How Poland's Constitutional Tribunal works

Level of detail: Basics4 min read

What the Tribunal does

Poland's Constitutional Tribunal (Trybunał Konstytucyjny, TK) is a court that checks whether laws comply with the Constitution. It reviews rules, not divorces or thefts. The Constitution is Poland's highest law, which lower rules may not contradict.

Think of the Tribunal as a quality inspector in the law factory. It does not write the rules, but it checks that they match the master instructions.

The Tribunal has worked since 1986, today under the 1997 Constitution and two Acts of 2016.

How a case reaches the Tribunal

• An application from certain bodies, for example a group of MPs or the Commissioner for Human Rights (the official who defends citizens' rights).
• A question of law from a court unsure whether a provision is constitutional.
• A constitutional complaint, possible since 17 October 1997, once a final decision has been given in your own case.
• Review before signature. The head of state (the President of the Republic) can send a statute to the Tribunal before signing it, and refuses to sign if it is found unconstitutional.
• A competence dispute between central state bodies over which of them holds a power.

What a judgment does

The Tribunal's rulings are final and bind everyone. They must be published without delay, usually in the Journal of Laws. A provision found unconstitutional loses force on publication or on a later date the Tribunal sets.

Since 2024 the government of Donald Tusk has not published the Tribunal's judgments. It relies on a March 2024 Sejm resolution, a December 2024 cabinet resolution and European court rulings, some about the Tribunal's composition. In May 2024 the Tribunal held the Sejm resolution unconstitutional. It maintains that its judgments must be applied anyway. In 2016 a dispute arose on another basis: the government of Beata Szydło did not publish K 47/15, saying the Tribunal had ignored a new statute's procedure; it appeared in 2018.

The judges

The Tribunal has 15 judges. The Sejm, the main chamber of Poland's parliament, elects each one separately for nine years. Nobody can be elected twice. Candidates must be distinguished by legal knowledge and qualify as Supreme Court or Supreme Administrative Court judges. Tribunal judges may not belong to a party or a trade union.

Under the 1997 and 2015 Acts, candidates were nominated by the Presidium of the Sejm (its Marshal and Deputy Marshals) or by at least 50 members. Election needed an absolute majority (more than half of the votes cast).

The oath and the start of work

After election comes the oath, a solemn promise. The Constitution does not mention it; a statute requires it. Since 1997 the oath has been taken "before the President" (the head of state); earlier, before the Marshal of the Sejm. Refusing it means giving up the post.

The oath creates a "service relationship", similar to employment. Then the Tribunal's President assigns cases. Election, oath, service relationship and assignment of cases are separate steps.

In 2015 the Tribunal ruled (K 34/15) that the head of state must take an elected judge's oath without delay. It upheld the basis for three judges elected in October 2015, but not for two elected in advance to seats falling vacant in the next Sejm's term. In 2026 President Karol Nawrocki swore in two of six persons elected in March; the other four took the oath only in the Sejm. In May 2026 the Tribunal ruled (K 3/26) that he has no such duty; two of the five bench members had been elected to seats the Tribunal had held filled in 2015, and the government does not treat the ruling as binding. Whether that oath has legal effect is disputed.

Leadership and protection

The head of state appoints the Tribunal's President and Vice-President from candidates of the General Assembly, a meeting of the Tribunal's judges. The Tribunal's President serves six years. If no deputy can be authorised, the longest-serving judge, counting service in other courts, stands in. Anna Korwin-Piotrowska maintains that on this basis she now directs the Tribunal's work; the Tribunal's President Bogdan Święczkowski, Vice-President Bartłomiej Sochański and the head of state's Chancellery reject this. Key cases go to a full bench of at least 11 judges. A Tribunal judge cannot be prosecuted without the Tribunal's consent.

Why it matters

A judgment can strip force from a rule that binds everyone. So the publication dispute matters to anyone the rule affects.

Level of detail: For followers11 min read

Which Act applied when

The Constitution of 2 April 1997 regulates the Tribunal in Arts. 188–197 and leaves its organisation and procedure to statute (Art. 197).^1,2 Each event is assessed under the Act then in force.^3,4

The 2016 Acts remain in force as of 31 October 2026.^11,10 A new Tribunal Act of 13 September 2024 never took effect: President Andrzej Duda referred it to the Tribunal, and in Kp 3/24 of 29 July 2025 – delivered by 11 persons, two of them elected to seats held filled in K 34/15 – the Tribunal held its key provisions unconstitutional and inseparable from the whole Act.^14,15

What the Tribunal decides and who can bring a case

Art. 188 of the Constitution gives the Tribunal review of the hierarchical conformity of legal acts, constitutional complaints and party matters; Art. 189 gives it competence disputes between central constitutional bodies.¹ The letter in a case number shows the route:

• K – application, e.g. K 34/15 (filed in November 2015 by Civic Platform, PO, MPs) and K 3/26 (filed in February 2026 by Law and Justice, PiS, MPs).^8,16 The Commissioner for Human Rights (RPO) withdrew applications and participation in 2024–2026.¹⁷
• P – question of law from a court, e.g. P 7/20.¹⁸
• SK – constitutional complaint (since 17 October 1997), after a final decision in the complainant's case.^2,19
• Kp – preventive review (Art. 122(3)–(4)): the President refers a statute before signature and refuses to sign if it is found unconstitutional.^1,14
• Kpt – competence dispute, e.g. Kpt 1/26, opened in April 2026 by President Karol Nawrocki against the Sejm over judges' oaths.^20,21
• U – other normative acts, e.g. U 5/24 on the Sejm resolution.^22,23

What a ruling does, and the publication dispute

Under Art. 190 of the Constitution, rulings are universally binding and final and must be published without delay, usually in the Journal of Laws.¹

In March 2016 the government of Beata Szydło did not publish K 47/15, arguing that the Tribunal had bypassed the procedure of the Act of 22 December 2015; in October 2016 the Venice Commission (the Council of Europe's constitutional advisory body) found its publication indispensable to resolving the crisis, and it was published on 5 June 2018 (Dz.U. 2018 poz. 1077).^24,25,26,27 According to the European Commission, from 13 December 2023 the government of Donald Tusk added an explanatory note when the bench included persons elected to seats that the Tribunal had held already filled in K 34/15, and after a Sejm resolution of 6 March 2024 it stopped publishing all Tribunal rulings.²⁸ In U 5/24 of 28 May 2024 the Tribunal unanimously held that resolution inconsistent with, among others, Arts. 7 and 190(1) of the Constitution; according to OKO.press it also stated that non-publication does not release anyone from applying its rulings.^22,23 Council of Ministers Resolution No. 162 of 18 December 2024, which invokes the Sejm resolution and judgments of the ECtHR (including Xero Flor and M.L.) and the EU Court of Justice, says documents of an "unauthorised body" may not be published (§ 1(5)); the Commission's 2026 report notes continued non-publication.^29,30

The Venice Commission, according to Deputy Justice Minister Dariusz Mazur (December 2024), said judgments should be published, possibly annotated.³¹

Electing the judges

Under Art. 194(1) of the Constitution the Sejm elects 15 judges individually for nine years from among persons distinguished by legal knowledge; re-election is barred.^1,32

Neither the Constitution nor the 1997 and 2015 Acts fixed when a term begins or a deadline for the oath.^5,6,33 On 13 March 2026 the Sejm elected six persons nominated by the Presidium, and on 4 September Maciej Berek, nominated by Civic Coalition (KO) MPs.^34,35,36

Oath, service relationship and admission to adjudication

The Constitution does not mention a Tribunal judge's oath; it is a statutory requirement which, the Tribunal held in K 3/26 of 12 May 2026, the legislature could introduce.^1,16 Under Art. 4 of the Status Act the oath is taken before the President and refusal equals resignation; under Art. 5 the service relationship arises with the oath, after which the President of the Tribunal assigns cases.¹²

The oath dispute has arisen twice. In 2015 President Andrzej Duda swore in none of the five persons elected on 8 October by the 7th-term Sejm, and in the night of 2–3 December, before the K 34/15 hearing, he swore in four persons elected on 2 December by the 8th-term Sejm.⁸ In K 34/15 (3 December) the Tribunal held Art. 137 of the 2015 Act constitutional for the three seats vacated on 6 November and unconstitutional for the two vacated on 2 and 8 December (in its reasoning, a Sejm cannot elect judges "in advance" to seats falling vacant in the next term), and held Art. 21(1) of that Act constitutional only if read as obliging the President to take the oath "without delay".^37,38,8 In 2026 President Karol Nawrocki swore in two of the six persons elected on 13 March but not the other four; on 9 April all six took the oath in the Sejm, in his absence, with the formula "before the President" (four for the first time, Dariusz Szostek and Magdalena Bentkowska again), and Maciej Berek did so on 14 October.^39,40,41 Tribunal President Bogdan Święczkowski took the position that he could not start a service relationship with the four until the head of state confirmed their oath.⁴² In May 2026, in Dziurda and Others v. Poland, the ECtHR applied an interim measure: the authorities are not to obstruct the four applicants from taking up and performing their duties; the Tribunal's spokesperson said the ECtHR lacks competence in the matter.^43,44

In K 3/26 – delivered by a five-judge bench including two persons elected to seats held filled in K 34/15, and not treated as binding by the government – the Tribunal held Art. 4(1) of the Status Act unconstitutional insofar as read as obliging the President to take the oath.^16,45 In opinion CDL-AD(2026)031 the Venice Commission, according to TVN24, described the President's role at the oath as ceremonial, though the oath has legal significance; it said the President should take the oath without delay and cannot review the election, and recommended that, if he refuses or delays, the oath be possible without his physical presence.^46,47 The President's spokesman Rafał Leśkiewicz said the opinion has no legal force.⁴⁸

President and Vice-President of the Tribunal

The head of state appoints the Tribunal's President and Vice-President from candidates of the General Assembly of Judges (Art. 194(2) of the Constitution).^1,38 The six-year term ends earlier with the judge's term, expiry of the mandate or resignation; reappointment is barred, likewise for the Vice-President (Art. 10 of the Organisation Act).¹³ The Assembly presents candidates within a month of a vacancy; each needs at least 5 votes, and only judges sworn in before the President vote (Art. 11).¹³ The Assembly, convened by Julia Przyłębska, who after resigning as President directed the Tribunal's work as the longest-serving judge, presented Bartłomiej Sochański and Bogdan Święczkowski on 6 December 2024; President Duda appointed Święczkowski on 9 December 2024, and Sochański has been Vice-President since February 2025.^49,50,51,52

The Vice-President stands in within a written authorisation; in special situations the President may authorise another judge; if no authorisation is possible, the judge with the longest total service stands in (Art. 12(2)–(4)), and that judge directs the Tribunal until a new President is appointed (Art. 11(2)).¹³

In 2022–2023 six judges, including Bogdan Święczkowski, considered that Julia Przyłębska's six-year term as President had ended in December 2022; she maintained it lasted until her judicial term ended.^53,54 On 30 October 2026 Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, who maintains that she directs the Tribunal's work under Art. 12(4) read with Art. 11(2) of the Organisation Act, issued an order against Bogdan Święczkowski imposing an "immediate break in official duties" (Art. 130 of the Law on the System of Common Courts) for one month. According to a communiqué on the Tribunal's website, she cited, among other things, his failure to convene the General Assembly, which blocked the Tribunal's draft 2027 budget, and his preventing five persons elected in 2026 from adjudicating.^55,56 Święczkowski does not recognise the order, and the Tribunal's profile on X said he remains President; on 20 October he stated that a judge's excused absence had prevented convening the Assembly. No court has ruled on the dispute.^57,58,55

Benches and the full bench

Under Art. 37 of the Organisation Act the full bench – at least 11 judges – hears competence disputes and preventive review, among others; statutes are as a rule reviewed by five judges. From December 2025 six of 15 seats were vacant, so no full bench could sit.^13,14,59

Zbigniew Bogucki, Head of the President's Chancellery, said on 1 April 2026 that two vacancies had arisen during President Nawrocki's term and that 11 judges is the statutory full-bench minimum; as to the other four persons he spoke of "serious, deliberate procedural failings" by the Sejm.^60,39,61 President Nawrocki said on 17 April that he had never refused to take their oath.⁴² Five persons elected in 2026 who took the oath only in the Sejm stated on 23 October 2026 that Kpt 1/26 cannot be decided without at least 11 judges.⁶²

The General Assembly

The General Assembly, convened by the President of the Tribunal, presents candidates for President and Vice-President, adopts among other things the draft budget and consents to prosecution of a judge; resolutions require at least 10 judges present (Arts. 6–8 of the Organisation Act, Art. 18 of the Status Act).^13,12 Anna Korwin-Piotrowska convened the Assembly for 3 November 2026 on the draft 2027 budget.⁶³

Immunity

Under Art. 196 of the Constitution and Arts. 20–23 of the Status Act a Tribunal judge may be prosecuted or deprived of liberty only with the General Assembly's prior consent, given by absolute majority within a month of an application to the Tribunal's President.^1,55,12

On 30 September 2025 Minister of Justice and Prosecutor General Waldemar Żurek applied for consent to prosecute Bogdan Święczkowski; in October 2025 the Assembly, chaired by Vice-President Sochański, refused, and Święczkowski did not vote.^64,65 On 30 October 2026 Żurek filed five more applications, addressed according to his post to Anna Korwin-Piotrowska: four concerning Święczkowski and one Sochański. No court has ruled on the allegations.^63,66

Discipline and the common-courts law

Disciplinary cases go to disciplinary courts made up of Tribunal judges (Arts. 24–29 of the Status Act).¹² Unregulated matters fall, as appropriate, under the common-courts law (Art. 30) and the rules for Supreme Court judges (Art. 19).¹²

Art. 130 of that Law lets "the president of a court or the Minister of Justice" order an immediate break in a judge's duties for up to one month; for a court president, only the Minister. The disciplinary court, notified within three days, suspends the judge or quashes the order, so a break is not a suspension.⁶⁷ In late September 2026, according to the press, the President of the Tribunal opened disciplinary proceedings against Magdalena Bentkowska, Dariusz Szostek and Sławomir Patyra; sources give different grounds. No disciplinary court has ruled.^21,68

Who claims what

Level of detail: Expert32 min read

Scope and caveats

This text applies the law in force on the date of each event; the legal position is stated as of 31 October 2026.^1,2 Constitutional provisions are paraphrased because the official legal database (ISAP) was unavailable to the researchers; the Constitution has been amended only in Art. 55 (2006) and Art. 99 (2009), so the articles discussed keep their 1997 wording.³ The texts of the two Acts of 30 November 2016 – on the Status of Judges of the Constitutional Tribunal (the Status Act) and on the Organisation of the Constitutional Tribunal and the Procedure before It (the Organisation Act) – come from the Sejm's ELI interface, in which the consolidated text of the Organisation Act breaks off at Art. 109.^4,5

1. The Constitution: powers, effects of rulings, composition

• Art. 188 – hierarchical review of norms, constitutional complaints, party matters; Art. 189 – competence disputes between central constitutional state bodies (the basis of case Kpt 1/26).³
• Art. 122(3) – the President's referral before signing a statute; (4) – refusal to sign a statute found unconstitutional, and, where only some provisions are unconstitutional and the Tribunal has not found them inseparable from the whole statute, signature without them or return to the Sejm after consulting the Marshal of the Sejm (its presiding officer). In Kp 3/24 the Tribunal found such inseparability.^3,6
• Art. 190(1) – universally binding force and finality; (2) – publication without delay in the official journal in which the act appeared (usually the Journal of Laws, Dziennik Ustaw), or in Monitor Polski, the official gazette, if it had not been published; (3) – loss of force on publication or within up to 18 months (statute) or 12 months (other act); (4) – ground for reopening proceedings; (5) – majority vote.³
• Organisation Act, Art. 106 – rulings are adopted by majority, a judge may file a dissenting opinion and the whole bench signs; Art. 108(3) – written reasons within a month of announcement.⁷
• Art. 194(1) – 15 judges elected individually by the Sejm (the lower, main chamber of parliament) for nine years from among persons distinguished by legal knowledge, no re-election; (2) – the Tribunal's President and Vice-President are appointed by the President of the Republic (the head of state) from candidates of the General Assembly of the Tribunal's judges.^3,8,9
• Art. 144(3)(21) – appointing the Tribunal's President and Vice-President is a prerogative exempt from countersignature; the point number is confirmed by the operative parts of K 34/15 and Kp 3/24.^10,6
• Art. 195(1) – Tribunal judges are independent and subject only to the Constitution; (2) – working conditions and pay befitting the office; (3) – no membership of a party or trade union and no public activity incompatible with judicial independence.³
• Art. 196 – immunity (the Tribunal's consent; arrest only when caught in the act; notification of the President of the Tribunal, who may order release); Art. 197 – organisation and procedure are set by statute.^3,11
• Art. 239(1) – for two years after the Constitution entered into force, rulings that statutes passed earlier were unconstitutional were not final and the Sejm could reject them by a two-thirds majority with at least half of the MPs present, except rulings given on questions of law; (3) – the Tribunal's resolutions giving universally binding interpretations of statutes lost binding force.^9,3

2. Legislation 1985–2016: versions of the rules

The Act of 29 April 1985 (Dz.U. 1985 nr 22 poz. 98). Published on 14 May 1985, it applied from 1 January 1986 until 17 October 1997, when Art. 92 of the 1997 Act repealed it.^12,13 It provided for 12 members (a president, a vice-president and 10 judges), elected and dismissed by the Sejm for 8 years, with half the bench elected every 4 years (Art. 13(1)–(4)), and for an oath before the Marshal of the Sejm (Art. 13(6); after amendment, Art. 15(6) of the 1991 consolidated text).^14,15 In November 1985 the Sejm elected 12 members, including the president and vice-president, as the weekly Polityka reported.¹⁶ The Sejm could reject a ruling that a statute was unconstitutional by at least a two-thirds majority (Art. 6(4) of the original text, Art. 7(4) of the 1991 consolidated text).^14,15

The Act of 1 August 1997 (Dz.U. 1997 nr 102 poz. 643). Published on 1 September 1997, it applied from 17 October 1997 (Art. 5(1) and Art. 88(2)–(3) from 9 September 1997) until 30 August 2015.¹⁷ Art. 5 provided: (1) 15 judges; (2) election by the Sejm for 9 years; (3) the qualifications of a Supreme Court or Supreme Administrative Court judge; (4) candidates nominated by at least 50 MPs or the Presidium of the Sejm (the Marshal and Deputy Marshals), with the resolution adopted by an absolute majority in the presence of at least half of the statutory number of MPs; (5) oath before the President; (6) refusal to take the oath is equivalent to resigning the post.^18,19,13 Immunity required the consent of the General Assembly by a two-thirds majority (Art. 7), disciplinary penalties included removal from the post (Art. 10), and the President of the Republic appointed the Tribunal's President and Vice-President from two candidates for each post, selected by secret ballot no later than 3 months before the incumbent's term ended (Art. 15).^18,19 Under Art. 88 the existing members became judges and completed terms counted as 8 years from their election, and on 5 November 1997 the Sejm elected three judges (Teresa Dębowska-Romanowska, Marek Safjan, Mirosław Zdyb), bringing the bench to 15.^13,9 The Act was amended 10 times, only once by a separate amending Act (9 June 2000: retirement status, the complaint deadline, mandatory legal representation); the rules for electing judges were never changed.^17,20

The Act of 25 June 2015 (Dz.U. 2015 poz. 1064). Published on 30 July 2015, it applied from 30 August 2015 and was repealed by the Act of 22 July 2016.^22,23 It provided, among other things: Art. 12 – the President of the Republic appoints the Tribunal's President from two candidates of the Assembly; Art. 17 – 15 judges elected individually by absolute majority for 9 years; Art. 18 – candidate age 40–67; Art. 19 – nominations by the Presidium of the Sejm or at least 50 MPs, no later than 3 months before the term ends; Art. 21 – oath before the President, refusal equivalent to resignation; Art. 43 – the Supreme Court Act applies accordingly, including to the service relationship.^24,25 The full bench then required at least 9 judges; because one could not be assembled after three judges were excluded, case K 34/15 was heard by five.²⁶

In K 34/15 (3 December 2015, Dz.U. 2015 poz. 2129) the Tribunal held, among other things, that Art. 21(1) complied with Art. 194(1) of the Constitution only if read as obliging the President to take the oath "without delay" (point 5); that Art. 12(1) and (5) complied with Art. 144(3)(21) (point 3); that the immunity rules in Art. 24(1)–(2) complied with Art. 196 (point 6); and that transitional Art. 137 complied with the Constitution as regards judges whose terms ended on 6 November 2015 but not as regards terms ending on 2 and 8 December 2015 (point 8).^10,27 The amendment of 19 November 2015 (Dz.U. 2015 poz. 1928) was reviewed in judgment K 35/15 of 9 December 2015 (Dz.U. 2015 poz. 2147).^28,29

The amendment of 22 December 2015 (Dz.U. 2015 poz. 2217) introduced, among other things, a full bench of at least 13 judges with judgments adopted by a two-thirds majority, Assembly resolutions by a two-thirds majority with at least 13 judges present, disciplinary motions by the President of the Republic or the Minister of Justice, and removal of a judge by the Sejm on a motion of the Assembly.²⁶ In K 47/15 (9 March 2016, a 12-judge bench presided over by Andrzej Rzepliński) the Tribunal held the whole Act incompatible with Arts. 2, 7, 112 and 119(1) of the Constitution; the judgment was published on 5 June 2018 (Dz.U. 2018 poz. 1077).³⁰

The Act of 22 July 2016 (Dz.U. 2016 poz. 1157) was repealed by Art. 3 of the Implementing Provisions Act of 13 December 2016, except for Art. 18(1), (4) and (5), which applied until 1 January 2018.³¹

The Acts of 30 November 2016. The Status Act (Dz.U. 2016 poz. 2073; sole consolidated text Dz.U. 2018 poz. 1422) was published on 19 December 2016 and entered into force on 3 January 2017, with Arts. 1–6, 16, 17, 19, 31 and 35 in force from 20 December 2016.^1,31 The Organisation Act (Dz.U. 2016 poz. 2072; consolidated text Dz.U. 2019 poz. 2393) entered into force on 3 January 2017, with Arts. 1–6 from 20 December 2016 and Arts. 16–32 from 1 January 2018.² The Implementing Provisions Act (Dz.U. 2016 poz. 2074) provided that pending cases continue under the new Act and acts already performed remain valid (Art. 9); that the President of the Republic entrusts the duties of the Tribunal's President by decision (Art. 17); that the acting President assigns cases to judges who took the oath before the President of the Republic (Art. 18(2)); that Tribunal decisions "taken in breach" of the 2015 and 2016 Acts are published on the acting President's order (Art. 19); and that the Art. 8 quorum of the Organisation Act does not apply to the Art. 21 procedure (Art. 22).³¹ By decisions of the President of the Republic of 20 December 2016 (M.P. 2016 poz. 1229) and 21 December 2016 (M.P. 2016 poz. 1237), Julia Przyłębska was first entrusted with the duties of President of the Tribunal and then appointed to the post.^32,33

On 20 December 2016, as acting President, Julia Przyłębska admitted to adjudication Henryk Cioch, Lech Morawski and Mariusz Muszyński (persons elected in December 2015 to seats held filled in K 34/15) and convened the General Assembly.³⁴

In its Grand Chamber judgment C-448/23 of 18 December 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) cited the circumstances of the selection of the candidate for President in December 2016 as one reason for finding that the Tribunal does not meet the requirements of an independent and impartial tribunal established by law; the other was the election in December 2015 of three persons to seats already filled in October 2015.^35,36 According to the CJEU press release, when the candidate was selected 8 of the 14 judges present refused to vote, and she received 5 votes, including those of 3 persons whose election was contested.³⁵ The Tribunal replied, according to the Commission's 2026 report, that the CJEU has no jurisdiction in the matter and that the judgment does not affect its functioning.³⁷

Changes after 2016 and the 2024 Acts. The Status Act was amended in 2017 (Dz.U. 2017 poz. 1947) and by the Act of 18 December 2025 (Dz.U. 2026 poz. 26), effective for the Status Act from 1 January 2027; the Organisation Act only by Dz.U. 2019 poz. 125.^1,38,2 The Acts of 13 September 2024 provided, among other things, a 14-day deadline for the President to take the oath and an oath before a notary if he failed to act.³⁹ According to the European Commission, the bills also provided, among other things, for annulling rulings given by benches including persons elected to seats held filled in K 34/15, ending the term of the Tribunal's President, annulling the election of three such persons and electing judges by a three-fifths majority.⁴⁰ In Kp 3/24 (29 July 2025; full bench of 11; presiding judge Bogdan Święczkowski, judge rapporteur Bartłomiej Sochański; dissenting opinions by Jakub Stelina, Wojciech Sych and Andrzej Zielonacki) the Tribunal held, among other things, Art. 20(2)–(3) of the Act (oath deadline and procedure) incompatible with Art. 7 read with Art. 126(2)–(3) of the Constitution, the provisions using the term "person not authorised to adjudicate" incompatible with Arts. 194(1) and 195(1) read with Art. 10, and Art. 14(1) of the implementing act incompatible with, among others, Art. 194(2) read with Art. 144(3)(21); it found these provisions inseparable from the Acts as a whole.^6,41 In Resolution No. 162 the Council of Ministers took the position, based on the Sejm resolution of 6 March 2024, that the Tribunal in its current composition cannot perform its tasks under Arts. 188–189 of the Constitution.⁴² In U 5/24 of 28 May 2024 the Tribunal unanimously held the Sejm resolution of 6 March 2024 inconsistent with, among others, Arts. 7 and 190(1) of the Constitution; the government has not published that judgment, like other Tribunal rulings since March 2024.^43,44

3. Electing a judge: rules and practice

Today the qualification requirement comes from Art. 194(1) of the Constitution and Art. 3 of the Status Act (legal knowledge and the requirements for a Supreme Court or Supreme Administrative Court judge).^3,5 The research materials did not verify the exact wording of Art. 3, in particular whether it includes a ten-year experience requirement ⚠ unverified.⁵ The President's Chancellery questions whether ten years of Maciej Berek's practice as a legal adviser were verified; President Nawrocki spoke on 14 October 2026 of "serious questions" to the Chancellery of the Sejm on the matter.^45,46

Nomination deadlines are set by the Marshal of the Sejm under Art. 30(3)(5) of the Standing Orders of the Sejm; in 2026 the deadline for the six seats expired on 11 March.^47,48 The 7-day period in Art. 30(4) ("unless the Sejm decides otherwise") was shortened on 13 March 2026 when the Marshal proposed shortening it and, hearing no objection, deemed it adopted; Konkret24 points to a precedent of 21 November 2019.⁴⁹ On 4 September 2026 Berek, nominated by a group of KO MPs and given a positive opinion by the Justice and Human Rights Committee, received 226 votes with 437 voting.⁴⁵

Elections in both periods were contested. On 8 October 2015 the 7th-term Sejm elected five persons under Art. 137 of the Act of 25 June 2015, proposed in committee by PO MP Robert Kropiwnicki; the Act was passed on 27 May 2015 with PiS voting against.^50,51 On 25 November the 8th-term Sejm (2015–2019) adopted five resolutions declaring those elections to have "no legal force" (M.P. 2015 poz. 1131–1135), and on 2 December elected five persons (M.P. 2015 poz. 1182–1186). Courts ruled on 2015: in K 34/15 the Tribunal held the basis for electing three persons on 8 October constitutional and for two unconstitutional; the ECtHR (Xero Flor) and the CJEU (C-448/23) found that electing three persons on 2 December 2015 to seats filled in October breached fundamental rules, and in K 6/21 the Tribunal held that the ECtHR may not review the election of Tribunal judges.^{52,35,53,54,55,10} In 2026 the Head of the President's Chancellery, Zbigniew Bogucki, spoke of "serious, deliberate procedural shortcomings" by the Sejm, while the Chancellery of the Sejm maintains that all six persons were validly elected and that the President has no power to assess the election.^56,57 No court has ruled on the elections of 13 March 2026.⁵⁶

4. Oath, service relationship, admission to adjudication

Art. 4 of the Status Act: a judge elected by the Sejm takes the oath before the President, and refusal is equivalent to resigning the post. According to the text cited by the judges elected in 2026, the formula begins "I solemnly swear, in performing the duties entrusted to me as a judge of the Constitutional Tribunal…" and may end with "So help me God".^5,58 The research materials did not verify how Art. 4 is divided into paragraphs; judgment K 3/26 concerned paragraph 1.^5,59 Art. 5: the service relationship arises when the oath is taken; the judge reports to the Tribunal, and the President of the Tribunal assigns cases.⁵

In the K 34/15 proceedings the Prosecutor General argued that the oath does not complete the election and that only a refusal has legal effect; the Commissioner for Human Rights (the constitutional ombudsman, RPO) argued that failure to take the oath does not end the mandate and that a successor's term runs from the day after the predecessor's term ends.¹⁰ The Sejm resolutions of 25 November 2015 called on the President not to swear in the persons named in them.⁵⁴

In K 3/26 (12 May 2026; application by a group of PiS MPs represented by Marcin Warchoł; presiding judge Bogdan Święczkowski, judge rapporteur Bartłomiej Sochański, with Justyn Piskorski, Rafał Wojciechowski and Jarosław Wyrembak) the Tribunal held that Art. 4(1) of the Status Act, read as obliging the President to take the oath from a person elected by the Sejm, is unconstitutional, and discontinued the remainder of the proceedings. According to Prawo.pl's report, the Tribunal stated that a judge cannot begin "urzędowanie" (holding office) without taking the oath.⁵⁹ Wojciechowski wrote in his dissent that the Tribunal went beyond the application and departed from its own case law; Wyrembak wrote that the ruling sets a dangerous precedent, while noting that the President's duty may yield in exceptional situations (citing K 34/15).⁵⁹ All six persons elected on 13 March had sought the exclusion of Święczkowski, Piskorski and Wyrembak.⁵⁹ Minister of Justice Waldemar Żurek said after the ruling that "there is no judgment", and government spokesman Adam Szłapka that the Constitution clearly states that the Sejm elects the judges.⁶⁰

The oath of 9 April 2026 in the Sejm's Column Hall took place in the presence of the Marshals of the Sejm and the Senate, four former Presidents of the Tribunal and a notary; signed oath texts with notarised signatures, a notarial record and notarised confirmation of delivery of the texts to the President's Chancellery were drawn up.^61,58 The National Council of Notaries stated that a notarial record documents events but does not itself produce their legal effects.⁶² The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in Dziurda and Others v. Poland (no. 17392/26), granted an interim measure under which the authorities are to refrain from hindering the four applicants from taking up and exercising their duties; the European Commission dates the decision to 5 May 2026, while the ECtHR press release is dated 6 May.^63,37 The Tribunal's spokeswoman stated that the ECtHR has no competence to rule on Poland's constitutional system.⁶⁴

5. President, Vice-President and substitution

Art. 10 of the Organisation Act: (1) appointment by the President of the Republic from the Assembly's candidates; (2) a six-year term; (3) earlier expiry when the judge's term ends, the mandate expires or the holder resigns; (4) no reappointment; (5) the Vice-President's term ends upon appointment as President, and paragraphs 1–4 apply to the Vice-President accordingly.⁴ Art. 11: (1) candidates within a month of the vacancy; (2) until a President is appointed, the judge with the longest total service (as a Tribunal judge, trainee judge, assessor, common-court judge and in central government posts involving law-making or law-application) directs the Tribunal's work; (3) that judge convenes the Assembly with 7 days' notice; (4) the judge with the shortest service chairs it; (5) only judges who took the oath before the President take part; (7)–(13) self-nomination, a candidate needs at least 5 votes; (14) the resolution is sent to the President of the Republic; (15) the same applies to the Vice-President.⁴ Art. 12: (1) the President directs the Tribunal's work and represents it; (2) the Vice-President stands in within the scope of a written authorisation; (3) in special situations the President may authorise another judge; (4) if authorising neither the Vice-President nor another judge is possible, the judge referred to in Art. 11(2) stands in.⁴

Practice: on 6 December 2024 the Assembly presented two of four nominees; according to Gazeta Wyborcza (cited by OKO.press), 13 people voted, Sochański receiving 6 votes and Święczkowski 4.^68,69 President Duda appointed Święczkowski on 9 December 2024; the Commission's 2025 report gives 7 December and notes that the Tribunal did not say whether persons elected to occupied seats took part in the Assembly.^70,71 The English-language Wikipedia and Anna Korwin-Piotrowska's order of 30 October 2026 concerning Sochański give 21 February 2025 as the start of his vice-presidency; the President's appointment decision has not been found.^72,71,73

The order of 30 October 2026 cites as its bases Art. 12(4) read with Art. 11(2) of the Organisation Act, Art. 130 § 1 of the Law on the System of Common Courts (the statute on ordinary courts; "common-courts law" below) read with Art. 10 § 1 of the Supreme Court Act, and Art. 19 of the Status Act. Anna Korwin-Piotrowska counts her service from her judicial traineeship (from 1 September 1995; a judge since 20 October 1997); according to Prawo.pl, the next in seniority is Wojciech Sych (a judge since 1995). According to Prawo.pl, the order was justified by, among other things, the failure to convene the General Assembly (which prevented adoption of the Tribunal's draft 2027 budget) and failure to implement the ECtHR interim measure.¹¹ A parallel order of the same day covered Vice-President Sochański, "including in performing the duties of Vice-President"; both orders state that the competent disciplinary court will be notified within 3 working days (Art. 130 § 3), but do not say which court, and it has not been established whether notification took place.^73,74 In a communiqué of 20 October 2026 President Święczkowski said that convening the Assembly had been prevented by one judge's excused absence, and that earlier attempts to vote had been frustrated by the presence of unauthorised persons and by two judges leaving.⁷⁵ No court has ruled on the matter.¹¹

6. Benches and the full bench

Art. 37(1)(1) of the Organisation Act lists cases heard by the full bench, including competence disputes, party matters, preventive review under Art. 122(3) and an obstacle to the President of the Republic holding office; (1)(2) – five-judge benches (statutes, ratified treaties); (1)(3) – three-judge benches (other acts, some complaints, appeals); (1)(4) – a single judge (refusal to proceed); (2) – the full bench means at least 11 judges.⁴ Art. 38(1)–(2): the President assigns benches in alphabetical order, with departures allowed only when appointing the judge rapporteur and only in justified cases. Arts. 39–41: mandatory exclusion is decided by the President of the Tribunal, discretionary exclusion by the Tribunal.⁴

The full-bench threshold has varied with the Act: at least 9 judges under the 2015 Act, 13 under the amendment of 22 December 2015 that the Tribunal held unconstitutional in K 47/15, and 11 under the Organisation Act of 30 November 2016.^26,30,4 Judgment Kp 1/23 of 11 December 2023 was delivered by exactly 11 judges.⁷⁸ Kp 3/24 of 29 July 2025 was also decided by 11; from 5 December 2025 fewer than 11 judges were in office.^6,79

In 2026 the Head of the President's Chancellery, Zbigniew Bogucki, justified accepting two oaths by reaching 11 judges; five persons elected in 2026 who took the oath in the Sejm, not before the President, maintain that Kpt 1/26 requires at least 11 judges; and Szostek and Bentkowska refused to sit in that case, citing among other things the appointment of the judge rapporteur out of the order required by Art. 38(1).^81,82,83 Prawo.pl reported that in July 2025 the Tribunal held Art. 37(2) unconstitutional in an unpublished judgment ⚠ unverified; the summary of the operative part of Kp 3/24 in the research materials concerns the 2024 Acts and does not mention that provision.^83,6

7. The General Assembly

Art. 6(2) of the Organisation Act lists 11 powers of the Assembly, including approving the President's annual information (Art. 13), presenting candidates for President and Vice-President, adopting the Tribunal's Rules, the statutes of its Chancellery and Legal Service Office, the draft budget (Art. 14) and the Code of Ethics, and other statutory tasks, among them consent to criminal prosecution and declaring a mandate expired.⁴ Art. 7: the President convenes the Assembly, sets the agenda and chairs it, with 7 days' notice. Art. 8(1) – absolute majority with at least two-thirds of all judges present; (2) – the President's presence is required, except for the resolution under Art. 11(14); (3) – open voting unless a judge requests a secret ballot, and secret voting in matters under Art. 6(2)(2)–(6).⁴ The Tribunal's Rules are published in Monitor Polski on the President's order (Art. 15).⁴

Examples: on 1 March 2023 the Assembly, with two-thirds of judges present and by absolute majority, resolved that there were no grounds to select candidates for President.⁸⁴ In October 2025 the Assembly, chaired by the Vice-President, refused consent to prosecute the President of the Tribunal.⁸⁵ The Assembly convened by Anna Korwin-Piotrowska for 3 November 2026 was to adopt the draft 2027 budget.⁷⁶

8. Immunity

Art. 196 of the Constitution requires the Tribunal's prior consent; Arts. 20–23 of the Status Act entrust it to the General Assembly (application to the President of the Tribunal, absolute majority of judges taking part, one-month time limit), and Art. 37 extends these rules to retired judges.^3,5 Read with Art. 8(1) of the Organisation Act, the resolution requires at least 10 of the 15 judges to be present.^76,4 The 1997 Act required a two-thirds majority (Art. 7), and in K 34/15 the Tribunal held the 2015 Act's immunity rules (Art. 24(1)–(2)) compatible with Art. 196 of the Constitution.^18,10

The application of 30 September 2025 by Waldemar Żurek, Prosecutor General and also Minister of Justice, concerned an allegation that Bogdan Święczkowski exceeded his powers as National Prosecutor in 2020–2021; the Assembly refused consent, and the result of the vote was not disclosed.^87,85 On 30 October 2026 five applications were filed (four concerning Święczkowski, one concerning Sochański), addressed, according to the Prosecutor General's post, to Anna Korwin-Piotrowska. No court has ruled on the allegations.⁷⁶

9. Discipline and the common-courts law

Arts. 24–30 of the Status Act: grounds (Art. 24); disciplinary courts made up solely of Tribunal judges drawn by lot by the President, with first-instance judges excluded at second instance (Art. 25); initiation (Art. 26); a disciplinary officer drawn by lot by the President, who conducts preliminary proceedings and files the motion with the first-instance court, with an appeal against refusal to open proceedings within 7 days (Art. 27); no cassation (Art. 28); the list of penalties (Art. 29); and the reference to the common-courts law and the Code of Criminal Procedure (Art. 30).⁵ According to the ELI summary of the full text, the Act contains no provision on suspending a Tribunal judge or on an "immediate break" ⚠ unverified.⁵

Art. 130 of the Law on the System of Common Courts (consolidated text Dz.U. 2024 poz. 334): § 1 – a break pending a resolution of the disciplinary court, for no more than a month, where the judge was arrested in the act of an intentional offence or where the nature of the act requires the judge's "immediate" withdrawal from duties; § 2 – for a court president, only the Minister of Justice may order the break; § 3 – the disciplinary court is notified within 3 days and either adopts a resolution suspending the judge or quashes the order.^77,88 In the order of 30 October 2026 this provision was applied to the President of the Tribunal through a chain of cross-references: Art. 19 of the Status Act, Art. 10 § 1 of the Supreme Court Act, Art. 130 § 1 of the common-courts law.¹¹

Under the amendment of 22 December 2015, the President of the Republic or the Minister of Justice could file a motion to open disciplinary proceedings; the Tribunal held that Act unconstitutional in K 47/15.^26,30 At the end of September 2026, according to the press, President of the Tribunal Święczkowski opened disciplinary proceedings against Bentkowska, Szostek and Patyra.^89,90 According to a Tribunal communiqué of 19 October 2026, the President forwarded a statement by three judges to the disciplinary officer and added it to the Kpt 1/26 file; Prawo.pl wrote in this context of a statement by eight judges. No disciplinary court has ruled.^91,65

10. Publication of rulings

Art. 190(2) of the Constitution requires rulings in Art. 188 matters to be published without delay.³ In 2015 K 34/15 was published in Dz.U. 2015 poz. 2129 after 13 days.²⁷ In March 2016 the government of Beata Szydło refused to publish K 47/15; Minister of Justice and Prosecutor General Zbigniew Ziobro had written to the Tribunal beforehand that the government would not publish rulings issued by an "improper" bench.^33,92 The judgment was published on 5 June 2018 with a heading stating that it had been issued in breach of the Act of 25 June 2015 and concerned an act no longer in force.³⁰ In October 2016 the Venice Commission found the publication of K 47/15 indispensable to resolving the crisis.^92,93

From 13 December 2023 the government of Donald Tusk published rulings with an explanatory note, and since the Sejm resolution of 6 March 2024 (M.P. 2024 poz. 198) it has refused to publish all Tribunal rulings; on 28 May 2024 the Government Legislation Centre said that "legal analyses are under way".^40,94,44 In U 5/24 of 28 May 2024 the Tribunal held that Sejm resolution unconstitutional; according to OKO.press it stated that non-publication does not release anyone from applying its rulings and that relying on the resolution may entail constitutional, criminal and disciplinary liability.^43,44 Council of Ministers Resolution No. 162 (M.P. 2024 poz. 1068): § 1(1)–(2) – the Tribunal in its current composition cannot perform its tasks under Arts. 188–189; (3) – the principle of legality covers the publication of acts; (4) – no further Tribunal rulings are to be introduced into the legal system; (5) – no publication of documents of an unauthorised body; § 2(7) – a recommended annotation for acts of the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS) and the Supreme Court (not the Tribunal); § 4 – entry into force on adoption.⁴² The Commission's 2025 report notes that President of the Tribunal Święczkowski asked prosecutors and a deputy disciplinary officer to bring proceedings against judges refusing to apply Tribunal rulings.⁷¹

Disputed points

• Whether the President must receive the oath of a person elected by the Sejm: in K 34/15 (2015; Art. 21(1) of the 2015 Act; five-judge bench) the Tribunal held that he must, "without delay"; in Kp 3/24 (2025; a bench including two persons elected to seats held filled in K 34/15) it held the oath deadline and procedure of the 2024 Act inconsistent with Art. 7 read with Art. 126(2)–(3) of the Constitution; in K 3/26 (2026; Art. 4(1) of the 2016 Act; a bench including two such persons) it held that there is no such duty; the government does not treat K 3/26 as binding.^10,59,60
• Whether the seats filled on 2 December 2015 were already occupied: in K 34/15, K 35/15 and decision U 8/15 (2015–2016) the Tribunal took the 8 October election of three persons to be valid, as did the ECtHR (Xero Flor), the CJEU (C-448/23) and the Supreme Administrative Court (III OSK 2528/21, 2022). The Tribunal under Julia Przyłębska maintained (around November 2017) that K 34/15 concerned only Art. 137, not the persons elected on 8 October; in K 6/21 the Tribunal held that the ECtHR may not review the election of Tribunal judges.^{27,96,52,35,97,98,53}
• Whether the oaths taken in the Sejm on 9 April and 14 October 2026 satisfy Art. 4 of the Status Act: the Chancellery of the Sejm, the government side, the RPO and the persons elected in 2026 say yes; the President of the Republic (application Kpt 1/26) and the Tribunal's President say no. The ECtHR applied an interim measure for the four applicants (Dziurda and Others). The Venice Commission, according to TVN24, described the President's role as ceremonial, said he should take the oath without delay and recommended a mechanism for taking the oath without his physical presence; in the available reports it did not expressly assess these oaths.^{57,59,65,99,58,66}
• Whether Art. 12(4) of the Organisation Act and Art. 130 of the common-courts law allow the longest-serving judge to order a break in the duties of the President of the Tribunal: Anna Korwin-Piotrowska maintains that they do; Bogdan Święczkowski, Bartłomiej Sochański, the President's Chancellery and the Tribunal's profile on X reject this; no court has ruled.¹¹
• Whether publishing Tribunal rulings is an unconditional duty: in U 5/24 the Tribunal held the Sejm resolution of 6 March 2024 inconsistent with, among others, Arts. 7 and 190(1) of the Constitution; the Council of Ministers (Resolution No. 162) invokes Art. 7 of the Constitution, that Sejm resolution and ECtHR and CJEU judgments; the Venice Commission (as reported) recommended publication, possibly annotated.^44,42,95
• Whether Art. 37(2) (minimum of 11 judges) still binds: the provision appears in the consolidated text, while Prawo.pl reported that the Tribunal held it unconstitutional in July 2025 ⚠ unverified.^4,83
• Whether the General Assembly can adopt a budget or immunity resolution without the President (Art. 8(2)) – this depends on how the dispute over who stands in for the President is resolved.^4,76

Evidentiary gaps

• The research materials differ on the oath under the 1985 Act: some did not establish before whom it was taken, while others quote Art. 13(6) of the original text (before the Marshal of the Sejm); the version based on the text of the Act is used.¹⁴
• Some materials mark the wording of Art. 5 of the 1997 Act as not verified verbatim, while others give it from the original and consolidated texts in ELI; the ELI-based version is used.^13,18
• Some sources do not give the case number of the judgment of 12 May 2026; Prawo.pl gives K 3/26 and Notes from Poland "K 323/26"; K 3/26 is used, following Prawo.pl.^59,83,60
• Some materials link the ten-year experience requirement to Art. 18(1) of the Status Act, although Art. 18 concerns expiry of the mandate and qualifications are governed by Art. 3; Art. 3 is used, and its exact wording remains unverified.^5,45
• Reports on opinion CDL-AD(2026)031 differ: per OKO.press, if the President refuses, judges may complete the formalities without him and begin adjudicating; per TVN24, the Commission recommended (para. 98) allowing the oath without his physical presence, without expressly assessing the oaths of 9 April and 14 October. The plenary session number is unconfirmed and the full text could not be retrieved; the more cautious version is used.^{100,66,67,101}
• Sources give different grounds for the disciplinary proceedings of September 2026: refusal to adjudicate (Prawo.pl, GazetaPrawna) or non-attendance at the General Assembly (Notes from Poland).^89,65,90
• The date of the refusal of consent to prosecute the President of the Tribunal is given once as 15 October 2025 and once as a probable date; the text says October 2025.⁸⁵
• Point 5 of the operative part of K 34/15 is summarised in different ways ("to the extent that it does not provide for" a duty, or "read otherwise than" as imposing a duty); the effect – a duty to take the oath without delay – is the same.^27,10
• Sources date Bogdan Święczkowski's appointment as President to 9 December 2024 (TVN24, OKO.press) or 7 December 2024 (the Commission's 2025 report), and the ECtHR interim measure to 5 or 6 May 2026.^70,71,37,63
• Not established: the case number, or existence, of the July 2025 judgment on Art. 37(2); the full list in Art. 37(1)(1); the wording of Art. 114 of the Organisation Act (publication of rulings); the exact list in Art. 26 of the Status Act; the content of the Tribunal's Rules (M.P. 2017 poz. 767).^4,5,2
• Not established: which provision of the law in force after 2016 governs who may nominate candidates and the required majority; the rules of the 1997 and 2015 Acts and the 2026 practice are described instead.^18,24,45
• The texts of the orders of 30 October 2026 are available on trybunal.gov.pl, but there is no information on whether, and which, disciplinary court was notified, or on any decision in Kpt 1/26; the materials differ on the statement forwarded to the disciplinary officer in October 2026 (three judges per the Tribunal's communiqué, eight per Prawo.pl); missing: the President's decisions appointing Święczkowski and Sochański in Monitor Polski; the case number of a 2009 Tribunal judgment on Art. 130 of the common-courts law reported by Prawo.pl.^{11,74,91,65,99,72}
• The content of the change to the Status Act made by Dz.U. 2026 poz. 26 (from 1 January 2027) has not been established.³⁸