October 2026: the dispute over who leads the Tribunal

Level of detail: Basics4 min read

What happened

Poland's Constitutional Tribunal checks whether laws comply with the Constitution. Its President since December 2024 has been Bogdan Święczkowski; his deputy, the Vice-President, is Bartłomiej Sochański. In October 2026 the dispute over who runs the Tribunal came into the open.

On the other side is Anna Korwin-Piotrowska. The Sejm, the main chamber of parliament, elected her to the Tribunal on 13 March 2026. She took her oath in the Sejm, not before the head of state, President Karol Nawrocki. Święczkowski decided that, until the President confirms her oath, she has no service relationship and cannot hear cases. Four others elected by the Sejm in 2026 are in the same position.

30 October: the orders

On Friday 30 October Korwin-Piotrowska's orders appeared on the Tribunal's website. She based her leadership on the Tribunal Act: where the Vice-President cannot stand in for the President, the judge with the longest service does, and she counts her years in other courts. She ordered a one-month "break in official duties" for the President and Vice-President – a temporary measure, not a dismissal or a court judgment – relying on a rule of the law on ordinary courts that, in her view, applies to Tribunal judges through cross-references in the Status Act and the Supreme Court Act.^1,2,3

Her reasons include not calling a judges' meeting on the 2027 budget, not admitting five people elected in 2026, and not complying with the European Court of Human Rights' interim measure of 5 May ordering that four of them not be obstructed. Święczkowski had written that the meeting could not be convened and that the government's draft budget omitted the Tribunal's section.^1,4,5,6

She also called the General Assembly of all judges for 3 November, with the 2027 draft budget as its only item.⁷

Święczkowski, Sochański, President Nawrocki and his Chancellery do not recognise the orders. Sochański cites their six-year terms. According to the President and a post on the Tribunal's X profile, Korwin-Piotrowska is not a judge of the Tribunal and Święczkowski is still its President. Sochański and the Head of the President's Chancellery, Zbigniew Bogucki, called the steps a “coup d’état”; no complaint or proceedings had been reported by 04:00.^8,9,10,11

Sławomir Patyra and Magdalena Bentkowska, both sworn in by the President, and Maciej Taborowski and Maciej Berek said she directs the Tribunal. She said the President and Vice-President grossly violate the Constitution. Prime Minister Donald Tusk wrote: “There is no other way”.^8,11,12,13

Police and prosecutors

Police arrived that afternoon. According to police statements, they received two letters: from Korwin-Piotrowska, on a possible threat to judges and staff, and from the Prosecutor General, on the Tribunal's security. The police say they stayed around the building, not inside; Sochański spoke of police in shields and helmets on the grounds.^14,8

Prosecutor General Waldemar Żurek, also Minister of Justice, filed five motions that day: four seeking consent to prosecute Święczkowski and one on Sochański's immunity. A Tribunal judge cannot be prosecuted without the Tribunal's consent. He sent the motions to Korwin-Piotrowska; the law says such a motion is filed with the President of the Tribunal. By morning there was no report that anyone had examined them; no court has ruled on these matters.^15,16,17

The night of 30–31 October

The President cut short a flight to Senegal and met Święczkowski and the First President of the Supreme Court, Zbigniew Kapiński. After midnight he went to the Tribunal with Kapiński. Accounts of what happened at the entrance conflict: the President's Chancellery says people in the doorway violated his personal inviolability; Maciej Berek and the head of the Prime Minister's Chancellery say the President physically attacked judges. No authority has established what happened. Inside, the President told Korwin-Piotrowska and others sworn in the Sejm that they were not Tribunal judges; she replied that they were, and that she directs the Tribunal.^{18,19,20,21,22}

By early morning both sides were inside, including Sochański, who, according to the Tribunal's spokeswoman acting for Święczkowski, treats the orders as non-existent. Żurek said a prosecutor was also present. By 04:00 no court or other body had decided who runs the Tribunal.^23,24

Why it matters

The Tribunal's President assigns cases, calls the General Assembly and manages the budget. With two sides claiming these powers, it is unclear whose instructions count, and the court meant to guard the Constitution has itself become the object of a dispute.

Level of detail: For followers11 min read

Status

Who is who

• Bogdan Święczkowski – President of the Constitutional Tribunal since 9 December 2024; Bartłomiej Sochański – Vice-President, appointed on 21 February 2025 according to the order of 30 October.^3,4
• Anna Korwin-Piotrowska – an ordinary-court judge since 1997, elected to the Tribunal by the Sejm on 13 March 2026 (236 for, 185 against, 4 abstentions); she took the oath in the Sejm on 9 April, not before the President, and was refused admission to adjudication.^5,6,7
• In the same position: Krystian Markiewicz, Maciej Taborowski and Marcin Dziurda (elected 13 March) and Maciej Berek (elected 4 September, oath in the Sejm 14 October).^8,9
• Dariusz Szostek, Magdalena Bentkowska and Sławomir Patyra took the oath before the President; they refuse to sit on benches they consider defective until the others are admitted to adjudication.^10,11,12
• Waldemar Żurek – Minister of Justice and Prosecutor General.¹³

Background

In October 2025 the General Assembly, chaired by Sochański, refused Żurek's request for consent to prosecute Święczkowski.^14,15 On 21 April 2026 the National Prosecutor's Office opened an investigation into, among other things, failures by Tribunal officials to perform their duties towards those elected in March.¹⁶ On 23 September prosecutors charged the director of the Tribunal's Chancellery and the commander of its security service; the Tribunal called this a means of pressure, and according to available sources no court has ruled.^17,12 On 24 September Święczkowski opened proceedings against Szostek, Bentkowska and Patyra; on 28 September Patyra filed a criminal complaint against Święczkowski over the composition of benches; no court ruling on these is reported.^18,19

Chronology, 1–31 October 2026

1–29 October

• According to RMF24, for over ten days before 15 October a dozen to several hundred people, including Law and Justice (PiS) politicians, protested outside the Tribunal.²⁰
• 9 and 13 October – the Venice Commission (the Council of Europe's advisory body; its opinions are not binding) adopts and publishes opinion CDL-AD(2026)031; according to reports, it calls the President's role in the oath ceremonial and recommends allowing the oath without his physical presence if he refuses or delays. Presidential spokesman Rafał Leśkiewicz: the opinion has no legal force; Minister Żurek: the President has no veto over judges elected by the Sejm.^21,22,23
• 14 October – Berek takes the oath in the Sejm, worded as given "before the President", before the Marshals of both chambers. President Karol Nawrocki says Berek did not swear before him; Święczkowski, that Berek cannot adjudicate pending the President's position; Prime Minister Donald Tusk, that the judges were validly elected, the President is renouncing his duties and the government will restore order and protect them. That evening the President visits the Tribunal.^9,24,20
• 15 October – Interior Minister Marcin Kierwiński says two Tribunal judges have State Protection Service (SOP) protection because of threats.²⁰
• 16–22 October – notices of the President of the Tribunal (dates from the unreliable "date added" field): an attempted search by prosecutor Andrzej Piaseczny and police, which he called an offence under Art. 128 of the Criminal Code (TVP Info: the prosecutor sought CCTV and documents) (16); the 2027 budget Assembly cannot be convened owing to one judge's absence and earlier disruptions (20); a letter asking the Chief Commander of Police for the legal basis of ID checks on judges and staff (22).^25,26,27,28
• around 26 October – according to rp.pl, Head of the President's Chancellery Zbigniew Bogucki writes that Berek has no service relationship, because an oath "before the President" requires his physical presence.²⁹

30 October (Friday)

Times come from live coverage; outlets differ by up to dozens of minutes.^30,1

• before 17:00 – Korwin-Piotrowska writes to the Chief Commander of Police about a possible threat to judges and staff; the police also receive the Prosecutor General's letter asking for “special attention” to the Tribunal's security.^31,30
• around 18:00 – Korwin-Piotrowska's orders imposing a break in the duties of Święczkowski and Sochański appear on the Tribunal's website, which soon stops working.^30,32,4
• around 18:12 – the President, flying to Senegal, turns back: “At such a moment the President must be in Poland”.³³
• 18:25 – a post on the Tribunal's X profile (Polityka attributes it to Święczkowski) speaks of an “unlawful takeover of the website”, says Korwin-Piotrowska is not a judge and that those involved “are committing the crime of a coup d’état”; no complaint or proceedings had been reported by 04:00.^34,35,36
• around 18:42 – Żurek announces five immunity-related motions on X.¹³
• around 19:55 – Prime Minister Tusk on X: “There is no other way”.³⁷
• before 20:00 – Sochański, outside a gate locked from inside, tells Rzeczpospolita that “a coup d’état is taking place”.³⁰
• after 20:00 – the police say they are not in the building but on the outer grounds and in Szucha street; three people who climbed the fence are detained.^30,38
• 20:49 – Korwin-Piotrowska on RMF24: “we have a state of higher constitutional necessity”.³⁹
• around 21:00 – according to RMF24, a demonstrator presenting himself as a locksmith cuts the gate chain at Święczkowski's instruction; Święczkowski enters the grounds (not the building), stands before a police cordon and announces that judges he regards as validly elected will come on Saturday; before 22:00 he says: “We will not fight the police here; we will come back with the President”.^30,40,37
• around 22:00 – the President lands and confers at his Palace with the First President of the Supreme Court, Zbigniew Kapiński, and Święczkowski; Kapiński opposes the government's actions.⁴⁰
• 22:56 – Korwin-Piotrowska invites the President alone, without Święczkowski, if the security services consider it safe.⁴¹

31 October (Saturday, until about 04:00)

• 00:42–00:49 – the President arrives with Kapiński; Paweł Szefernaker of the President's Chancellery writes that he has entered the building. Outlets describe videos of him squeezing between people in the doorway; accounts conflict (see below).^42,41
• around 01:21 – Berek says people presenting themselves as presidential staff tried to take the keys to Tribunal rooms.⁴³
• 01:39 – a video from a Tribunal corridor, described consistently by PAP, RMF24, TVN24 and naTemat. Korwin-Piotrowska: “We are judges of the Constitutional Tribunal”. The President: “You are not Constitutional Tribunal judges and are taking over this building illegally”. Bogucki to Korwin-Piotrowska: “You are carrying out a coup d’état”.^44,45,46
• around 02:20–02:40 – a photo from inside shows the President, Kapiński, Bogucki, the head of the National Security Bureau (BBN) Bartosz Grodecki, and Sochański; the Tribunal's spokeswoman W. Ścibor says Sochański regards the orders as “non-existent documents”.^47,1
• 02:37–02:48 – Żurek: prosecutor Piaseczny is on site; “Anyone who breaks the law will face a court”.⁴⁸
• around 03:40–03:56 – Szefernaker writes that “one man is bringing thousands of police officers to Warsaw”; no official statement confirms the figure.²

What Korwin-Piotrowska relies on

She signed the orders describing herself as the longest-serving Tribunal judge, substituting for the President, under Art. 12(4) read with Art. 11(2) of the Organisation Act: where neither the Vice-President nor another judge can be authorised, the President is replaced by the judge with the longest total service, which includes work in the ordinary courts.^32,49 The orders argue that the President cannot act against himself. She counts her service from her court traineeship (1 September 1995) and considers it longer than judge Wojciech Sych's, as on her reading his Supreme Court period does not count.^32,50

The orders give as the basis for the break Art. 130(1) of the Law on the System of Common Courts (PUSP), read with Art. 10(1) of the Supreme Court Act and Art. 19 of the Act on the Status of Judges of the Constitutional Tribunal (the Status Act); the reasoning also cites Art. 30 of the Status Act.³² Art. 130 PUSP lets the “president of a court or the Minister of Justice” order an immediate break in a judge's duties for up to a month, pending a disciplinary court resolution; for a court president, only the Minister may.⁵¹ Her side argues that this rule “requires one to assume” that a break for a president is ordered by someone other than the president.⁵²

The break covers the functions of President and Vice-President and applies from issue; a disciplinary court, not identified in the orders, is to be notified within three working days.^32,4 Reasons given against Święczkowski include not convening the General Assembly, which in the order's view blocked the 2027 draft budget (he said on 20 October it could not be convened, and on 30 September wrote to the Marshals of the Sejm that the government's 2027 draft budget omitted the Tribunal's section), refusing five people admission to adjudication, ignoring the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) interim measure of 5 May 2026, and composing benches out of alphabetical order.^32,27,53 The orders call the situation a “state of higher constitutional necessity”, as she did on RMF24.^39,32 According to Rzeczpospolita, the Commissioner for Human Rights (RPO), Sylwia Gregorczyk-Abram, called this “an extra-legal view; there is no such legal concept”, while saying she understood the circumstances.⁵⁴

A third order (no. 1/2026) calls the General Assembly for 3 November.⁵⁵ Judge Patyra and, according to PAP, Taborowski, Bentkowska and Berek said that she directs the Tribunal.^30,34

Sochański's role

Sochański was the addressee of the second order, not its author. It says that, holding the President's written authorisation as Vice-President (Art. 12(2) of the Organisation Act), he did not react to violations, and that as rapporteur in K 3/26 he widened the application's scope; since a Vice-President has no superior, it gives the competence over him to the judge directing the Tribunal.⁴ Sochański said on 30 October that he learned of the break from journalists, cited his six-year term and said he knew of no provision allowing such a step.³⁰ He is the subject of one of the five motions.¹³

Police

According to police statements reported by the media, Warsaw Metropolitan Police officers worked from about 17:00 on the outer grounds and in Szucha street, not in the building, at Korwin-Piotrowska's written request (the Prosecutor General also wrote to them), respecting – they said – the Tribunal's independence; the reports cite no statutory provision.^31,30,56 Proceedings against the three detainees are under Art. 193 of the Criminal Code (trespass); the police deny clashes with the Tribunal's security service.⁵⁷ Sochański spoke of police in shields and helmets on the grounds; Korwin-Piotrowska's supporters said the police stood on the street side because protesters were trying to get in.³⁰

The Prosecutor General's five motions

On 30 October Żurek said five motions had been sent to the Tribunal, addressed to Korwin-Piotrowska: four seeking consent to prosecute Święczkowski and one concerning Sochański's immunity.^13,30 Legal classifications and case numbers have not been disclosed; there is no information that the motions have been examined, no court has ruled on the matters they concern, and they are not on the 3 November agenda.^13,55 Under Art. 196 of the Constitution and Arts. 20–23 of the Status Act, a Tribunal judge cannot be prosecuted without the General Assembly's consent; the motion is filed “to the President of the Tribunal”, and the Assembly decides by absolute majority within a month, without the judge concerned voting.^58,59

The President: actions and statements

According to available sources the President issued no formal decision on the Tribunal's leadership in October; his actions were practical – the 14 October visit, the interrupted flight, the Palace meeting and his presence in the building that night.^1,24,40 Bogucki recalled that the President guarantees the continuity of state authority and ensures observance of the Constitution (Art. 126) and, according to PAP, said Korwin-Piotrowska had no basis for issuing orders.^33,46 The President's April 2026 application to resolve a competence dispute with the Sejm over the oaths (Kpt 1/26) was pending in October.^60,61

Conflicting accounts of the night incident

The President's spokesman Rafał Leśkiewicz says people in the doorway tried to stop the President entering and violated his personal inviolability; Marcin Przydacz, a minister in the President's Chancellery, says Markiewicz and Korwin-Piotrowska tried to manhandle him.⁴¹ Berek says the President did not enter the building and physically attacked judges, including Korwin-Piotrowska, who had proposed meeting in safe conditions; he published a video, which according to Leśkiewicz documents an offence against the President.^41,62,1 The head of the Prime Minister's Chancellery (not named in the report) said the President struck judges with his elbows; presidential adviser B. Poboży said the judges violated the President's inviolability and committed an offence.⁴² No authority has established what happened; by 04:00 there was no information about any complaint or proceedings.^42,48

Who runs the Tribunal on 31 October?

Level of detail: Expert30 min read

Scope and method

This text on Poland's Constitutional Tribunal keeps apart: a break in official duties (Art. 130 of the Law on the System of Common Courts, PUSP, the statute on ordinary courts – a temporary measure of at most one month), suspension from duties (ordered by a disciplinary court), expiry of the President of the Tribunal's term (Art. 10(3) of the Organisation Act), disciplinary liability (Arts. 24–29 of the Status Act) and consent to criminal prosecution (Art. 196 of the Constitution, Arts. 20–23 of the Status Act).^4,5,6,7 Some press headlines blurred these concepts; the orders of 30 October concern a break.^1,8

Status of the persons involved: Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, Krystian Markiewicz, Maciej Taborowski and Marcin Dziurda were elected by the Sejm (the main chamber of parliament, which elects the Tribunal's judges) on 13 March 2026 and took the oath in the Sejm on 9 April 2026, not before the President; Maciej Berek was elected on 4 September and took the oath in the Sejm on 14 October 2026. The President considers that their oaths had no effect, and the President of the Tribunal that they have no service relationship; the Chancellery of the Sejm and the government regard them as judges of the Tribunal.^9,10,11,12 Dariusz Szostek and Magdalena Bentkowska took the oath before the President on 1 April, and Sławomir Patyra on 28 July 2026.^13,14 Bogdan Święczkowski has been President of the Tribunal since 9 December 2024, and Bartłomiej Sochański – according to the order concerning him and Wikipedia – Vice-President since 21 February 2025; the Monitor Polski (official gazette) entry has not been found.^15,8 Backgrounds: according to Opolska360, Korwin-Piotrowska became president of the Regional Court in Opole at the end of 2024 and formerly chaired the judges' association Themis and sat on the board of Iustitia; according to OKO.press, Święczkowski had been National Prosecutor and head of the Internal Security Agency (ABW, 2006–2007); according to Demagog, Sochański was a PiS member and the party's candidate for mayor of Szczecin in 2018.^16,17,18 Others named in this text: the head of state, President Karol Nawrocki; Zbigniew Bogucki, Head of the President's Chancellery; Paweł Szefernaker of the President's Chancellery; Rafał Leśkiewicz, the President's spokesman; Bartosz Grodecki, head of the President's National Security Bureau (BBN); Zbigniew Kapiński, First President of the Supreme Court; Prime Minister Donald Tusk; Waldemar Żurek, Minister of Justice and Prosecutor General; Interior Minister Marcin Kierwiński; Andrzej Fijołek, spokesman of the Chief Commander of Police; prosecutor Andrzej Piaseczny; and Tribunal judge Wojciech Sych.^{19,20,21,22,23,24,25,1}

Provisions

Act of 30 November 2016 on the Organisation of the Constitutional Tribunal and the Procedure before It (consolidated text Dz.U. 2019 item 2393)

• Art. 6(2) – powers of the General Assembly of Judges of the Tribunal (all its judges), including presenting candidates for President and Vice-President, adopting the draft budget (order no. 1/2026 cites point 9) and consenting to the criminal prosecution of a judge; Art. 7 – the President convenes and chairs the Assembly and sets its agenda, with seven days' notice, which may be shortened in justified cases.^5,26
• Art. 8(1) – resolutions are adopted by absolute majority in the presence of at least two-thirds of all judges (10 of 15); Art. 8(2) – the President's presence is required to adopt a resolution, except the resolution under Art. 11(14) on candidates for President.⁵
• Art. 10(2) – the President's term lasts six years; Art. 10(3) – it ends earlier when the judge's term ends, the mandate expires or the President resigns; Art. 10(5) – these rules apply accordingly to the Vice-President.^5,27
• Art. 11(2) – until a President is appointed, the Tribunal's work is directed by the judge with the longest total service (as a Tribunal judge, a trainee, assessor or judge of the ordinary courts, and in central government posts involving law-making or applying the law); Art. 11(3) – that judge convenes the Assembly; Art. 11(5) – only judges who took the oath before the President take part in the Assembly selecting candidates for President.^5,27
• Art. 12(1) – the President directs the Tribunal's work; Art. 12(2) – the Vice-President substitutes for the President within the scope of a written authorisation; Art. 12(3) – in special situations the President may authorise another judge; Art. 12(4) – where authorising the Vice-President or another judge is not possible, the President is replaced by the judge referred to in Art. 11(2). Art. 12(4) itself contains no seniority criterion; it follows from the cross-reference.⁵

Act of 30 November 2016 on the Status of Judges of the Constitutional Tribunal (Dz.U. 2016 item 2073; consolidated text Dz.U. 2018 item 1422)

• Art. 4 – a judge elected by the Sejm takes the oath before the President; Art. 5 – the service relationship arises upon taking the oath, and the President of the Tribunal assigns cases.⁶
• Art. 19 – in matters not regulated by the Act, the provisions on Supreme Court judges apply accordingly to Tribunal judges.⁶
• Art. 20(1) – without the consent of the General Assembly a Tribunal judge may not be held criminally liable or deprived of liberty; Art. 20(2) – until consent only urgent steps are allowed; Art. 21(1) – in public prosecutions the motion is filed by the Prosecutor General; Art. 22(1) – the motion is filed with the President of the Tribunal; Art. 23(1) – consent is given by resolution adopted by absolute majority of the judges taking part, within one month; Art. 23(2)–(3) – the judge may give explanations and does not vote.^28,6
• Arts. 24–29 – disciplinary liability: a first-instance disciplinary court of three Tribunal judges and a second-instance court of five, drawn by lot by the President of the Tribunal (Art. 25); initiation of proceedings (Art. 26); a disciplinary officer appointed by the President by lot (Art. 27); penalties from a warning to removal from office (Art. 29). The chapter contains no provision on suspension or on a break in duties.^6,28
• Art. 30 – in matters not regulated in the chapter on disciplinary liability, PUSP and the Code of Criminal Procedure apply accordingly to the proceedings.⁶

Art. 130 of the Law on the System of Common Courts (consolidated text Dz.U. 2024 item 334)

§ 1 – the “president of a court or the Minister of Justice” may order an immediate break in a judge's official duties pending a disciplinary court resolution, for no longer than one month, where the judge was caught in the act of an intentional offence or where the nature of the act means that the dignity of the court or essential interests of the service require it. § 2 – where the judge is a court president, only the Minister of Justice may order the break. § 3 – the person ordering it notifies the disciplinary court within three days of issuing the order, and the court, promptly and before the break expires, either suspends the judge or annuls the order.⁴ In 2021–2022 the Minister of Justice used this provision against ordinary-court judges who questioned the status of other judges; the Commissioner for Human Rights (RPO, the constitutional ombudsman) intervened, considering this contrary to law.^29,30

Constitution of 2 April 1997

Art. 10 – separation and balance of powers, with judicial power exercised by courts and tribunals; Art. 126 – the President guarantees the continuity of state authority, ensures observance of the Constitution and acts within the scope and on the terms set out in the Constitution and statutes; Art. 173 – courts and tribunals are a separate power, independent of the other powers; Art. 180(2) – a judge may be suspended from office only by virtue of a court ruling (a provision in the subchapter on courts); Art. 194 – 15 Tribunal judges elected individually by the Sejm for nine years, with the President and Vice-President appointed by the President of the Republic from candidates presented by the General Assembly; Art. 196 – a Tribunal judge may not be held criminally liable or deprived of liberty without the Tribunal's prior consent, and may not be detained or arrested except when caught in the act where detention is necessary for the proper conduct of proceedings; the President of the Tribunal is notified at once and may order immediate release.^7,31

Documents of 30–31 October on trybunal.gov.pl

• Order concerning Święczkowski (scan, “Warsaw, 30 October 2026”, no number in the visible text). The heading presents Korwin-Piotrowska as the Tribunal judge with the longest service, substituting for the President and directing the Tribunal under Art. 12(4) read with Art. 11(2) of the Organisation Act. Bases: Art. 12(4) of the Organisation Act and Art. 130(1) PUSP read with Art. 10(1) of the Supreme Court Act (Dz.U. 2024 item 622) and Art. 19 of the Status Act; the reasoning also cites Art. 30 of the Status Act. A one-month break, “including in the performance of the duties of president”; until a disciplinary court resolution the Tribunal is directed by Korwin-Piotrowska. The PDF was created on 30 October at 17:37 CET.^1,32
• Reasoning of that order (paraphrase): failure to convene the Assembly with those elected on 13 March, which prevented adoption of the draft budget (Art. 6(2) point 9, Art. 7(3), Art. 14 of the Organisation Act); refusing five people admission to adjudication (Art. 5 of the Status Act) and non-compliance with the interim measure of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) of 5 May 2026; letting unauthorised persons, including politicians, onto the premises (example: 14 October); political statements; asking the President to interpret the oath; composing benches out of alphabetical order (K 3/26, Kpt 1/26, U 2/26, K 22/26); delay in some cases (e.g. K 23/14) alongside fast handling of politically significant ones (U 2/26: filed 3 June, judgment 28 July 2026).¹
• Order concerning Sochański: same date, basis and structure; a break “including in the performance of the duties of Vice-President”. The reasoning cites failure to react to violations despite a written authorisation under Art. 12(2) (the document lists five areas), yielding to political pressure, and widening the scope of the application in K 3/26 as rapporteur (citing the dissent of Rafał Wojciechowski). It states that Sochański was appointed Vice-President on 21 February 2025. The file was created at 17:33 CET.⁸
• Order no. 1/2026 of the “judge of the Tribunal substituting for the President of the Tribunal”, dated 30 October 2026 (number taken from the file name; heading illegible in OCR): bases – Art. 11(2) read with Art. 12(4), Art. 7(2) and (4) and Art. 6(2) point 9 of the Organisation Act; § 1 convenes the Assembly on 3 November 2026; § 2 – agenda: the Tribunal's draft revenue and expenditure for 2027; § 3 – in force on announcement; no time given. The PDF was created on 31 October at 00:01; the page shows "date added: 31 X 2026".^26,33
• "Information on the order of a break…" (three-page and short versions): Art. 130 PUSP applies to Tribunal judges through Art. 19 of the Status Act and Art. 10(1) of the Supreme Court Act; Art. 130(2) PUSP “requires one to assume” that a break for a president is ordered by another body; prosecutors are investigating the composition of benches and the refusal to admit judges; every bench composed since 9 April 2026 is defective; Sych's service is half a year shorter.^34,35
• Notice of 30 October (PDF created 22:46): no provision of the act on the exercise of the mandate of MPs and senators (Arts. 16, 19, 20) entitles parliamentarians to act on the Tribunal's premises; Arts. 173 and 10(1) of the Constitution are cited.^36,37
• Notice of 30 October: the X account "@nowyTK_GOV_P" is not a source of information on the Tribunal's activity, and the only source is the notices on trybunal.gov.pl; whose account it is, and how it relates to the 18:25 post, has not been established.³⁸

October, step by step

30–31 October, hour by hour

Police and prosecutors: details

According to police statements reported by the media, Warsaw Metropolitan Police officers were “carrying out statutory activities on the premises” of the Tribunal with respect for its independence; the trigger was information from the judge about a possible threat to the life or health of judges and staff. National Police Headquarters received two letters: from the Prosecutor General and from Korwin-Piotrowska.^52,51,24,60 The reports name no statutory provision as the basis for the action; the texts of the statements on police websites were not obtained.⁵¹ W. Ścibor, the Tribunal's spokeswoman acting for Święczkowski, said seven people entered the Tribunal with officers of the State Protection Service (SOP), which protects officials, through a gate linking it with the Prime Minister's Chancellery, and that Tribunal guards were told to leave the building; Korwin-Piotrowska spoke of constant contact with the SOP.^73,74 No other source on the actions of the SOP and the Tribunal's security service was found.⁷³

Prosecutors: the National Prosecutor's Office investigation opened on 21 April 2026 (notice of 22 April) concerns aiding and abetting a failure by the President to perform his duties (Art. 18(3) read with Art. 231(1) of the Criminal Code) and failure by Tribunal officials to perform their duties (Art. 231(1) and Art. 218(1a) read with Art. 11(2) of the Criminal Code).⁷⁵ Charges of 23 September against the director of the Tribunal's Chancellery and the commander of its security service: OKO.press gives no legal classification, Notes from Poland gives Art. 231(1) and Art. 218(3) of the Criminal Code; suspension from duties and a ban on entering the Tribunal were applied; according to Notes from Poland both denied the charges, and according to available sources no court has ruled.^76,77 The five motions of 30 October were addressed to Korwin-Piotrowska; according to Dziennik.pl, Żurek said he filed them when a person whom they did not concern was in the Tribunal.^22,56 The offences cited, the case numbers and the National Prosecutor's Office notice of 30 October are not known; according to Żurek, prosecutor Andrzej Piaseczny was on site during the night (the same name appears in the President of the Tribunal's notice of 16 October), but no unit, case number or purpose was given.^25,45

The night incident: accounts side by side

The following accounts conflict; no independent body has confirmed any of them, and by 04:00 there was no information about any complaint or proceedings.^66,25

Positions

Rejecting the orders: the Tribunal's X profile spoke of a “coup d’état” and said Korwin-Piotrowska is not a judge of the Tribunal; Sochański spoke of a “coup d’état” and of no legal basis; Święczkowski said Korwin-Piotrowska was claiming to direct the Tribunal without any basis.^54,24 Inside the building the President told Korwin-Piotrowska, Markiewicz and Berek, among others, that they were not judges, and Bogucki told Korwin-Piotrowska: “You are carrying out a coup d’état”.^71,20 According to wnp.pl, Kapiński wrote in a statement on the Supreme Court's website that the limits of power are set by the Constitution and statutes, not by ad hoc political decisions, orders or shows of strength; Notes from Poland attributes to him the description of events as “undoubtedly a coup d'etat”.^81,82 Szefernaker wrote that the Prime Minister was bringing police to Warsaw to reach for more power and called for his political and legal accountability; no official statement confirms the number of officers.³

Among politicians rejecting the orders: Jarosław Kaczyński (Law and Justice, PiS) said on 30 October: “From today Poland is becoming a police state”; during the night Confederation (Konfederacja) called for the President's inviolability to be respected, J. Sasin (PiS) said those who, in his words, raised a hand against the President would answer for it, and R. Fogiel (PiS) thanked Berek for documenting the incident.^55,3 Ambassadors Jakub Kumoch and Paweł Soloch – appointed under PiS governments, according to KO MP M. Szczerba – announced their resignations; Soloch said that the steps taken against the Tribunal, which he considers contrary to law, make it impossible for him to continue in office.^3,21

Supporting the orders: Korwin-Piotrowska told Polsat News that as a judge of the Tribunal she has a duty to guard the Constitution, which the President and Vice-President of the Tribunal grossly violate; she said the Tribunal had in practice not functioned for years, and that “In the Tribunal there is order, calm and quiet”.^64,58,74 Prime Minister Tusk wrote “There is no other way”, and in another post (time not given) “Restoring the rule of law is our duty”.^57,63 Żurek said at a press conference at about 19:00 that Święczkowski had “made the Tribunal into a private fiefdom” and that the state must protect the judges; during the night he announced that “Anyone who breaks the law will face a court”.^56,25 Sławomir Patyra, sworn in by the President, told Rzeczpospolita that the dignity of the court and essential interests of the service required the immediate removal of the President and Vice-President; Taborowski, Bentkowska and Berek confirmed to PAP that Korwin-Piotrowska directs the Tribunal.^24,53 Bartłomiej Przymusiński, president of the judges' association Iustitia, backed swift action by the state and said during the night that politicians entering the Tribunal showed what is at stake.^57,3

Others: the RPO, Sylwia Gregorczyk-Abram, called the “state of higher constitutional necessity” an extra-legal view while expressing understanding for the circumstances.⁶¹ US Ambassador Thomas Rose spoke of an “unprecedented confrontation” and urged the government, services and demonstrators to avoid provoking violence; according to Polsat News he said the US does not judge Poland's internal affairs.^67,68 By 04:00 no positions had been found from the European Commission, the Venice Commission, the Council of Europe, the Marshals of the Sejm and Senate, or the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS, the body that proposes judicial appointments to the President).^65,3

Analysis of the parties' arguments

Source conflicts

• The page "Information on the order of a break…" shows "date added: 21 X 2026", although it concerns orders of 30 October; the metadata of both PDFs of that information show creation on 29 October at 23:06 and 23:11 CET. Metadata depend on the computer's clock and prove neither the date of drafting nor anything about intent or legality.^32,34,35
• Order no. 1/2026 is dated 30 October, but its PDF was created on 31 October at 00:01 and the page gives 31 X as the date added; on the evening of 30 October Polityka treated the Assembly date as unconfirmed – only this document confirms it.^26,33,55
• The files of the break orders were created at 17:33 and 17:37, while the media reported their publication at about 18:00; the last server modification was at 21:10.^8,1,24
• Times in reports differ: Leśkiewicz's statement about Berek – 01:23 (TVN24) or 01:54 (WP); the photo with Sochański – 02:21 (WP), 02:39 (TVN24), "after 2:00" (RMF24); Szefernaker's post – 03:41, 03:49, 03:56.^2,3,21
• Media describe Szefernaker's role inconsistently (WP: head of the President's Chancellery; TVN24: head of the President's office), and Bogucki as head of the Chancellery; current roles were not verified in a primary source.^3,2,50
• An undated Interia entry says the President “left the building and got into the car”, while other reports up to 04:00 do not say he left the Tribunal grounds (see the analysis of the night incident).^80,2
• Charges against Tribunal officials: 23 September (OKO.press) or 24 September (Brussels Signal); only Notes from Poland gives the legal classification.^76,44,77
• The National Prosecutor's Office investigation: opened on 21 April according to the Office's notice (published 22 April); Prawo.pl gives 22 April.^75,88
• The ECtHR interim measure: 5 May 2026 according to the European Commission and Polsat News, 6 May according to the ECtHR press release.^89,90
• Adoption of the Venice Commission opinion: "9–10 October" in some reports, 9 October (a Friday) in others; the plenary session number was not confirmed.^91,42
• A notary's presence at Berek's oath on 14 October is reported by OKO.press and RMF24; other reports obtained do not confirm it.^10,23,92
• Art. 130(3) PUSP speaks of notifying the disciplinary court within three days of the order; the orders of 30 October speak of three working days.^4,1

Disputed points

• Whether Korwin-Piotrowska and the others sworn in the Sejm are judges of the Tribunal: they themselves, the Chancellery of the Sejm and the government say yes; the President, his Chancellery and President of the Tribunal Święczkowski say no. By its interim measure of 5 May 2026 the ECtHR ordered that the four applicants not be obstructed in taking up their duties; the Tribunal's spokesperson and the President's Chancellery dispute the ECtHR's competence. In K 34/15 (point 5) the Tribunal held that the President must receive the oath without delay; in K 3/26 – delivered by a five-judge bench including two persons elected to seats held filled in K 34/15 – it held Art. 4(1) of the Status Act, read as imposing such a duty, unconstitutional; the government does not treat that judgment as binding. In a non-binding opinion the Venice Commission said the President should receive the oath without delay and recommended allowing it without his presence if he refuses or delays. Kpt 1/26 has not been decided.^{12,11,90,87,93,85,41,42}
• Whether Art. 12(4) read with Art. 11(2) of the Organisation Act allows the most senior judge to replace a sitting President, and whether that judge's own order can create the obstacle; no court has ruled.^5,1
• Whether Art. 130 PUSP applies to Tribunal judges and to the President of the Tribunal through Art. 19 or Art. 30 of the Status Act and Art. 10(1) of the Supreme Court Act, and which disciplinary court would be “competent”; the orders themselves note that the law does not regulate the appointment of a disciplinary officer or bench where the President is the person accused.^1,6,4,31
• How to count service under Art. 11(2) (Korwin-Piotrowska versus Sych) – the author's own interpretation, not verified by any body.^1,34
• Whether the General Assembly of 3 November can validly adopt the draft budget without the President (Art. 8(2)) and with the participation of persons whose status is disputed.^5,26
• Whether the immunity motions could be addressed to Korwin-Piotrowska when Art. 22(1) of the Status Act requires filing with the President of the Tribunal; who will examine them, and in what composition.^28,22
• Whether police action at Korwin-Piotrowska's request is compatible with the Tribunal's independence (Art. 173 of the Constitution) – the police say they protected order and safety, while the President of the Tribunal had already asked on 22 October for the legal basis of ID checks.^51,40,7
• Whether the night-time entry of the President, the First President of the Supreme Court and the head of the BBN into the Tribunal building falls within the President's powers – Bogucki invokes Art. 126 of the Constitution (the President as guarantor of the continuity of state authority who ensures observance of the Constitution), while Korwin-Piotrowska's side invoked Arts. 173 and 10 of the Constitution against parliamentarians entering; according to Krzysztof Bosak, the President “brought the Vice-President of the Tribunal into the building”; no authority has assessed this.^50,36,80
• What happened during the night incident and the keys episode – conflicting accounts from both sides, with no finding by any authority.^63,66,69
• The concept of a “state of higher constitutional necessity” – Korwin-Piotrowska invokes it; the RPO considers it extra-legal.^59,61
• Whether the General Assembly could have met in October 2026: the President of the Tribunal says a judge's absence and disruptions prevented it, and pointed out on 30 September that the government's 2027 draft budget omitted the Tribunal's section; the order of 30 October says the President did not convene the Assembly.^48,39,1

Evidentiary gaps

• The legal classifications, case numbers and content of the Prosecutor General's five motions, and the National Prosecutor's Office notice of 30 October.²²
• Whether and when a disciplinary court was notified, and which body it would be.¹
• Who administers trybunal.gov.pl and the Tribunal's X accounts; whose account "@nowyTK_GOV_P" is.³⁸
• The names of three of the seven persons elected in 2026 who, according to PAP, were in the building; Korwin-Piotrowska, Markiewicz and Berek were identified, and Bogucki pointed to Patyra.²⁰
• What prosecutor Piaseczny did during the night and in which case; whether proceedings were opened concerning the President's inviolability or on complaints of a “coup d’état”.²⁵
• Whether and when the President, Kapiński, Bogucki, Grodecki and Sochański left the Tribunal building, and where Święczkowski was after the meeting at the Palace.²
• Whether the judges announced by Święczkowski arrived on Saturday (an event later than the 04:00 cut-off).²⁴
• Official positions of the European Commission, the Venice Commission, the Council of Europe, the KRS, the Marshals of the Sejm and Senate, the RPO (an official notice) and the Interior Ministry and police after 01:30.^65,61
• The texts of the police statements and the provision on which the police acted.⁵¹
• The President's decision appointing Sochański as Vice-President and its Monitor Polski entry.⁸
• The status, rapporteur and hearing date of Kpt 1/26 – the term of the rapporteur named in the orders, Justyn Piskorski, ended on 18 September 2026.^47,1,94
• The full texts of opinion CDL-AD(2026)031 and of the ECtHR decision in Dziurda and Others – their content is known from reports and press releases.^41,90
• The exact wording of Art. 19 of the Status Act and Art. 10(1) of the Supreme Court Act, and the exact list of those entitled to act under Art. 26 of the Status Act.⁶
• The formal recall of Ambassadors Kumoch and Soloch.³