Glossary and neutral terminology

"coup d'état" (also "an assault on the Tribunal") evaluative term „zamach stanu” (także „zamach na TK”)

A term used by the Tribunal's leadership (B. Święczkowski, B. Sochański), PiS and the President's camp since 2025 for actions of the government, the parliamentary majority and – in October 2026 – A. Korwin-Piotrowska and the judges supporting her; B. Święczkowski had already used it in a notification to prosecutors in February 2025. The related phrase "an assault on the Tribunal" was used by M. Warchoł (PiS) on 13 March 2026 about the election of six judges. It is one side's assessment, not a court finding.^1,2,3

Neutral wording: Only as a quotation with speaker and date; in the site's own voice: "actions that [who] describes as…".

"dual power" evaluative term „dwuwładza”

A media term for the situation at the end of October 2026, when B. Święczkowski (as President of the Tribunal) and A. Korwin-Piotrowska (as a judge who maintains that she deputises for the President under Art. 12(4) of the Organisation Act) put forward competing claims to lead the Tribunal.^4,2

Neutral wording: In the site's own voice: "two competing claims to lead the Tribunal (as of 31 October 2026)".

"farce", "grotesque ceremony", "raptusy", "private fiefdom", "police state", "political set-up" evaluative term „farsa”, „groteskowa ceremonia”, „raptusy”, „prywatny folwark”, „państwo policyjne”, „polityczna ustawka”

Pejorative assessments made by various named participants in the dispute – e.g. Z. Bogucki about the oath in the Sejm on 9 April 2026 ("grotesque farce"), W. Żurek about the Tribunal's judgment of 12 May 2026 ("a political set-up with the doubles taking part") and about the President of the Tribunal's conduct ("private fiefdom", 30 October 2026), and J. Kaczyński on 30 October 2026 ("police state").^5,6,7,8

Neutral wording: Quotation with attribution only (who, role, date).

"judge directing the Tribunal's work" evaluative term „sędzia kierująca pracami TK”

A term used by Anna Korwin-Piotrowska and the judges supporting her for the role she has claimed since 30 October 2026 under Art. 12(4) read with Art. 11(2) of the Organisation Act (the judge with the longest aggregate service). Bogdan Święczkowski, Bartłomiej Sochański and the President's Chancellery deny that she has such a competence; the Tribunal's official account states that she is not a judge.^4,2

Neutral wording: In the site's own voice: "Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, who maintains that she directs the Tribunal's work under Art. 12(4) read with Art. 11(2) of the Act on the Organisation of the Tribunal – a claim rejected by Bogdan Święczkowski, Bartłomiej Sochański and the President's Chancellery".

"judgment" – for rulings delivered by a disputed bench (e.g. K 3/26) evaluative term „wyrok” – o orzeczeniach wydanych w spornym składzie (np. K 3/26)

The dispute extends to calling such rulings judgments at all: the government and some politicians (e.g. W. Żurek: "so there is no judgment") do not treat as binding rulings delivered with the participation of persons elected to seats held filled in K 34/15, while the Tribunal and the President regard them as judgments. Example: the Tribunal's ruling of 12 May 2026 in case K 3/26 (five-judge bench) on Art. 4(1) of the Status Act.^6,9,10

Neutral wording: In the site's own voice: "the Tribunal's judgment of 12 May 2026 (K 3/26), delivered by a five-judge bench including two persons elected to seats held filled in K 34/15; the government does not treat it as binding".

"lawfully elected judges", "real judges" evaluative term „legalnie wybrani sędziowie”, „prawdziwi sędziowie”

Terms used by both sides of the dispute for the judges whose status they recognise – e.g. on 30 October 2026 B. Święczkowski announced that "all the lawfully elected judges" would come to the Tribunal. The status of each person depends on which body is assessing it (the Sejm, the President, the President of the Tribunal, the ECtHR, the CJEU).^2,11,9

Neutral wording: In the site's own voice: "judges elected by the Sejm on [date]" plus who recognises their status.

"lawlessness", "unlawful", "illegal" evaluative term „bezprawie”, „bezprawne”, „nielegalne”

Assessments made by all sides of the dispute – e.g. by the Tribunal's official account about the takeover of its website (30 October 2026), by the Supreme Administrative Court describing the Tribunal as "infected with unlawfulness" (2022), or by the Commissioner for Human Rights about the Minister of Justice's use of Art. 130 of the Law on the System of Common Courts (2021–2022). In its own voice the site reports only court findings, e.g. "the Tribunal held … unconstitutional".^4,12,13

Neutral wording: Quotation with attribution; in the site's own voice only a court finding ("the Tribunal held … unconstitutional").

"neo-judges", "neo-NCJ" evaluative term „neo-sędziowie”, „neo-KRS”

Terms used by critics of the 2017 reform of the National Council of the Judiciary for judges appointed on the motion of the Council as reconstituted by the Act of 8 December 2017 (with judge-members elected by the Sejm since 2018), and for that Council itself. They concern the common courts and the Supreme Court, not the Tribunal, whose judges are elected by the Sejm; the status of such judges was assessed, among others, by the Supreme Court in a resolution of 23 January 2020 and by the Council of Ministers in Resolution No. 162 of 2024.¹⁴

Neutral wording: In the site's own voice: "judges appointed on the motion of the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS) as reconstituted by the Act of 8 December 2017 (judge-members elected by the Sejm since 2018)" – and describe the procedure.

"person not authorised to adjudicate" „osoba nieuprawniona do orzekania”

A notion from the 2024 implementing provisions for the Constitutional Tribunal Act of 13 September 2024, which never entered into force; rulings issued with the participation of such persons were to be "null and without effect". In Kp 3/24 the Tribunal held the provisions using this notion inconsistent with Art. 194(1) and Art. 195(1) read with Art. 10 of the Constitution. Council of Ministers Resolution No. 162 of 2024 uses a similar formula ("unauthorised body"), and the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw, in a judgment of 20 June 2018 (finality not verified), described M. Muszyński as a person not authorised to adjudicate in the Tribunal.^15,16,14

Neutral wording: A term taken from a bill, a government resolution and an administrative court ruling, and rejected by the Tribunal; use it in quotation marks with its source.

"PiS judges", "coalition judges" evaluative term „sędziowie PiS”, „sędziowie koalicji”

Media labels for Tribunal judges based on the majority that elected them. The notes record who nominated candidates (e.g. PiS club deputies in December 2015, the Presidium of the Sejm in October 2015 and March 2026) but do not document party membership of those elected; the Constitution bars Tribunal judges from party membership (Art. 195(3)).^3,17,18

Neutral wording: In the site's own voice: "elected by the 8th-term Sejm on a motion by PiS MPs" (if the notes say so).

"Przyłębska's Tribunal", "Rzepliński's Tribunal", "PiS Tribunal" evaluative term „Trybunał Przyłębskiej”, „Trybunał Rzeplińskiego”, „PiS-owski Trybunał”

Colloquial terms identifying the Tribunal with its president or with a party. Andrzej Rzepliński was President of the Tribunal from 3 December 2010 to 19 December 2016; Julia Przyłębska was acting President from 20 December 2016 and President from 21 December 2016 until 2024.^19,20,21

Neutral wording: In the site's own voice: "the Tribunal during Julia Przyłębska's presidency (2016–2024) / Andrzej Rzepliński's presidency (2010–2016)".

"removed", "suspended", "dismissed" (of B. Święczkowski) evaluative term „odsunięty”, „zawieszony”, „odwołany” (o B. Święczkowskim)

Terms from media headlines describing A. Korwin-Piotrowska's order of 30 October 2026 imposing an "immediate break in official duties" on B. Święczkowski (including as President of the Tribunal) for one month, issued under Art. 130 of the Law on the System of Common Courts. A break in duties is neither a suspension nor a dismissal from office; B. Święczkowski does not recognise the order.^4,22,23

Neutral wording: In the site's own voice: "Bogdan Święczkowski, against whom Anna Korwin-Piotrowska issued an order on 30 October 2026 imposing an 'immediate break in official duties' (Art. 130 of the Law on the System of Common Courts) for one month; he does not recognise the order".

"restoring the rule of law" evaluative term „przywracanie praworządności”

A term used by the government formed after the October 2023 election (among others D. Tusk and W. Żurek) for its actions concerning the Tribunal and the judiciary – such as the Sejm resolution of 6 March 2024 (whose preamble names as its aim bringing the Tribunal's activity into line with Arts. 7 and 194(1) of the Constitution and Art. 6(1) of the Convention), the 2024 Tribunal Acts, Council of Ministers Resolution No. 162 of 2024 and the election of judges on 13 March 2026. The other side of the dispute assesses the same actions differently.^11,14

Neutral wording: In the site's own voice name the concrete act (resolution, motion, order) and its date.

"Sejm oath", "substitute oath", "pseudo-oath", "unsworn judges" evaluative term „ślubowanie sejmowe”, „ślubowanie zastępcze”, „pseudoślubowanie”, „niezaprzysiężeni”

Terms used by both sides of the dispute (each its own) for the oaths taken in the Sejm before a notary rather than before the President: on 9 April 2026 by persons elected on 13 March 2026 (K. Markiewicz, M. Dziurda, M. Taborowski, A. Korwin-Piotrowska; M. Bentkowska and D. Szostek then repeated the oath they had taken at the Presidential Palace on 1 April 2026) and on 14 October 2026 by Maciej Berek. The coalition side derives their effect from Art. 4 of the Status Act read with the President's duty found in K 34/15; the President and the President of the Tribunal do not recognise them.^9,24

Neutral wording: In the site's own voice: "persons elected on 13 March 2026 who took the oath in the Sejm on 9 April 2026, not before the President (and Maciej Berek: elected 4 September, oath in the Sejm on 14 October 2026)".

"stand-in judges", "doubles" evaluative term „sędziowie-dublerzy”, „dublerzy”

A term used by critics of the elections of December 2015, 2017 and 2018 (including the governing coalition formed after the October 2023 election) for the persons elected then to seats that the Tribunal, in judgment K 34/15, held to have already been filled by the 7th-term Sejm on 8 October 2015. A 2018 Batory Foundation report applied it to M. Muszyński, J. Piskorski and J. Wyrembak.^25,11

Neutral wording: In the site's own voice: "persons elected in December 2015, 2017 and 2018 to seats that the Tribunal itself (judgment K 34/15) held to be already filled".

"taking over the court by force" evaluative term „przejęcie TK siłą”, „siłowe przejęcie”

A term used by PiS and right-leaning media for the events of 30–31 October 2026. According to police statements, officers then operated on the Tribunal's outer grounds at A. Korwin-Piotrowska's request and did not enter the building.^26,2

Neutral wording: In the site's own voice: "police operated on the Tribunal's outer grounds at Korwin-Piotrowska's request (according to police statements)".

"usurpation" evaluative term „uzurpacja”, „uzurpuje sobie”

An accusation made by both sides: e.g. minister M. Berek said in April 2026 that the President had "usurped a non-existent competence" regarding the oaths, and on 30 October 2026 B. Święczkowski said that A. Korwin-Piotrowska "is usurping" the direction of the Tribunal.^5,2

Neutral wording: Quotation with speaker and date only.

acting President of the Tribunal p.o. Prezesa TK (sędzia pełniący obowiązki Prezesa)

A one-off function under Arts. 17–18 of the Implementing Provisions of 13 December 2016: until a President of the Tribunal was appointed, the President of the Republic by decision entrusted the President's duties to the judge with the longest service, and the acting President directed the Tribunal's work and assigned cases to judges who had taken the oath before the President of the Republic. By decision of 20 December 2016 (M.P. 2016 item 1229) the duties were entrusted to J. Przyłębska, who was appointed President on 21 December 2016 (M.P. 2016 item 1237). The Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights questioned the constitutionality of the function itself.^27,28,20

admission to adjudication dopuszczenie do orzekania

The actual inclusion of a judge in the Tribunal's work by the President – assignment of cases and an office and participation in benches (Art. 5 of the Status Act); the notes distinguish it from election, the oath and the service relationship. Examples: on 12 January 2016 President A. Rzepliński allowed two of the persons elected on 2 December 2015, and none of the three elected on 8 October 2015, to adjudicate; on 20 December 2016 the acting President brought the three other persons elected in December 2015 into the benches; after 9 April 2026 President B. Święczkowski assigned cases to only two of the six persons elected on 13 March 2026.^{29,30,31,32,33}

applied "accordingly" (cross-references to the Common Courts Law and Supreme Court rules) odpowiednie stosowanie (odesłanie do PUSP i przepisów o SN)

A technique by which provisions of one statute are applied "accordingly" in another context. The Status Act contains three such references: Art. 30 (to the Law on the System of Common Courts and the Code of Criminal Procedure for disciplinary matters not regulated in that chapter), Art. 19 (to the rules on Supreme Court judges for matters not regulated) and Art. 18a (to Arts. 101–103 of that Law – death benefits). The reach of these references, in particular whether they allow Art. 130 of that Law to be used in the Tribunal, is disputed; no legal commentary on the question from before 2026 was found.^29,34,4

case number (K, P, SK, Kp, Kpt, U) sygnatura (K, P, SK, Kp, Kpt, U)

The reference of a case before the Tribunal: letters showing the type of proceedings, a number and the year (e.g. K 34/15, Kp 3/24, Kpt 1/26). The basic prefixes are K, P, SK, Kp, Kpt and U; before 1997 W was also used for resolutions issuing universally binding interpretations of statutes (e.g. W 6/93).^25,16,35

Commissioner for Human Rights (Ombudsman, RPO) Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich (RPO)

The constitutional rights-protection body; since 1 January 1988 (Act of 15 July 1987) it has been able to bring applications to the Tribunal. It was an applicant in, among others, the case ending in resolution W 6/93 and in K 47/15, and a participant in K 34/15; in 2021–2022 it objected to the Minister of Justice's use of Art. 130 of the Law on the System of Common Courts, and in 2024–2026 it systematically withdrew its participation and applications in proceedings before the Tribunal.^{36,37,38,25,13,39}

competence dispute spór kompetencyjny

A dispute between central constitutional organs of the State over which of them is competent to act; it is settled by the Tribunal (Art. 189 of the Constitution; cases marked Kpt). In 2026 the President started dispute Kpt 1/26 concerning the oaths taken in the Sejm on 9 April 2026; in March 2026 Ordo Iuris had recommended this route to the President as one option.^18,40,41

consent to criminal prosecution zgoda na pociągnięcie do odpowiedzialności karnej

A resolution of the General Assembly of Judges required before a judge can be prosecuted (Arts. 20–23 of the Status Act): the application – in public prosecution cases filed by the Prosecutor General – is addressed to the President of the Tribunal, and consent requires an absolute majority of the judges taking part, within one month, with a two-thirds quorum (Art. 8(1) of the Organisation Act); the judge concerned may give explanations and does not vote. In October 2025 the Assembly refused consent to prosecute President B. Święczkowski; on 30 October 2026 Prosecutor General W. Żurek sent A. Korwin-Piotrowska five further applications (four concerning Święczkowski and one concerning B. Sochański).^29,42,43,44

consolidated text tekst jednolity (t.j.)

An officially published text of a statute incorporating its later amendments. For the 2016 Tribunal Acts these are Dz.U. 2018 item 1422 (Status Act) and Dz.U. 2019 item 2393 (Organisation Act); for the 1985 Act Dz.U. 1991 No. 109 item 470, and for the 2015 Act Dz.U. 2016 item 293. A consolidated text may renumber provisions: Art. 6(4) of the 1985 Act became Art. 7(4) in the 1991 consolidated text.^29,45,46,47

Constitutional Tribunal (the Tribunal) Trybunał Konstytucyjny (TK)

Poland's constitutional court, separate from the Supreme Court. Under the 1997 Constitution it reviews the conformity of statutes and other acts with the Constitution, decides constitutional complaints and matters concerning political parties, and settles competence disputes (Arts. 188–189); it has 15 judges elected by the Sejm (Art. 194(1)). Created by the amendment of 26 March 1982 to the PRL Constitution, it has operated since 1 January 1986.^18,48,36

Council of State Rada Państwa

A collective body of the Polish People's Republic which, under the 1952 Constitution, oversaw the conformity of law with the Constitution (from 1976 a duty to "watch over" it). The amendment of 26 March 1982 transferred this competence to the Tribunal; under the 1985 Act the Council of State was one of the bodies entitled to apply to the Tribunal. The notes indicate, without verification, that in 1989 the Tribunal also took over from it the power to issue universally binding interpretations of statutes.^49,48,50

Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) Trybunał Sprawiedliwości UE (TSUE)

The European Union's court in Luxembourg. In Grand Chamber judgment C-448/23 Commission v. Poland (18 December 2025) it held that Poland had failed to fulfil its obligations in connection with the Tribunal's judgments P 7/20 and K 3/21 and that the Tribunal does not meet the requirements of an independent and impartial tribunal established by law – because of the election in December 2015 of three persons to seats filled in October 2015 and irregularities in selecting the candidate for President in December 2016.^51,52

disciplinary liability of the Tribunal's judges odpowiedzialność dyscyplinarna sędziów TK

A Tribunal judge is answerable before the Tribunal for breaching the law, conduct unbecoming the office, breach of the Code of Ethics or other unethical conduct that may undermine trust (Art. 24 of the Status Act). Cases are decided by disciplinary courts made up of Tribunal judges – three at first instance and five at second instance, drawn by lot by the President (Art. 25); the penalties are a warning, a reprimand, a 10–20% salary reduction for up to two years and removal from office (Art. 29). Matters not regulated in that chapter are governed accordingly by the Law on the System of Common Courts and the Code of Criminal Procedure (Art. 30); the Act does not provide for suspending a judge.²⁹

disciplinary officer; preliminary (explanatory) proceedings rzecznik dyscyplinarny; postępowanie wyjaśniające

The Tribunal's disciplinary officer, drawn by lot by the President of the Tribunal, conducts the preliminary inquiry, hears the judge, presents charges and files a motion with the first-instance disciplinary court; a refusal to open proceedings may be appealed within seven days (Art. 27 of the Status Act). In late September 2026 President B. Święczkowski opened proceedings (described as disciplinary or explanatory) against judges M. Bentkowska, D. Szostek and S. Patyra over their refusal to adjudicate.^29,40,53

dissenting opinion zdanie odrębne

A written statement by a judge who disagrees with the ruling or its reasoning. The Tribunal decides by majority; an outvoted judge may file a dissenting opinion, and the whole bench signs the ruling (Art. 106 of the Organisation Act). Examples: the dissents of J. Stelina, W. Sych and A. Zielonacki in Kp 3/24, and of R. Wojciechowski and J. Wyrembak in the judgment of 12 May 2026.^54,16,9

election (of a judge) by the Sejm wybór sędziego przez Sejm

The only constitutional way of filling a seat on the Tribunal: the Sejm elects judges individually for nine years (Art. 194(1) of the Constitution). Since 1997 candidates are nominated by the Presidium of the Sejm or at least 50 deputies, and election requires an absolute majority with at least half of the statutory number of deputies present; deadlines and procedure are set by statute and the Standing Orders of the Sejm (Art. 30). The election takes the form of a Sejm resolution published in Monitor Polski; in the cases checked (2015, 2026) the resolution did not say whose seat the person was elected to.^18,55,56,57

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka (ETPC)

The Council of Europe court in Strasbourg that rules on breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights; the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of its judgments. In matters concerning the Tribunal it delivered, among others, the judgments Xero Flor v. Poland (2021) and M.L. v. Poland (2023) and an interim measure in Dziurda and Others v. Poland (2026).^12,58,11

expiry of a judge's mandate wygaśnięcie mandatu

A Tribunal judge's mandate expires on death, renunciation, a final conviction for an intentional offence or a final disciplinary ruling removing the judge from office (Art. 18 of the Status Act). Death is recorded by an order of the President of the Tribunal, the other cases by a resolution of the General Assembly; the President notifies the Marshal of the Sejm. Under the 1985 Act the Sejm dismissed a member and, on death, declared the mandate expired (Art. 14).^29,50

five-judge / three-judge / single-judge bench skład pięcioosobowy / trzyosobowy / jednoosobowy

Five judges hear, among other things, review of statutes and ratified treaties; three judges other acts, some complaints and appeals; and one judge a refusal to proceed with a case (Art. 37(1)(2)–(4) of the Organisation Act). The President assigns benches in alphabetical order, taking into account the type, number and order of receipt of cases; departures are allowed only when appointing the rapporteur and only in justified cases (Art. 38).⁴⁵

full bench pełny skład

The bench required for the most important cases – among others competence disputes, party cases, preventive review of statutes and particularly complex cases (Art. 37(1)(1) of the Organisation Act; the full list was not verified). Today a full bench means "at least eleven judges" (Art. 37(2)). Earlier thresholds differed: at least nine judges in 2015, and under the Act of 22 December 2015 at least 13, with judgments by a two-thirds majority. According to Prawo.pl the Tribunal held Art. 37(2) unconstitutional in July 2025 – unverified.^45,38,10

General Assembly of Judges of the Tribunal Zgromadzenie Ogólne Sędziów TK (ZO)

The body made up of the Tribunal's judges. It presents candidates for President and Vice-President to the President of the Republic, adopts the Rules of Procedure and the draft budget, declares the expiry of a mandate and consents to a judge's criminal prosecution (Art. 6(2) of the Organisation Act). The President of the Tribunal convenes and chairs it; resolutions require an absolute majority with at least two-thirds of the judges present (10 of 15), and the President must be present – except for the resolution on candidates for President (Arts. 7–8). The quorum requirement did not apply to the December 2016 procedure (Arts. 21–22 of the Implementing Provisions).^45,27

immediate break in official duties (Art. 130 of the Law on the System of Common Courts) natychmiastowa przerwa w czynnościach służbowych (art. 130 PUSP)

A temporary measure under Art. 130 of the Law on the System of Common Courts: "the president of a court or the Minister of Justice" may order a break in a judge's duties until a disciplinary court decides, for at most one month, where the judge was detained in the act of an intentional offence or where the nature of the act requires "the judge's immediate removal from duties"; for a court president only the Minister may do so. The person issuing the order must notify the disciplinary court within three days, and that court must without delay either suspend the judge or set the order aside. The break is neither a suspension nor a dismissal; the Status Act does not provide for such a measure, and its use against the President of the Tribunal by A. Korwin-Piotrowska's order of 30 October 2026 – based on a chain of cross-references (Art. 19 of the Status Act → Art. 10 § 1 of the Supreme Court Act → Art. 130 § 1 of the Law) – is disputed, with no case law settling it.^22,4,29

Neutral wording: Do not write in the site's own voice that B. Święczkowski was "removed", "suspended" or "dismissed": describe the order of 30 October 2026 and state that its addressee does not recognise it.

immunity of a judge of the Tribunal immunitet sędziego TK

Without the Tribunal's prior consent a judge may not be held criminally liable or deprived of liberty, and may not be detained or arrested except when caught in the act where detention is necessary – the President of the Tribunal must be notified at once and may order immediate release (Art. 196 of the Constitution). Details are set out in Arts. 20–23 of the Status Act (consent of the General Assembly), which also apply to retired judges (Art. 37). The wording of Art. 196 is given in the notes from general knowledge, confirmed in substance by Prawo.pl.^18,4,29

independence of the Tribunal's judges niezawisłość sędziów TK

In office, the Tribunal's judges are independent and subject only to the Constitution (Art. 195(1) of the Constitution; Art. 6 of the Status Act). While in office they may not belong to a political party or trade union or engage in public activity incompatible with the independence of courts and judges (Art. 195(3); Art. 10 of the Status Act). Courts and tribunals are a power separate from and independent of the other powers (Art. 173).^18,29

individual election wybór indywidualny

The requirement of Art. 194(1) of the Constitution that each Tribunal judge be elected individually. Between 1997 and 2010 the Sejm also adopted collective resolutions electing several judges, voting "on a list"; in 2017 the Prosecutor General challenged the joint vote on three judges elected in 2010 (case K 1/17). In 2026 the Sejm voted separately on each of the eight candidacies.^59,60,61,62

interim measure (Rule 39 of the Rules of Court) środek tymczasowy (reguła 39)

An urgent order of the ECtHR issued during proceedings under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court. In Dziurda and Others v. Poland (No. 17392/26) the ECtHR called on the authorities to refrain from preventing four persons elected on 13 March 2026 (K. Markiewicz, M. Dziurda, A. Korwin-Piotrowska, M. Taborowski) from taking up and performing their duties; sources give the date as 5 or 6 May 2026. Failure to implement the measure was one of the reasons given in A. Korwin-Piotrowska's order of 30 October 2026.^58,9,4

Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw, Dz.U.) Dziennik Ustaw (Dz.U.)

The official journal in which the Constitution and statutes are published and – under Art. 190(2) of the Constitution – the Tribunal's rulings on acts published there. Items are cited as "Dz.U. year item number" (older ones also with an issue number, e.g. Dz.U. 1997 No. 102 item 643). Since 2024 the Tribunal's judgments have not been published in it (e.g. U 4/25 of 12 November 2025, SK 68/25 of 25 February 2026).^18,63

judge of the Constitutional Tribunal (before 1997: member of the Tribunal) sędzia TK (do 1997 r.: członek TK)

A person elected individually by the Sejm for nine years from among persons distinguished by their legal knowledge; re-election is not allowed (Art. 194(1) of the Constitution). Before 1997 the Tribunal had 12 members elected for eight years. When an elected person becomes a judge in the full sense – on election or on taking the oath – is disputed (see oath, service relationship).^18,50,29

judge rapporteur sędzia sprawozdawca

The member of the bench assigned to report on the case. When appointing the rapporteur the President may depart from the alphabetical order, but only in justified cases (Art. 38(2) of the Organisation Act). In 2026 the way the rapporteur was appointed in case Kpt 1/26 was one of the objections of the judges who declined to sit in it.^45,10

judge with the longest aggregate service sędzia o najdłuższym łącznym stażu

The judge referred to in Art. 11(2) of the Organisation Act: until a President is appointed, this judge directs the Tribunal's work and convenes the General Assembly to select candidates. Service is counted together across work as a Tribunal judge, judicial trainee, assessor, judge of a common court and in legal posts in central administration. Under Art. 12(4) this judge deputises for the President where authorising the Vice-President or another judge "is not possible"; A. Korwin-Piotrowska relied on these provisions in her orders of 30 October 2026, a claim rejected by B. Święczkowski, B. Sochański and the President's Chancellery.^45,4

judgment / decision wyrok / postanowienie

By a judgment the Tribunal decides the merits, for example finding a provision consistent or inconsistent with the Constitution; by a decision it, among other things, discontinues proceedings – as in U 8/15 (7 January 2016), where it held that Sejm resolutions electing judges are not normative acts. Written reasons are prepared within a month of the ruling being announced (Art. 108(3) of the Organisation Act).^38,54

K – abstract review on application K – kontrola abstrakcyjna na wniosek

Cases brought by an entitled applicant (e.g. a group of deputies, the President, the Commissioner for Human Rights, the First President of the Supreme Court, the National Council of the Judiciary) for review of a normative act's conformity with the Constitution, independently of any specific court case. Examples: K 34/15 (application by PO deputies), K 47/15 (applications by, among others, the First President of the Supreme Court, groups of deputies, the Commissioner for Human Rights and the National Council of the Judiciary) and K 3/26 (application by PiS deputies).^38,25,9

Kp – preventive review before signature Kp – kontrola prewencyjna

Cases brought by the President of the Republic, who refers a statute to the Tribunal before signing it (Art. 122(3) of the Constitution); they are heard by the full bench (Art. 37(1)(1) of the Organisation Act). Example: Kp 3/24 – the Constitutional Tribunal Acts of 13 September 2024, judgment of 29 July 2025.^18,16,45

Kpt – competence dispute Kpt – spór kompetencyjny

Cases concerning competence disputes between central constitutional organs of the State (Art. 189 of the Constitution), heard by the full bench. Example: Kpt 1/26 – a dispute brought by President K. Nawrocki, who maintains that the acts performed in the Sejm on 9 April 2026 had no legal effect as regards taking up the office of Tribunal judge; the status of the case as of 31 October 2026 was not established.^18,40,24

Marshal of the Sejm Marszałek Sejmu

The presiding officer of the Sejm. Under the 1985 Act members of the Tribunal took the oath before the Marshal (Art. 13(6)), and the Marshal decided service matters concerning the President of the Tribunal (Art. 16(2)). Today the President of the Tribunal notifies the Marshal when a judge's mandate expires (Art. 18 of the Status Act), the Marshal sets nomination deadlines (Art. 30 of the Standing Orders), and the President of the Republic consults the Marshal before signing a statute without provisions found unconstitutional in preventive review (Art. 122(4) of the Constitution).^50,29,56,18

Monitor Polski (official gazette, M.P.) Monitor Polski (M.P.)

The official gazette that publishes, among other things, Sejm resolutions (including those electing Tribunal judges), decisions of the President (e.g. appointing the President of the Tribunal), Council of Ministers resolutions and the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure (Art. 15(2) of the Organisation Act), as well as the Tribunal's rulings on acts not published in the Journal of Laws (Art. 190(2) of the Constitution).^{45,18,11,14,20}

National Council of the Judiciary (KRS) Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (KRS)

The constitutional body on whose motion the President appoints judges of the courts (Art. 179 of the Constitution); it plays no part in electing the Tribunal's judges, who are elected by the Sejm. The KRS was one of the applicants in case K 47/15. The status of the KRS as reconstituted by the Act of 8 December 2017 is disputed: Council of Ministers Resolution No. 162 of 2024 states that it is not "a body guaranteeing independence".^18,38,14

oath "before the President" (wobec) ślubowanie „wobec Prezydenta”

A statutory requirement (Art. 4(1) of the Status Act) whose meaning is disputed. According to judgment K 34/15 (3 December 2015) the President must take the oath of a judge elected by the Sejm "without delay" and does not assess the validity of the election; according to the Tribunal's judgment of 12 May 2026, Art. 4(1) is unconstitutional insofar as it imposes such a duty on the President, and "before the President" means taking the oath in his physical presence. The Venice Commission (opinion of October 2026) and eight Tribunal judges (statement of about 19 October 2026) take the view that the President must accept the oath without delay and that, if he refuses, the judges may complete the formality without his physical participation.^{29,25,9,64,24}

Neutral wording: The meaning of "wobec" is itself disputed; attribute each reading to the body that holds it.

oath formula rota ślubowania

The wording of the oath set by statute. Under the 1985 Act the formula began "I solemnly swear in performing the duties entrusted to me as a member of the Constitutional Tribunal…" and referred to the PRL Constitution and the socialist system; after amendment (1991 consolidated text) it contained the undertaking "to safeguard the Constitution and the statutes". The 1997 Act provided for the undertaking "to serve the Nation faithfully, to safeguard the Constitution", optionally followed by "So help me God", and the 2015 Act a formula beginning "I solemnly swear…". The full formula in Art. 4 of the 2016 Status Act and how that provision is divided into paragraphs were not verified.^{50,46,55,65,29}

oath; taking the oath ślubowanie

A solemn undertaking given by an elected judge. The Constitution does not mention an oath for Tribunal judges; the duty comes from statute: since 1997 the oath is taken before the President of the Republic (Art. 5(5) of the 1997 Act, Art. 21 of the 2015 Act, Art. 4 of the 2016 Status Act), and before that it was taken before the Marshal of the Sejm (1985 Act). Refusing to take the oath is equivalent to renouncing the office, and the service relationship arises upon the oath (Arts. 4–5 of the Status Act). Whether the oath is constitutive or merely a guarantee or declaration, and whether the President must take it, are disputed (K 34/15 of 2015 versus the Tribunal's judgment of 12 May 2026).^{29,55,50,25,9}

P – question of law referred by a court P – pytanie prawne sądu

Cases started by a question of law from a court that doubts the constitutionality of a provision it must apply in a pending case; the 1985 Act already allowed courts to refer such questions. During the transitional period under Art. 239 of the Constitution (until 17 October 1999) the Sejm could not reject rulings issued in response to questions of law.^18,50,35

President of the Tribunal Prezes TK

Directs the Tribunal's work and represents it externally (Art. 12(1) of the Organisation Act). Appointed by the President of the Republic from candidates presented by the General Assembly of Judges (Art. 194(2) of the Constitution; a prerogative under Art. 144(3)(21)) for six years, without reappointment; the function ends earlier when the judge's term ends, the mandate expires or the holder resigns (Art. 10). Under the 1985 Act the Sejm elected the members of the Tribunal, "including the president and vice-president".^45,18,16,48

Neutral wording: In English always "President of the Tribunal", to distinguish the office from the President of the Republic.

presidential prerogative (Art. 144(3)(21)) prerogatywa Prezydenta (art. 144 ust. 3 pkt 21)

An official act of the President that does not require the Prime Minister's countersignature. The list of prerogatives includes "appointing the President and Vice-President of the Constitutional Tribunal" (Art. 144(3)(21); the point number is confirmed by the operative parts of K 34/15 and Kp 3/24) but does not mention taking the oath of Tribunal judges – which those who argue that the President has no power to assess the election of judges rely on. In December 2016 judge M. Zubik raised the question of countersignature of the President's decision entrusting the duties of President of the Tribunal.^16,25,18

Presidium of the Sejm Prezydium Sejmu

The Marshal and Deputy Marshals of the Sejm. Since 1997 it is, alongside a group of at least 50 deputies, the only body entitled to nominate candidates for Tribunal judge. It formally nominated, among others, the five candidates elected on 8 October 2015 (put forward politically by the PO, PSL and SLD clubs) and the six elected on 13 March 2026.^55,38,17,3

preventive (pre-signature) review kontrola prewencyjna

Review of a statute by the Tribunal before it is signed, at the President's request (Art. 122(3) of the Constitution). The President refuses to sign a statute found unconstitutional; where only particular provisions are affected and the Tribunal has not found them inseparable from the whole statute, the President, after consulting the Marshal of the Sejm, signs the statute without them or returns it to the Sejm (Art. 122(4)). In Kp 3/24 the Tribunal found the provisions inseparable from the whole of the 2024 Tribunal Acts, which in its view obliged the President to refuse to sign them.^18,16,66

principle of legality (Art. 7 of the Constitution) zasada legalizmu (art. 7 Konstytucji)

The principle that "public authorities act on the basis and within the limits of the law". Both sides of the dispute rely on it: the Tribunal in Kp 3/24 and U 5/24 (against the 2024 statutes and resolution), and the Sejm and the Council of Ministers to justify not publishing the Tribunal's rulings (Resolution No. 162: Art. 7 also covers the publication of acts). Read with Art. 126(2)–(3) (the President acts within the scope set by the Constitution and statutes), it was the basis on which the Tribunal in Kp 3/24 struck down the provisions on the deadline and procedure for the oath.^18,16,14,67

Prosecutor General; Minister of Justice and Prosecutor General Prokurator Generalny; Minister Sprawiedliwości – Prokurator Generalny

Since 2016 one person holds both offices. The Prosecutor General takes part in many proceedings before the Tribunal and, in public prosecution cases, applies to the President of the Tribunal for consent to prosecute a Tribunal judge (Arts. 21–22 of the Status Act). The Minister of Justice is named in Art. 130 of the Law on the System of Common Courts as able to order a break in the duties of a common-court judge; in 2021–2022 the Minister used that provision against judges who questioned the status of other judges.^42,22,13

publication of the Tribunal's rulings ogłoszenie (publikacja) orzeczeń TK

Rulings in matters under Art. 188 "must be published without delay" in the official journal in which the act was published – usually the Journal of Laws, or Monitor Polski if the act was not published (Art. 190(2) of the Constitution); an unconstitutional provision loses force on publication unless the Tribunal sets another date – up to 18 months for a statute and 12 months for another act (Art. 190(3)). Publication was withheld in 2016 (K 47/15 and K 39/16 were published only on 5 June 2018) and from March 2024, when the government stopped publishing the Tribunal's rulings; Council of Ministers Resolution No. 162 of 18 December 2024 became the formal basis. The Tribunal maintains that non-publication does not release anyone from the duty to apply its rulings, and the Venice Commission recommended publication, if necessary with an annotation.^{18,68,69,70,14,71,72}

rejection of a Tribunal ruling by the Sejm odrzucenie orzeczenia TK przez Sejm

A mechanism under which the Tribunal's rulings finding statutes unconstitutional were not final but 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 1985 Act = Art. 7(4) of the 1991 consolidated text; a six-month deadline). In resolution W 6/93 of 20 October 1993 the Tribunal held that a ruling not considered within six months retained its force and the statute lost force on publication of a notice by the President of the Tribunal. The 1997 Constitution kept the mechanism for a two-year transitional period (Art. 239; Art. 89 of the 1997 Act), except for rulings on questions of law.^{50,46,37,35,55}

renunciation of office zrzeczenie się stanowiska

One of the grounds on which a Tribunal judge's mandate expires (Art. 18 of the Status Act). By statute, refusing the oath "is equivalent to renouncing the office" (Art. 5(6) of the 1997 Act, Art. 21(2) of the 2015 Act, Art. 4 of the Status Act); in K 34/15 the Prosecutor General argued that this is the only statutory legal effect of the oath. Breach of the business-activity bans (Art. 11 of the Status Act) is also treated as renunciation.^29,55,25

resolution of the Sejm uchwała Sejmu

An act of the Sejm other than a statute. The Sejm elects Tribunal judges by resolution (published in Monitor Polski), but it also adopts resolutions expressing a position, e.g. those of 25 November 2015, 6 March 2024 and March 2026. In decision U 8/15 the Tribunal held that election resolutions are not normative acts and treated the 2015 resolutions "on the lack of legal force" as an expression of a political position without legal effect; the European Commission described the resolution of 6 March 2024 as not legally binding.^38,70,11

Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal Regulamin TK

An internal act 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)); the current Rules were published in M.P. 2017 item 767. Their provisions on deputising for the President were not verified.^73,74,45

seat on the Tribunal miejsce (stanowisko) sędziego w TK

The Constitution provides for 15 judicial posts on the Tribunal (12 until 17 October 1997). According to judgment K 34/15, the Sejm of a given term elects judges to seats falling vacant during that term and may not elect "in reserve" for seats falling vacant in the next term. Election resolutions do not state whose seat a person is elected to, so the site's assignment of persons to seats and the seat numbering are a research convention without legal effect.^18,25,57

service relationship stosunek służbowy

The employment-like legal relationship between a judge and the Tribunal which, under Art. 5 of the Status Act, arises upon taking the oath; after the oath the judge "reports" to the Tribunal, and the President of the Tribunal assigns cases and provides working conditions. In 2026 President B. Święczkowski took the view that he could not establish a service relationship with the persons who took the oath in the Sejm on 9 April 2026 until the President of the Republic confirmed that it had been an act "before the President"; the other side regards the oath in the Sejm, with a notarial deed served on the President, as effective and equivalent to establishing the service relationship.^29,9,24

SK – constitutional complaint SK – skarga konstytucyjna

Cases based on a constitutional complaint in which a person challenges the provision on which their own case was decided (Art. 188 of the Constitution). Complaints have been available since 17 October 1997; the amendment of 9 June 2000 set a three-month time limit from service of the final decision and required representation by an advocate or legal adviser.^18,75,76

Standing Orders of the Sejm Regulamin Sejmu

The Sejm resolution governing its procedure, including details of the election of Tribunal judges: 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"). The way that period was shortened on 13 March 2026 – in the absence of objections, without a formal vote – is disputed between the Chancellery of the Sejm and critics of the election.^56,77,41

suspension from duties zawieszenie w czynnościach (w urzędowaniu)

A measure ordered by a disciplinary court – for common-court judges, among other cases, when disciplinary proceedings are opened and, mandatorily, after a resolution allowing criminal prosecution (Art. 129 of the Law on the System of Common Courts; wording not verified). The Constitution requires that a judge may be suspended from office only by a court ruling and in cases specified by statute (Art. 180(2), in the subchapter on the courts). Neither the Constitution nor the Status Act contains a provision on suspending a Tribunal judge.^18,29

term of office (nine years) kadencja sędziego TK

Since 1997 nine years without re-election (Art. 194(1) of the Constitution); under the 1985 Act eight years, with half of the bench elected every four years. Neither the Constitution nor the 1997 and 2015 Acts fixed when a term begins; the amendment of 19 November 2015 linked it to the oath (Art. 21(1a)), but in K 35/15 the Tribunal held that provision unconstitutional, finding that the term runs from election and that making it depend on the oath indirectly involves the President in the election. According to the Tribunal, the terms of the persons elected to the seats vacated on 6 November 2015 began on 7 November 2015.^{18,50,78,79,80,38}

tribunal established by law sąd ustanowiony ustawą

The requirement of Art. 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (and, in EU law, of Art. 19(1) TEU) that a case be heard by a court composed in accordance with the law. In Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland (2020) the ECtHR set out a three-step test (a manifest breach of domestic law, concerning a fundamental rule of the appointment procedure, not effectively reviewed and remedied by domestic courts), and in Xero Flor v. Poland (7 May 2021) it found that a Tribunal bench including a person elected in December 2015 to an already filled seat breached that right; in C-448/23 (18 December 2025) the CJEU held that the Tribunal does not meet the requirements of an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. In K 6/21 (24 November 2021; operative part not verified) the Tribunal held Art. 6(1) of the Convention unconstitutional insofar as it covers the Tribunal and allows the ECtHR to assess the lawfulness of the election of its judges.^12,81,51,52

U – review of a resolution or regulation U – kontrola uchwał i rozporządzeń

Cases concerning acts below statute level, including resolutions and regulations. Examples: U 8/15 (Sejm resolutions of 25 November and 2 December 2015 – proceedings discontinued on 7 January 2016 because election resolutions are not normative acts), U 5/24 (Sejm resolution of 6 March 2024 – held unconstitutional on 28 May 2024) and U 4/25 (a Minister of Justice regulation on case allocation).^38,67,63

universally binding force and finality of rulings moc powszechnie obowiązująca i ostateczność orzeczeń

Since 17 October 1997 the Tribunal's rulings "are universally binding and final" (Art. 190(1) of the Constitution) and are adopted by a majority of votes (Art. 190(5)). The Tribunal relied on Art. 190(1) in, among others, Kp 3/24 (Art. 10 of the 2024 implementing provisions) and U 5/24 (Sejm resolution of 6 March 2024). The Sejm resolution of 6 March 2024 and Council of Ministers Resolution No. 162 of 18 December 2024, by contrast, take the position that the Tribunal in its current composition cannot perform its tasks under Arts. 188–189 of the Constitution.^18,16,67,14

universally binding interpretation of statutes powszechnie obowiązująca wykładnia ustaw

The Tribunal's power in 1989–1997 to issue, by a resolution of the full bench, interpretations of statutes binding on everyone (Art. 13 of the 1991 consolidated text of the Tribunal Act; applications could be made by, among others, the President, the Prime Minister, the First President of the Supreme Court, the President of the Supreme Administrative Court, the Commissioner for Human Rights and the Prosecutor General). The notes indicate that the Tribunal took this power over from the Council of State (link not verified). The 1997 Constitution abolished it: pending proceedings were discontinued and interpretative resolutions lost their universally binding force (Art. 239); in 1997 the Tribunal adopted five more such resolutions.^46,75

Venice Commission (European Commission for Democracy through Law, Council of Europe) Komisja Wenecka

The Council of Europe's advisory body on constitutional law; its opinions are not binding. On the Tribunal it issued, among others, opinions CDL-AD(2016)001 and CDL-AD(2016)026 (recommending implementation of the Tribunal's 2015 judgments, including allowing the three judges elected in October 2015 to take up office), an opinion in December 2024 (the Tribunal's judgments should be published, if necessary with an annotation) and an opinion adopted on 9–10 October 2026 (the President must accept without delay the oath of judges elected by the Sejm and may not review their election).^64,72,31

Vice-President of the Tribunal Wiceprezes TK

Appointed in the same way as the President – by the President of the Republic from General Assembly candidates, for six years (Art. 10(5) of the Organisation Act); the term ends on appointment as President. Deputises for the President only within the scope the President sets "by written authorisation" (Art. 12(2)). When the presidency is vacant, the judge with the longest aggregate service directs the Tribunal's work (Art. 11(2)), not the Vice-President automatically.⁴⁵