the election” in the oath provision (Art. 21(1)), making a judge’s term begin on the day of the oath (Art. 21(1a)), Art. 137a in so far as it allowed a candidate to be nominated for the seat of a judge whose term ended on 6 November 2015, and ending the terms of the sitting President and Vice-President (Art. 2). According to the Tribunal’s summary, a judge’s term runs from the election, and new nominations for the seats vacated on 6 November would lead to more seats being filled than the Constitution provides; the Tribunal did not assess individual elections. It otherwise discontinued the proceedings.98,95
court findingU 8/15: Decision on the Sejm resolutions of 25 November and 2 December 2015
In closed session the Tribunal discontinued the proceedings brought by a group of PO MPs, finding that Sejm resolutions electing judges are not normative acts and are not subject to its substantive review. In its reasons it stated that the resolutions of 25 November 2015 on the „lack of legal effect” expressed a political position without legal effect on the election of 8 October 2015, in which it found no obvious defect rendering it non-existent, and that the assessment of the resolutions of 2 December 2015 depended on whether the seats were already filled, which judgment K 34/15 had determined.95
court findingK 47/15: Judgment on the Act of 22 December 2015 amending the Tribunal Act
After a hearing on 8 March 2016, the Tribunal held the Act of 22 December 2015 as a whole inconsistent with Arts. 7, 112 and 119(1) of the Constitution and with the principle of proper legislation derived from Art. 2, while consistent with Art. 186(1) and not contrary to Art. 123(1). In further points of the operative part it held individual provisions unconstitutional, including those on the organisation of the Tribunal’s work, removal of a judge from office and disciplinary proceedings; it otherwise discontinued the proceedings.99,44
court findingK 39/16: Judgment on the Tribunal Act of 22 July 2016 (joined cases K 39/16, K 40/16, K 41/16)
Sitting in closed session under the Act of 25 June 2015, the Tribunal held unconstitutional, among others, Art. 26(1)(1)(g), Art. 38(3)–(6), Art. 61(6), Art. 68(5)–(7), Art. 80(4), Art. 83(2), Arts. 84–87, Art. 89 and Art. 90 of the Constitutional Tribunal Act of 22 July 2016 – including the provision requiring the President of the Tribunal to include in benches the judges who had taken the oath before the President but had not taken up their duties. It held Art. 83(1) consistent with Art. 2 of the Constitution when understood in a specified way.100,44,101
court findingK 44/16: Judgment on the procedure for choosing the Tribunal’s President unverified
The judgment concerned the procedure for choosing the Tribunal’s President. According to the legal-texts note, not verified in a primary source, the Tribunal held unconstitutional the presentation of candidates for President not backed by a majority of judges; the CJEU press release of 18 December 2025 in case C-448/23 indirectly confirms this.101,102,44
court findingK 1/17: Judgment K 1/17 (subject not confirmed in a primary source) unverified
According to a Forsal headline, the case concerned Prosecutor General Zbigniew Ziobro’s motion regarding the election of three Tribunal judges in 2010 (a joint vote) and the election procedure in the Sejm’s Standing Orders; the headline suggests discontinuance or a finding of unconstitutionality. The operative part has not been read.44,103,104,105
court findingK 12/18: Judgment on the election of judge-members of the KRS by the Sejm
According to Wikipedia, the Tribunal held that the election of the 15 judge-members of the National Council of the Judiciary by the Sejm is consistent with the Constitution.44
court findingU 1/17: Discontinuance of the case on the 2010 Sejm resolutions electing three judges
The Tribunal discontinued the proceedings on the motion of Prosecutor General Zbigniew Ziobro of 11 January 2017 challenging the Sejm resolutions of 2010 electing Stanisław Rymar, Piotr Tuleja and Marek Zubik.44
court findingU 2/20: Judgment on the resolution of the joint chambers of the Supreme Court of 23 January 2020
According to Wikipedia, the Tribunal held the resolution of the joint chambers of the Supreme Court of 23 January 2020 unconstitutional. The bench, the reference of the Supreme Court resolution (BSA I-4110-1/20 in the notes, unverified) and the publication have not been confirmed.44
court findingKpt 1/20: Decision in the Sejm/President – Supreme Court competence dispute (unverified) unverified
The notes only mention a decision of 21 April 2020 in a competence dispute between the Sejm and the President on one side and the Supreme Court on the other; its content has not been verified, as no source was retrieved.106
unverifiedK 1/20: Judgment on Art. 4a(1)(2) of the Family Planning Act
The Tribunal held by 11 votes to 2 that Art. 4a(1)(2) of the Family Planning Act is unconstitutional. The data on the bench, the vote and the date of effect come from the facts as set out in the ECtHR judgment M.L. v. Poland (no. 40119/21, §§ 15–16, 21, 39, 169).107
court findingP 7/20: Judgment on CJEU interim measures concerning the organisation of Polish courts
On a question referred by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal held by majority that Art. 4(3), second sentence, TEU read with Art. 279 TFEU is inconsistent with Arts. 2, 7, 8(1) and 90(1) read with Art. 4(1) of the Constitution in so far as the CJEU imposes, ultra vires, interim measures concerning the organisation and functioning of Polish courts, and that the principles of primacy and direct application (Art. 91(1)–(3) of the Constitution) do not apply to that extent. Hearings were held on 28 April and 14 July 2021.108
court findingK 3/21: Judgment on the compatibility of selected TEU provisions with the Constitution
On the Prime Minister’s application, the Tribunal held that: (1) Art. 1, first and second paragraphs, read with Art. 4(3) TEU is, to the extent described, inconsistent with Arts. 2, 8 and 90(1) of the Constitution; (2) Art. 19(1), second subparagraph, TEU is inconsistent with Arts. 2, 7, 8(1), 90(1), 178(1) and 190(1) of the Constitution in so far as it leads to disregarding the Constitution or applying repealed or unconstitutional provisions; (3) Art. 19(1), second subparagraph, read with Art. 2 TEU is inconsistent with Arts. 2, 8(1), 90(1), 179, 144(3)(17) and 186(1) of the Constitution as regards review of judicial appointments and resolutions of the National Council of the Judiciary. It otherwise discontinued the proceedings.109
court findingK 6/21: Judgment on Art. 6(1), first sentence, ECHR in so far as „court” covers the Tribunal
On the Prosecutor General’s application, the Tribunal held unanimously that Art. 6(1), first sentence, ECHR: (1) in so far as the term „court” covers the Tribunal, is inconsistent with Art. 173 read with Art. 10(2), Art. 175(1) and Art. 8(1) of the Constitution; (2) in so far as it gives the ECtHR power to assess the lawfulness of the election of Tribunal judges, is inconsistent with Art. 194(1) read with Art. 8(1) of the Constitution. It otherwise discontinued the proceedings.110
court findingK 7/21: Judgment on reviewing judiciary laws under Art. 6(1) ECHR (unverified) unverified
Subject according to the title of the Tribunal’s web page: review by national or international courts, under Art. 6(1), first sentence, ECHR, of whether laws on the organisation of the judiciary, court jurisdiction and the National Council of the Judiciary comply with the Constitution and the ECHR. According to the legal-texts note (unverified), the Tribunal held Art. 6 ECHR unconstitutional in so far as it allows such review of the lawfulness of judicial appointments; the date, bench, operative part and publication have not been verified.111
unverifiedK 8/21: Tribunal ruling of 11 December 2023 (K 8/21) on Art. 279 TFEU unverified
According to the European Commission's 2024 report, the case concerned Art. 279 TFEU (CJEU interim measures). The notes give neither the operative part nor the type of ruling.78
finding of a public bodyKp 1/23: Judgment on the Act of 13 January 2023 amending the Supreme Court Act
On the President’s application for preventive review, the Tribunal held that the challenged provisions of the Act of 13 January 2023 amending the Supreme Court Act and certain other acts are inconsistent with Art. 179 read with Art. 144(3)(17), Art. 178, Art. 180(1) and Arts. 184 and 183(1) of the Constitution and are inseparable from the whole Act. It otherwise discontinued the proceedings.112,113,78
court findingTs 9/24: Tribunal interim decision on the National Prosecutor (Ts 9/24)
According to the European Commission's 2024 report, the Tribunal issued an interim decision concerning the National Prosecutor. The notes do not give its content.78
finding of a public bodyU 5/24: Tribunal judgment on the Sejm resolution of 6 March 2024 (U 5/24)
The Sejm resolution of 6 March 2024 on removing the effects of the 2015–2023 constitutional crisis is incompatible with Art. 7 read with Art. 87(1) and with Art. 10 read with Arts. 173 and 190(1) of the Constitution; the remainder was discontinued (including the objection to the procedure of adoption). Delivered unanimously on an application by a group of MPs; read out by Stanisław Piotrowicz.80,114,78
court findingU 4/24: Tribunal judgment on a Sejm inquiry-committee resolution (U 4/24)
According to the European Commission, the Tribunal held the resolution establishing a Sejm inquiry committee unconstitutional (scope too broad, deadline too short).81
court findingK 2/24: Tribunal judgment on dismissals of court presidents (K 2/24)
According to the European Commission, the Tribunal held dismissals of ordinary-court presidents without a binding KRS opinion unconstitutional.81
court findingU 2/24: Tribunal judgment on a second inquiry-committee resolution (U 2/24)
According to the European Commission, the Tribunal held the resolution establishing another Sejm inquiry committee unconstitutional (scope too broad, deadline too short).81
court findingK 2/25: Tribunal judgment on the 2025 budget (K 2/25) — conflicting data unverified
According to a Tribunal letter to the Senate (via money.pl), the judgment of 6 May 2025 concerned Tribunal judges' salaries and was the basis for entering back pay in the 2026 budget; according to the European Commission, a judgment of 10 May 2025 held the cut to the KRS budget unconstitutional. Date and scope remain unverified; the judgment may have covered both parts of the budget act (a hypothesis in the notes).115,81
court findingK 10/24: Tribunal judgment on TFEU energy-policy provisions (K 10/24)
According to the European Commission, the Tribunal held Art. 191(1) read with Art. 192 TFEU unconstitutional in an interpretation limiting Council unanimity on energy sources.81
court findingKp 3/24: Tribunal judgment on the Tribunal acts of 13 September 2024 (Kp 3/24)
In the Tribunal Act, provisions held unconstitutional include Art. 7(2)(10) with Art. 54(1)–(2), Art. 16(2), Art. 20(2)–(3) and Arts. 34(1), 34(4) and 35(2) with 35(3) (insofar as retired judges conduct disciplinary proceedings); in the implementing act, Arts. 10–12 and 15(2) (the concept of a “person not authorised to adjudicate”) and Art. 14(1) (early termination of the President's function). These provisions are inseparable from the acts as a whole; the remainder was discontinued. According to the Tribunal's press release, the President is obliged to refuse to sign both acts.18,84
court findingU 4/25: Tribunal judgment on the Justice Ministry case-allocation regulation (U 4/25)
According to the European Commission's 2026 report, the judgment concerned the Justice Minister's regulation on case allocation. The notes do not give the operative part.116
court findingSK 68/25: Tribunal judgment of 25 February 2026 (SK 68/25)
The notes give neither the subject nor the operative part; the European Commission notes only that the government did not publish it.116
finding of a public bodyK 3/26: Tribunal judgment on the President's duty to receive the oath (K 3/26)
Art. 4(1) of the Act of 30 November 2016 on the Status of Tribunal Judges, understood as obliging the President to receive the oath of a person elected by the Sejm as a Tribunal judge, is unconstitutional; the remainder was discontinued. Delivered by a five-judge bench including two persons elected to seats held filled in K 34/15 (Piskorski, Wyrembak); the government does not treat it as binding (Minister Żurek: “there is no judgment”).67,117,68
court findingK 7/26: Tribunal interim decision halting election of KRS judge-members (K 7/26)
According to the European Commission's 2026 report, on an application by PiS and the KRS the Tribunal ordered the Sejm to refrain, pending judgment, from electing the KRS's judge-members by absolute majority. The Commission notes that the bench included a judge elected in 2017 to an occupied seat, raising an Art. 6 ECHR issue.116
court findingSupreme Court
BSA I-4110-1/20: Supreme Court: resolution of the combined Chambers of 23 January 2020 (BSA I-4110-1/20) unverified
Resolution of the combined Civil, Criminal and Labour and Social Insurance Chambers on the improper composition of courts that include judges appointed on the motion of the KRS as reconstituted by the Act of 8 December 2017; according to the notes it does not directly concern the Tribunal. In case U 2/20 (20 April 2020) the Tribunal held it unconstitutional. The text of the resolution was not retrieved.118,44
unverifiedSupreme Administrative Court
I OSK 2411/17: Supreme Administrative Court: I OSK 2411/17 (complaint about the Tribunal’s inaction)
The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed a cassation appeal against the order of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 21 July 2017 (II SAB/Wa 182/17), which had rejected a complaint about the Tribunal’s inaction concerning the withdrawal of a declaration of resignation from the office of Tribunal judge. Because the grounds of appeal were defective, the court did not examine on the merits whether administrative courts have jurisdiction in such a matter.119
court findingIII OSK 2528/21: Supreme Administrative Court: III OSK 2528/21 on the effects of flawed appointments to the Tribunal
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Chancellery of the Sejm and refused to stay the proceedings pending the Tribunal’s ruling in case K 21/19. The court stated that the Tribunal is “infected with unlawfulness” through the participation of persons elected to occupied seats (naming M. Muszyński, J. Piskorski and J. Wyrembak) and has lost, in a material sense, the capacity to adjudicate properly; it pointed to the consistency of this assessment with the ECtHR judgment in Xero Flor.120
court findingEuropean Court of Human Rights
26374/18 — Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC]: ECtHR [GC]: Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland
The Grand Chamber set out a three-step test for whether a court is “established by law”: (1) whether there was a manifest breach of domestic law; (2) whether the breach concerned a fundamental rule of the procedure for appointing judges; (3) whether the domestic courts effectively reviewed and remedied the breach. The case concerned appointments to Iceland’s Court of Appeal (Landsréttur), where the minister departed from the evaluation committee’s list and parliament voted on the candidates en bloc – it did not concern a constitutional court. The Court later applied this test to the Polish Constitutional Tribunal in Xero Flor.121,122
court finding4907/18 — Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. v. Poland: ECtHR: Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. v. Poland
First Section judgment: violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Constitutional Tribunal bench that on 5 July 2017 discontinued (3:2) the proceedings on the company’s constitutional complaint included Mariusz Muszyński, elected by the Sejm of the 8th term in December 2015 to a seat that the Tribunal itself, in judgment K 34/15, had held to be already filled; the Court found that such a bench was not a “tribunal established by law”. According to a commentary by M. Leloup (Verfassungsblog), the Court applied the three-step test from Ástráðsson, and the judgment does not decide the fate of earlier Tribunal rulings. The judgment became final in August 2021.123,124,122,125
court finding26691/18, 27367/18 — Broda and Bojara v. Poland: ECtHR: Broda and Bojara v. Poland unverified
The notes list this judgment (general knowledge, not verified in HUDOC) among ECtHR rulings on the Polish judiciary without describing its holding.126
unverified43447/19 — Reczkowicz v. Poland: ECtHR: Reczkowicz v. Poland unverified
According to the notes (general knowledge, not verified in HUDOC): the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court is not a “tribunal established by law”. The judgment is cited in the preamble of Council of Ministers resolution no. 162 of 18 December 2024 (M.P. 2024 item 1068).127,86
unverified49868/19, 57511/19 — Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland: ECtHR: Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland unverified
The notes (general knowledge, not verified in HUDOC) state only that the judgment concerned the Supreme Court’s Extraordinary Control Chamber. The judgment is cited in the preamble of Council of Ministers resolution no. 162 of 18 December 2024.128,86
unverified1469/20 — Advance Pharma sp. z o.o. v. Poland: ECtHR: Advance Pharma sp. z o.o. v. Poland unverified
The notes (general knowledge, not verified in HUDOC) state that the judgment concerned the Supreme Court’s Civil Chamber and judges appointed on the motion of the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS) as reconstituted by the Act of 8 December 2017. The judgment is cited in the preamble of Council of Ministers resolution no. 162 of 18 December 2024.129,86
unverified43572/18 — Grzęda v. Poland [GC]: ECtHR [GC]: Grzęda v. Poland unverified
The notes (general knowledge, not verified in HUDOC) state that the Grand Chamber judgment concerned the premature termination of the term of office of a member of the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS). The judgment is cited in the preamble of Council of Ministers resolution no. 162 of 18 December 2024.130,86
unverified50849/21 — Wałęsa v. Poland: ECtHR: Wałęsa v. Poland (pilot judgment) unverified
Pilot judgment. According to the notes it concerned the Supreme Court’s Extraordinary Control Chamber (according to M. Szwed – the KRS); the deadline set under the pilot procedure was extended by one year in November 2024. The date of 23 November 2023 appears in the preamble of Council of Ministers resolution no. 162; the application number comes from general knowledge and was not verified in HUDOC.131,86,132
unverified40119/21 — M.L. v. Poland: ECtHR: M.L. v. Poland
First Section judgment: violation of Article 8 of the Convention. The Tribunal’s judgment K 1/20 of 22 October 2020 (Family Planning Act – abortion) was delivered by a 13-judge bench including M. Muszyński, J. Piskorski and J. Wyrembak (§ 169). Referring to Xero Flor, the Court held that the participation of a judge elected in a flawed procedure may in itself undermine the legal force of a judgment (§ 172), and noted that Piskorski and Wyrembak were elected in 2017 and 2018 to the seats of judges elected in the same flawed procedure (§ 173); judgment K 1/20 did not meet the requirements of the rule of law (§ 174), so the interference was not “prescribed by law” (§ 175). The Court did not examine the objections concerning J. Przyłębska and K. Pawłowicz (§ 174).107
court finding17392/26 — Dziurda and Others v. Poland: ECtHR: interim measure in Dziurda and Others v. Poland
The Court granted an interim measure at the request of four persons elected by the Sejm on 13 March 2026 as judges of the Constitutional Tribunal – Krystian Markiewicz, Marcin Dziurda, Anna Korwin-Piotrowska and Maciej Taborowski (represented by S. Gregorczyk-Abram) – who took the oath in the Sejm on 9 April 2026 and had not been allowed to take up their duties: Poland is to ensure that the competent authorities refrain from hindering them in taking up and exercising their judicial duties. The Government was asked to provide information (according to one source by 20 May 2026, with the full application due by 2 June 2026). The decision is dated 5 May 2026 (European Commission, Polsat News); the Court’s press release is dated 6 May 2026.133,116,134,135,136
court findingCourt of Justice of the EU
C-619/18 — Commission v Poland: CJEU: C-619/18 Commission v Poland (Supreme Court independence) unverified
The notes (general knowledge, not verified) state only that the judgment concerned the independence of the Supreme Court.137
unverifiedC-192/18 — Commission v Poland: CJEU: C-192/18 Commission v Poland (retirement age) unverified
The notes (general knowledge, not verified) state only that the judgment concerned the retirement age of common-court judges.138
unverifiedC-585/18, C-624/18, C-625/18 — A.K.: CJEU: A.K. (C-585/18, C-624/18, C-625/18) unverified
The notes list this judgment (general knowledge, not verified) among CJEU rulings on the Polish judiciary without describing its holding.139
unverifiedC-542/18 RX-II, C-543/18 RX-II — Simpson and HG: CJEU: Simpson and HG (C-542/18 RX-II and C-543/18 RX-II) unverified
Test for irregularities in a judicial appointment: what matters is a breach of a fundamental rule of the appointment procedure “of such a kind and seriousness” that it creates a real risk of lack of independence (para. 75 – according to the notes from general knowledge, not verified on curia.europa.eu).140
court findingC-791/19 — Commission v Poland: CJEU: C-791/19 Commission v Poland (disciplinary regime) unverified
According to the notes (general knowledge, not verified on curia.europa.eu) the case concerned the disciplinary regime for judges; an interim order was issued on 8 April 2020 and the judgment on 15 July 2021. According to an interpretation in the notes, the Tribunal’s judgment P 7/20 concerned the interim measures ordered in this case.141
unverifiedC-487/19 — W.Ż. [GC]: CJEU [GC]: C-487/19 W.Ż. unverified
According to the notes (general knowledge; paragraph numbers not verified): an order issued by a judge appointed in manifest breach of fundamental rules on the appointment of judges must be regarded as non-existent.142
court findingC-132/20 — Getin Noble Bank: CJEU: C-132/20 Getin Noble Bank unverified
The notes list this judgment (general knowledge, not verified) among CJEU rulings on the Polish judiciary without describing its holding.143
unverifiedC-204/21 — Commission v Poland: CJEU: C-204/21 Commission v Poland unverified
According to the notes (general knowledge, not verified on curia.europa.eu): interim orders were issued on 14 July 2021 and 27 October 2021 (the latter by the Vice-President of the Court, C-204/21 R: a periodic penalty of EUR 1 million per day for failure to comply with interim measures concerning the Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Chamber, reduced on 21 April 2023 to EUR 500,000 per day), and the judgment on 5 June 2023. The notes do not describe the judgment’s content. According to an interpretation in the notes, the Tribunal’s judgment P 7/20 was delivered on the day of the first of these orders.144
unverifiedC-718/21 — L.G.: CJEU: C-718/21 L.G.
Judgment cited in the preamble of Council of Ministers resolution no. 162 of 18 December 2024 (M.P. 2024 item 1068) among the rulings underpinning it; the notes do not describe its holding.86
C-326/23: CJEU: C-326/23
Judgment cited in the preamble of Council of Ministers resolution no. 162 of 18 December 2024 (M.P. 2024 item 1068); the notes give neither the case name nor its holding.86
C-448/23 — Commission v Poland: CJEU: C-448/23 Commission v Poland (Tribunal case law and status)
The Commission’s action was upheld in full. Poland failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and the principles of autonomy, primacy, effectiveness and uniform application of EU law and of the binding effect of CJEU judgments – through the Tribunal’s judgments of 14 July 2021 (P 7/20, refusing to recognise the binding force of CJEU interim measures) and 7 October 2021 (K 3/21, excluding judicial review of judicial appointment procedures, including KRS resolutions); Poland cannot invoke constitutional identity against the values of Article 2 TEU. The Court also held that the Tribunal does not meet the requirements of an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law, because in December 2015 three persons were elected to seats already filled in October 2015 (despite judgment K 34/15) and because of irregularities in presenting the candidate for President of the Tribunal in December 2016 (8 of the 14 judges present did not vote; the candidate received 5 votes, including those of 3 persons whose election was disputed). Non-compliance may lead to a further action and financial penalties.102,145,146,147
court findingVenice Commission (non-binding opinions)
CDL-AD(2016)001: Venice Commission: Opinion CDL-AD(2016)001 on the 2015 amendments to the Tribunal Act
The Commission found that the conflict over the Tribunal originated in actions of the Sejm of the previous (7th) term, including the election of judges “in advance” (na zapas), and that the December 2015 amendment endangered the rule of law. It criticised the quorum of 13 of 15 judges and the two-thirds majority requirement as going beyond European standards and risking blocking the Tribunal; it stated that European standards require respect for the Tribunal’s judgments, that the oath is “primarily ceremonial”, and that the judgment of 9 December 2015 (K 35/15), under which a judge’s term begins upon election, must be respected. It called on the majority and the opposition to engage in dialogue and find a solution fully respecting the Tribunal’s judgments. Content as per the Polish translation published by TVN24 (part 1) and press reports; the final conclusions were not read.148,149,150,151
finding of a public bodyCDL-AD(2016)026: Venice Commission: Opinion CDL-AD(2016)026 on the Tribunal Act of 22 July 2016
Opinion adopted at the 108th plenary session (14–15 October 2016) at the request of the Council of Europe Secretary General Thorbjørn Jagland; the Polish government did not send a representative. The Commission found that full respect for the judgment of 3 December 2015 (K 34/15) would have meant including in the Tribunal the three judges elected in October 2015, which did not happen (§ 104), and that since the Tribunal had held that election valid there were no vacancies for the December election (§ 107); it considered publication and implementation of judgment K 47/15 indispensable for resolving the crisis; the mechanism under which the President of the Republic chooses the President of the Tribunal from three candidates gives him excessive leverage given the current composition (§§ 26–31). The validity of a judgment cannot depend on the executive or the legislature (§ 77), and judgments take effect when delivered, irrespective of publication (§ 99).152,153
finding of a public bodyCDL-AD(2020)010: Venice Commission: Opinion CDL-AD(2020)010 (Albania – Constitutional Court appointments)
Opinion on Albania requested by the parliament and the president: an appointment “by presumption” following the president’s inaction should not be regarded as valid while the president contested the interpretation of the procedure; the refusal to take the oath of Arta Vorpsi was justified, and her attempt to take the oath before a notary was defective, because an oath before the president is a constitutional condition for taking office in Albania. The notes cite this opinion as a point of comparison for the oaths taken in the Sejm in 2026, noting that in Albania the election procedure itself remained disputed.154,155,156
finding of a public bodyCDL-AD(2024)035: Venice Commission: Opinion CDL-AD(2024)035 on the draft Tribunal reform
Opinion on the draft constitutional amendment and two draft laws on the Tribunal, adopted at the 141st plenary session (Venice, 6–7 December 2024) at the request of Minister of Justice Adam Bodnar of 3 September 2024. According to Deputy Minister D. Mazur (as reported by TVN24; the opinion text was not read): the Commission strongly opposed ending the terms of all sitting judges; it recommended that the terms of persons elected to occupied seats be ended by statute, while properly elected judges complete their terms; that the Tribunal’s judgments be published, possibly with an annotation; it raised no objection to a four-year cooling-off period for persons in government posts, was “not fully convinced” as regards party membership as such, and considered a constitutional amendment politically unlikely. According to the European Commission (2025 Report), the Venice Commission supported the reform’s aim but recommended milder measures than annulling all rulings delivered with improperly appointed judges.157,158,87,81
finding of a public bodyOpinion No. 1238/2025: Venice Commission: urgent joint opinion no. 1238/2025 (status of judges appointed 2018–2025)
Urgent joint opinion on the draft law on the status of judges appointed or promoted in 2018–2025, issued on 27 February 2026 (according to the Commission’s website); the European Commission’s 2026 Rule of Law Report cites it with the date of 12 March 2026. According to that report, in § 62 the Venice Commission considered that actual selection of the judge-members of the KRS by the judiciary “could be a step in the right direction”; the report also cites § 31, under which appointment on the motion of the KRS as reconstituted by the Act of 8 December 2017 does not in itself prove a judge’s lack of independence (the notes do not make clear which of the 2026 opinions this paragraph belongs to).159,116
finding of a public bodyOpinion No. 1276/2026: Venice Commission: opinion no. 1276/2026 on the President’s bill “on restoring the right to a court” unverified
Opinion on the President’s bill “on restoring the right to a court” (Commission delegation visit 14–15 April 2026). Note 08 dates the Commission’s opinion on this bill to 16 June 2026, while note 06a gives the number 1276/2026 without a date – the link between the number and the date is not expressly confirmed. The notes do not summarise the opinion’s content.159,116
finding of a public bodyCDL-AD(2026)031 (Opinion No. 1294/2026) — Poland – Opinion on the powers of the President in the context of the oath-taking of the judges of the Constitutional Tribunal and of other judicial appointments: Venice Commission: Opinion CDL-AD(2026)031 on the President’s powers regarding judges’ oaths
Opinion requested by the Monitoring Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, adopted at the plenary session in Venice on 9 October 2026 and published on 13 October 2026 (the full text could not be retrieved – content as per press reports). The President’s role in the oath-taking of Tribunal judges is ceremonial, although the oath itself has legal significance; the President should take the oath without delay and may not review the Sejm’s election or assess the qualifications of those elected. If the President refuses or delays, the oath should be made possible without his physical presence, preserving the prescribed form, proper verification and delivery to the President; for other judicial appointments (on the motion of the KRS) safeguards against arbitrariness are needed, including judicial review. Reports differ on whether this is a recommendation for the future (TVN24) or a statement that the judges may already complete the formalities this way and begin adjudicating (OKO.press).160,161,162,163,164,165,166
finding of a public bodyOther
V SA/Wa 459/18: Warsaw Administrative Court: V SA/Wa 459/18 (M. Muszyński on a Tribunal bench)
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw found that Mariusz Muszyński is a “person not authorised” to adjudicate in the Tribunal and reopened proceedings, pointing to his participation in the bench in case SK 37/15 (ruling of 20 December 2017). As reported by Rzeczpospolita on 24 August 2018; whether the judgment became final and what happened next were not verified.167
court findingNotes
- [Constitutional Tribunal] TK-1985-97. trybunal.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] POLITYKA2016. polityka.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] ZALASIŃSKI. inpris.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] U1985-META. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] U1985. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] RADZIEWICZ. inpris.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] TJ1991. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] Nowela kwietniowa Konstytucji PRL z 7.04.1989 (Dz.U. 1989 nr 19 poz. 101) – niezweryfikowane — Ustawa z dnia 7 kwietnia 1989 r. o zmianie Konstytucji PRL, Dz.U. 1989 nr 19 poz. 101 [niezweryfikowane w sesji badawczej]. (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] Regulamin Sejmu RP (uchwała z 30.07.1992, M.P. 1992 nr 26 poz. 185) – niezweryfikowane — Uchwała Sejmu RP z dnia 30 lipca 1992 r. – Regulamin Sejmu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, M.P. 1992 nr 26 poz. 185 [data i numer niezweryfikowane w sesji badawczej]. (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [Constitutional Tribunal] K 34/15, tekst (trybunal.gov.pl). trybunal.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] Prawo.pl, „Kancelaria Sejmu: Sześcioro sędziów TK wybrano skutecznie”, 3.04.2026. prawo.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] Konkret24, „»Krytyczne błędy proceduralne«?…”, 17.03.2026. konkret24.tvn24.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] Mała Konstytucja z 17.10.1992 (Dz.U. 1992 nr 84 poz. 426) – niezweryfikowane — Ustawa Konstytucyjna z dnia 17 października 1992 r. o wzajemnych stosunkach między władzą ustawodawczą i wykonawczą RP oraz o samorządzie terytorialnym, Dz.U. 1992 nr 84 poz. 426 [numer i art. 77 niezweryfikowane w sesji badawczej; ISAP WDU19920840426]. (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] ELI DU/1993/213 – ustawa z 15.05.1993 (m.in. zmiana ustawy o TK) — Ustawa z dnia 15 maja 1993 r. o zmianie ustaw: Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych, o prokuraturze, o SN, o TK, o KRS i o powołaniu sądów apelacyjnych (ELI DU/1993/213). api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] Konstytucja, ISAP. isap.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] Konstytucja, Dz.U. 1997 nr 78 poz. 483 (ELI). eli.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [Constitutional Tribunal] TK-INF1997. trybunal.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [Constitutional Tribunal] TK, „Judgments – Kp 3/24”, trybunal.gov.pl (EN). trybunal.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] U1997. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] ELI DU/1997/643 (metadane). api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] tekst pierwotny. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] tekst ujednolicony. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] ELI. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] tekst. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] ELI DU/2001/1070. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] arslege.pl, art. 130 PUSP, t.j. Dz.U. 2024 poz. 334. arslege.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] API ELI Sejmu, tekst. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] ELI. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] ELI. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] ELI. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] ELI. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] ELI. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] ELI. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] ELI. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] e-prawnik, 11 VII 2013. e-prawnik.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [expert / organisation] HFPC, „Kryzys konstytucyjny w Polsce 2015–2016” (Szuleka, Wolny, Szwed; stan prawny 11 VIII 2016). hfhr.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] Dz.U. 2015 poz. 1064. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] html. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] api term7 93/39. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] api term7 – wyszukiwarka. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] API ELI – wyszukiwanie. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] RMF24. rmf24.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] Dz.U. 2015 poz. 2129 (sentencja). eli.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [encyclopedia] pl.wikipedia, „Kryzys wokół Trybunału Konstytucyjnego w Polsce”. pl.wikipedia.org (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [parliament] Głosowania Sejmu VIII kadencji, 2. posiedzenie (25.11.2015) — Sejm RP, API, głosowania VIII kadencji, posiedzenie nr 2 (25.11.2015). api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] Dz.U. 2015 poz. 1928 – ustawa z 19.11.2015 o zmianie ustawy o TK — Ustawa z dnia 19 listopada 2015 r. o zmianie ustawy o Trybunale Konstytucyjnym, Dz.U. 2015 poz. 1928 (ogłosz. 20.11.2015). eli.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] druk nr 20, VIII kad. (sprawozdanie komisji, 18 XI 2015). api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [Constitutional Tribunal] Komunikat Biura TK z 29.02.2016 w sprawie wyboru sędziów, nowelizacji ustawy oraz OTK — Trybunał Konstytucyjny, Komunikat Biura TK z 29 lutego 2016 r. „w sprawie wyboru sędziów, nowelizacji ustawy oraz OTK”. trybunal.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] Dz.U. 2015 poz. 2147 – wyrok TK K 35/15 — Wyrok TK z 9 grudnia 2015 r., K 35/15, Dz.U. 2015 poz. 2147 (ogłosz. 18.12.2015). eli.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] M.P. 2015 poz. 1131 – uchwała Sejmu z 25.11.2015 (R. Hauser) — Uchwała Sejmu RP z dnia 25 listopada 2015 r. w sprawie stwierdzenia braku mocy prawnej uchwały z 8.10.2015 o wyborze R. Hausera, M.P. 2015 poz. 1131. eli.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] M.P. 2024 poz. 198, eli.gov.pl (PDF). eli.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] M.P. 2015 poz. 1132 – uchwała Sejmu z 25.11.2015 (A. Jakubecki) — Uchwała Sejmu RP z dnia 25 listopada 2015 r. (dot. uchwały z 8.10.2015 o wyborze A. Jakubeckiego), M.P. 2015 poz. 1132. eli.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] M.P. 2015 poz. 1134 – uchwała Sejmu z 25.11.2015 (B. Sitek) — Uchwała Sejmu RP z dnia 25 listopada 2015 r. (dot. uchwały z 8.10.2015 o wyborze B. Sitka), M.P. 2015 poz. 1134. eli.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] M.P. 2015 poz. 1133 – uchwała Sejmu z 25.11.2015 (K. Ślebzak) — Uchwała Sejmu RP z dnia 25 listopada 2015 r. (dot. uchwały z 8.10.2015 o wyborze K. Ślebzaka), M.P. 2015 poz. 1133. eli.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] M.P. 2015 poz. 1135 – uchwała Sejmu z 25.11.2015 (A.J. Sokala) — Uchwała Sejmu RP z dnia 25 listopada 2015 r. (dot. uchwały z 8.10.2015 o wyborze A.J. Sokali), M.P. 2015 poz. 1135. eli.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] Dz.U. 2018 poz. 1077 – wyrok TK K 47/15 — Wyrok TK z 9 marca 2016 r., K 47/15, ogłoszony 5.06.2018 w Dz.U. 2018 poz. 1077. eli.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [encyclopedia] en.wikipedia, „Polish Constitutional Tribunal crisis (2015 – ongoing)” — en.wikipedia, „Polish Constitutional Tribunal crisis (2015 – ongoing)” (źródło trzeciego stopnia). en.wikipedia.org (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] Dz.U. 2016 poz. 1157 – ustawa z 22.07.2016 o TK — Ustawa z dnia 22 lipca 2016 r. o Trybunale Konstytucyjnym, Dz.U. 2016 poz. 1157 (ogłosz. 1.08.2016). eli.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] Dz.U. 2018 poz. 1078 – wyrok TK K 39/16 — Wyrok TK z 11 sierpnia 2016 r., K 39/16, ogłoszony 5.06.2018 w Dz.U. 2018 poz. 1078. eli.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] ELI DU/2016/2074. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] metadane. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] Ustawa z 30.11.2016 (Dz.U. 2016 poz. 2072), tekst ELI/api.sejm.gov.pl. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] API ELI, t.j.. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [parliament] Głosowania Sejmu VIII kadencji, 31. posiedzenie (30.11.2016) — Sejm RP, API, głosowania VIII kadencji, posiedzenie nr 31 – ustawa o organizacji i trybie postępowania przed TK (druk 1052), głosowanie nr 37. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] metadane. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] ELI, Dz.U. 2016 poz. 2073. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] Prawo.pl, 12.05.2026. prawo.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] NfP, 13.05.2026. notesfrompoland.com (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] Dz.U. 2016 poz. 2074 – ustawa z 13.12.2016 – Przepisy wprowadzające (PDF ogłoszenia) — Ustawa z dnia 13 grudnia 2016 r. – Przepisy wprowadzające, Dz.U. 2016 poz. 2074 (ogłosz. 19.12.2016). eli.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [parliament] Głosowania Sejmu VIII kadencji, 32. posiedzenie (13.12.2016) — Sejm RP, API, głosowania VIII kadencji, posiedzenie nr 32 – Przepisy wprowadzające (druk 1115), głosowanie nr 32. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] Wyszukiwarka ELI – M.P. 2016, tytuły z „Trybunału Konstytucyjnego” — API ELI Sejmu, wyszukiwanie aktów M.P. z 2016 r. zawierających w tytule „Trybunału Konstytucyjnego” (m.in. M.P. 2016 poz. 393, 1206, 1229, 1237). api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] Wyszukiwarka ELI – M.P. 2017, tytuły z „Trybunału Konstytucyjnego” — API ELI Sejmu, wyszukiwanie aktów M.P. z 2017 r. zawierających w tytule „Trybunału Konstytucyjnego” (m.in. M.P. 2017 poz. 224, 610, 684, 767, 873). api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] Ustawa z 8.12.2017 o Sądzie Najwyższym (Dz.U. 2018 poz. 5) — Ustawa z dnia 8 grudnia 2017 r. o Sądzie Najwyższym, Dz.U. 2018 poz. 5 [brzmienie art. 10 § 1 nieustalone w sesji badawczej]. (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] Prawo.pl, 30 X 2026. prawo.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] ELI, Dz.U. 2019 poz. 2393. eli.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] Forsal, 2 V 2024. forsal.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] TVN24, 24 VII 2024. tvn24.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [EU institution] KE, 2024 Rule of Law Report, SWD(2024) 821 final, 24 VII 2024, rozdz. PL, s. 10, przyp. 49. data.consilium.europa.eu (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] Sejm RP, API, term10/votings/7. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] e-prawnik.pl, 12 VI 2024. e-prawnik.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [EU institution] KE RoL 2025, SWD(2025) 921 final, 8 VII 2025, s. 1, 4, 6. data.consilium.europa.eu (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] Sejm API, proces nr 253. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] Notes from Poland, 8 X 2024. notesfrompoland.com (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [Constitutional Tribunal] TK, komunikat po rozprawie (EN). trybunal.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] Sejm API, proces nr 254. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] M.P. 2024 poz. 1068, eli.gov.pl (PDF). eli.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] TVN24, 6 XII 2024. tvn24.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] ELI DU/2026/26. api.sejm.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] Prawo.pl, akt M.P. 2026 poz. 299. prawo.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] portalsamorzadowy.pl, 13.03.2026. portalsamorzadowy.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] TVN24, „Spór o Trybunał Konstytucyjny. Sejm podjął uchwałę…”, 13.03.2026. tvn24.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] OKO.press, „Sejm wybrał sześcioro sędziów Trybunału Konstytucyjnego…”, 13.03.2026. oko.press (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] TP2016. tygodnikpowszechny.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] W1993. eli.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [Constitutional Tribunal] Komunikat Biura TK z 29.02.2016 w sprawie wyboru sędziów, nowelizacji ustawy oraz OTK — Biuro Trybunału Konstytucyjnego, „Komunikat w sprawie wyboru sędziów, nowelizacji ustawy oraz OTK”, 29 lutego 2016 r., trybunal.gov.pl (PDF). trybunal.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] Wyrok TK z 3.12.2015, K 34/15, Dz.U. 2015 poz. 2129 — Wyrok Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z dnia 3 grudnia 2015 r., sygn. K 34/15, Dz.U. 2015 poz. 2129 (ogłoszony 16.12.2015). eli.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [Constitutional Tribunal] Komunikat TK (EN) po rozprawie K 34/15 — Trybunał Konstytucyjny, komunikat prasowy po rozprawie w sprawie K 34/15 (wersja angielska), trybunal.gov.pl. trybunal.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] Wyrok TK z 9.12.2015, K 35/15, Dz.U. 2015 poz. 2147 — Wyrok Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z dnia 9 grudnia 2015 r., sygn. K 35/15, Dz.U. 2015 poz. 2147 (ogłoszony 18.12.2015). eli.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] Wyrok TK z 9.03.2016, K 47/15, Dz.U. 2018 poz. 1077 — Rozstrzygnięcie Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z dnia 9 marca 2016 r., sygn. K 47/15, Dz.U. 2018 poz. 1077 (ogłoszone 5.06.2018). eli.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] Wyrok TK z 11.08.2016, K 39/16, Dz.U. 2018 poz. 1078 — Rozstrzygnięcie Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z dnia 11 sierpnia 2016 r., sygn. K 39/16, Dz.U. 2018 poz. 1078 (ogłoszone 5.06.2018). eli.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [EU institution] Zalecenie Komisji Europejskiej z 21.12.2016, C(2016) 8950 final — Komisja Europejska, Zalecenie z dnia 21 grudnia 2016 r. dotyczące praworządności w Polsce, C(2016) 8950 final (kopia na astrid-online.it). www.astrid-online.it (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [CJEU / EU law] TSUE, komunikat prasowy 157/25, C-448/23. curia.europa.eu (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [expert / organisation] HFPC PDF. hfhr.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] Forsal. forsal.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [official] RPO/BRPO, PDF. test-brpo.brpo.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [other] Wzmianka w notatce badawczej o Kpt 1/20 (bez pobranego źródła) — Notatka badawcza 04_lata_2018_2023.md, wiersz 94: „Kpt 1/20 (21.04.2020, postanowienie w sporze kompetencyjnym Sejm/Prezydent – SN)” — badacz zaznacza brak pobranego źródła [NIEZWERYFIKOWANE]. (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [ECtHR] M.L. p. Polsce, nr 40119/21, §§ 15–16, 21, 39, 169. hudoc.echr.coe.int (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [Constitutional Tribunal] TK (en), P 7/20. trybunal.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [Constitutional Tribunal] TK (en), K 3/21. trybunal.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [Constitutional Tribunal] TK (en), K 6/21. trybunal.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [Constitutional Tribunal] TK (en), K 7/21 – tytuł strony. trybunal.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [Constitutional Tribunal] TK, strona angielska, Kp 1/23. trybunal.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [legislation] ELI M.P. 2023/1468. eli.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] OKO.press, 28 V 2024. oko.press (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] money.pl, 12 XII 2025. money.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [EU institution] KE RoL 2026, SWD(2026) 921, s. 9 – za notatką 08. data.consilium.europa.eu (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] Prawo.pl, 13.05.2026. prawo.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [court] SN, uchwała połączonych Izb z 23.01.2020, BSA I-4110-1/20 — Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy), resolution of the combined Civil, Criminal and Labour and Social Insurance Chambers of 23 January 2020, BSA I-4110-1/20 (text not retrieved; sn.pl). (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [court] CBOSA. orzeczenia.nsa.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] Rzeczpospolita, 7 XII 2022. rp.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [ECtHR] 001-206582. hudoc.echr.coe.int (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [expert / organisation] Verfassungsblog, M. Leloup, 10 V 2021. verfassungsblog.de (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [ECtHR] HUDOC, nagłówek wyroku. hudoc.echr.coe.int (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] HUDOC 001-210065 (kopia lagen.nu). ferenda.lagen.nu (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [expert / organisation] HFPC. hfhr.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [ECtHR] ETPC, Broda i Bojara p. Polsce (wg notatek, niezweryfikowane) — ECtHR, Broda and Bojara v. Poland, nos. 26691/18 and 27367/18, 29 June 2021 (not verified in HUDOC). (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [ECtHR] ETPC, Reczkowicz p. Polsce (wg notatek, niezweryfikowane) — ECtHR, Reczkowicz v. Poland, no. 43447/19, 22 July 2021 (details from general knowledge in the notes; not verified in HUDOC). (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [ECtHR] ETPC, Dolińska-Ficek i Ozimek p. Polsce (wg notatek, niezweryfikowane) — ECtHR, Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland, nos. 49868/19 and 57511/19, 8 November 2021 (not verified in HUDOC). (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [ECtHR] ETPC, Advance Pharma sp. z o.o. p. Polsce (wg notatek, niezweryfikowane) — ECtHR, Advance Pharma sp. z o.o. v. Poland, no. 1469/20, 3 February 2022 (not verified in HUDOC). (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [ECtHR] ETPC [WI], Grzęda p. Polsce (wg notatek, niezweryfikowane) — ECtHR [GC], Grzęda v. Poland, no. 43572/18, 15 March 2022 (not verified in HUDOC). (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [ECtHR] ETPC, Wałęsa p. Polsce (wg notatek, niezweryfikowane) — ECtHR, Wałęsa v. Poland, no. 50849/21, 23 November 2023, pilot judgment (application number not verified in HUDOC). (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [expert / organisation] Verfassungsblog, M. Szwed, 20 XII 2024. verfassungsblog.de (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [ECtHR] ECHR, 6.05.2026. echr.coe.int (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] NfP, 6.05.2026. notesfrompoland.com (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] OKO.press. oko.press (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] Polsat News, 11.06.2026. polsatnews.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [CJEU / EU law] TSUE, C-619/18 Komisja p. Polsce (wg notatek, niezweryfikowane) — CJEU, C-619/18 Commission v Poland (independence of the Supreme Court), 24 June 2019 (not verified on curia.europa.eu). (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [CJEU / EU law] TSUE, C-192/18 Komisja p. Polsce (wg notatek, niezweryfikowane) — CJEU, C-192/18 Commission v Poland (retirement age, common courts), 5 November 2019 (not verified on curia.europa.eu). (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [CJEU / EU law] TSUE, C-585/18, C-624/18, C-625/18 A.K. (wg notatek, niezweryfikowane) — CJEU, joined cases C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18 A.K., 19 November 2019 (not verified on curia.europa.eu). (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [CJEU / EU law] TSUE, C-542/18 RX-II i C-543/18 RX-II Simpson i HG (wg notatek, niezweryfikowane) — CJEU, joined cases C-542/18 RX-II and C-543/18 RX-II Simpson and HG, 26 March 2020 (not verified on curia.europa.eu). (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [CJEU / EU law] TSUE, C-791/19 Komisja p. Polsce (wg notatek, niezweryfikowane) — CJEU, C-791/19 Commission v Poland – interim order of 8 April 2020; judgment of 15 July 2021 (not verified on curia.europa.eu). (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [CJEU / EU law] TSUE [WI], C-487/19 W.Ż. (wg notatek, niezweryfikowane) — CJEU [GC], C-487/19 W.Ż., 6 October 2021 (not verified on curia.europa.eu). (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [CJEU / EU law] TSUE, C-132/20 Getin Noble Bank (wg notatek, niezweryfikowane) — CJEU, C-132/20 Getin Noble Bank, 29 March 2022 (not verified on curia.europa.eu). (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [CJEU / EU law] TSUE, C-204/21 Komisja p. Polsce (wg notatek, niezweryfikowane) — CJEU, C-204/21 Commission v Poland – interim orders of 14 July 2021 and 27 October 2021 (C-204/21 R), penalty reduced 21 April 2023; judgment of 5 June 2023 (not verified on curia.europa.eu). (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [CJEU / EU law] TSUE, komunikat prasowy cp250157pl, 18.12.2025. curia.europa.eu (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [CJEU / EU law] EUR-Lex, CELEX 62023CJ0448. eur-lex.europa.eu (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [expert / organisation] W. Sadurski, Verfassungsblog, 20 XII 2025. verfassungsblog.de (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [Council of Europe] CDL-AD(2016)001-e. coe.int (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [Council of Europe] Komisja Wenecka, CDL-AD(2016)001 – polskie tłumaczenie (TVN24, cz. 1) — Venice Commission, opinion CDL-AD(2016)001 on the 2015 amendments to the Constitutional Tribunal Act (adopted 11 March 2016); Polish translation published by TVN24 (part 1, up to approx. para. 107–109). tvn24.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] Demagog. demagog.org.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [encyclopedia] pl.wikipedia „Kryzys wokół TK". pl.m.wikipedia.org (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [Council of Europe] Komisja Wenecka, CDL-AD(2016)026 (metryka coe.int; mirror tłumaczenia na stronie SN Ukrainy) — Venice Commission, opinion CDL-AD(2016)026 on the Act of 22 July 2016 on the Constitutional Tribunal, adopted at the 108th plenary session, 14–15 October 2016; mirror: https://supreme.court.gov.ua/userfiles/CDL_AD_2016_026_2016_10_14.pdf (text cut at para. 105). www.coe.int (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [Constitutional Tribunal] Opinia KW z 14 X 2016, trybunal.gov.pl (PDF). trybunal.gov.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [Council of Europe] CDL-AD(2020)010-e. coe.int (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [Council of Europe] Rada Europy, Biuro w Tiranie, 19 VI 2020. coe.int (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] Exit.al, 19 VI 2020. exit.al (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [Council of Europe] KW, CDL-AD(2024)035. coe.int (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [Council of Europe] KW, event 3713. coe.int (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [Council of Europe] NIEZWERYFIKOWANE: numer sesji plenarnej; nazwiska sprawozdawców; data wniosku PACE – strona KW dla Polski wymienia „13 Mar 2026: request for an opinion” bez szczegółów — [coe.int/venice-commission/poland. coe.int (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [Council of Europe] coe.int – strona dokumentu. coe.int (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [Council of Europe] PDF coe.int. coe.int (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [Council of Europe] rm.coe.int. rm.coe.int (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] TVN24, „Jest opinia Komisji Weneckiej…”. tvn24.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] Interia. wydarzenia.interia.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] OKO.press, 14.10.2026. oko.press (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [press] zero.pl. zero.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)
- [court] WSA w Warszawie, V SA/Wa 459/18 (za: rp.pl, 24.08.2018) — Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw, judgment of 20 June 2018, V SA/Wa 459/18, as reported by Rzeczpospolita on 24 August 2018. www.rp.pl (accessed 31.10.2026)