Scenarios: what could happen next

Level of detail: Basics4 min read

Where things stand

Poland's Constitutional Tribunal checks whether laws comply with the Constitution. At 4:00 a.m. on 31 October 2026 two sides each say they lead it.

On 30 October Anna Korwin-Piotrowska ordered a one-month "break in official duties" for the Tribunal's President, Bogdan Święczkowski, and Vice-President, Bartłomiej Sochański. Elected by the Sejm (the lower house) on 13 March 2026, she was sworn in there, not before the President of the Republic. She accuses Święczkowski, among other things, of blocking the draft budget and not admitting five people elected by the Sejm. The break is neither suspension nor dismissal. Święczkowski and Sochański reject the orders, saying their terms continue and they still lead. President Karol Nawrocki and the First President of the Supreme Court back them; the government and, among others, Sławomir Patyra and Magdalena Bentkowska, whom the President swore in, back Korwin-Piotrowska. Media reports agree both sides, including the President, were inside overnight. By 4:00 a.m. no court or other body had settled the dispute.

Below: possible next steps and what they depend on, as described by politicians, lawyers, courts and institutions – not predictions. The site does not judge which path is better or more likely.

The coming weeks

3 November: a meeting of all judges. Korwin-Piotrowska has called the General Assembly of Judges solely on the 2027 draft budget. The law requires at least 10 of 15 judges and the Tribunal's President. Korwin-Piotrowska says she stands in for him; Święczkowski and Sochański say she cannot.

Five motions. Prosecutor General Waldemar Żurek announced four motions seeking consent to prosecute Święczkowski and one on Sochański's immunity. They went to Korwin-Piotrowska, though the law says such motions go to the President of the Tribunal. A Tribunal judge cannot be prosecuted without its consent; the Assembly has a month to decide. The motions are not on the 3 November agenda, their content is undisclosed, and no court has ruled on them. In October 2025 the Assembly, chaired by Sochański, refused an earlier request by Żurek.

The "break". Under the provision cited, a disciplinary court decides within the month whether to suspend the judge or lift the order. The orders do not say which court. Whether the provision applies to the Tribunal at all is disputed.

The President's case. In spring 2026 the President asked the Tribunal to settle a competence dispute with the Sejm (Kpt 1/26) and declare that oaths taken in the Sejm had no legal effect. The five sworn in only at the Sejm say no such dispute exists.

In a year or two

Elections. The Sejm election falls between mid-October and mid-November 2027. The Sejm elects the Tribunal's judges and passes laws. President Nawrocki stays in office until August 2030.

A law on the oath. In October 2026 the Venice Commission, a Council of Europe advisory body, recommended allowing the oath without the President if he refuses or delays. The President could sign, veto or refer such a law to the Tribunal. The 2024 laws provided for an oath before a notary if the President delayed; in 2025 the Tribunal held them unconstitutional (Kp 3/24), with two persons elected to seats held filled in 2015 on the bench.

European courts. In May 2026 the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) granted an interim measure: the authorities are not to obstruct four people elected in March from taking up office; the case continues. In 2025 the EU Court of Justice ruled that the Tribunal is not an independent court established by law; non-compliance could bring a new case and fines. The Tribunal says neither court has jurisdiction; in 2021 it held that the ECtHR may not assess the election of its judges (K 6/21).

In 5–10 years

In 2024 coalition senators (the Senate is the upper house) drafted a constitutional amendment on the Tribunal; its fate is unknown. In December 2024 the Venice Commission saw it as politically unlikely.

Other countries have added safeguards. Since 2024, if one of Germany's two electing bodies fails to elect a judge in time, the other does. In 2020 Slovakia amended its constitution: a three-fifths majority, lowered in later rounds, and staggered terms.

Why it matters

The Tribunal's rulings are final and binding on everyone. Since 2024 the government has not published them in the Journal of Laws, considering the Tribunal improperly composed; the Tribunal says they apply regardless. So the sides disagree on which rulings bind.

Level of detail: For followers11 min read

Starting point: the situation at 4:00 a.m. on 31 October 2026

On 30 October 2026 Anna Korwin-Piotrowska issued two orders, published on trybunal.gov.pl, imposing an immediate one-month break in official duties on President of the Tribunal Bogdan Święczkowski and Vice-President Bartłomiej Sochański under Art. 130 § 1 of the Law on the System of Common Courts; their effect is disputed.^1,2 Korwin-Piotrowska – elected by the Sejm on 13 March 2026 with 236 votes and sworn in at the Sejm on 9 April – maintains that, as the judge with the longest combined service, she stands in for the President of the Tribunal (Art. 12(4) with Art. 11(2) of the Organisation Act), and calls the situation a "state of higher constitutional necessity".^3,1,4 Commissioner for Human Rights Sylwia Gregorczyk-Abram called that notion "extra-legal", Rzeczpospolita reported.⁵

The Tribunal's X profile stated on 30 October that Korwin-Piotrowska "is not a judge of the Tribunal"; Tribunal spokeswoman Wioletta Ścibor says Sochański treats the orders as non-existent.^6,7 President Karol Nawrocki and First President of the Supreme Court Zbigniew Kapiński sided with Święczkowski.^8,9 Judges Sławomir Patyra and Magdalena Bentkowska, sworn in by the President, and Maciej Taborowski and Maciej Berek backed Korwin-Piotrowska; Prime Minister Donald Tusk wrote: "There is no other way".^10,11,12 Overnight both camps were inside, the President with Kapiński, the Head of his Chancellery and Sochański; on a recording Korwin-Piotrowska says they are judges of the Tribunal and he replies: "You are not judges of the Constitutional Tribunal".^13,7,14

Prosecutor General Waldemar Żurek announced five motions addressed to Korwin-Piotrowska: four seeking consent to prosecute Święczkowski and one on Sochański's immunity; offences unspecified.^15,10 No court has ruled on them.¹⁵

By about 4:00 CET on 31 October no presidential decision, court ruling or Assembly resolution had settled the dispute.^16,17 The site does not rank the paths; each is attributed, and hypotheses are labelled.¹⁸

1–3 months

1. The General Assembly on 3 November 2026

• Trigger: Order no. 1/2026 sets one agenda item – the 2027 draft revenue and expenditure plan – and omits the immunity motions.^19,20
• Budget context: the 30 October order blames Święczkowski for blocking the draft by not convening the Assembly with the persons elected on 13 March; on 20 October he cited a judge's justified absence and said he had sent the draft to the Sejm.^1,21
• Basis and conditions: resolutions need an absolute majority, a quorum of two-thirds (10 of 15) and the Tribunal President's presence, except on presidential candidates (Art. 8(1)–(2) Organisation Act); the Assembly adopts the draft budget and consents to prosecutions (Art. 6(2)).²²
• Who must act: at least ten judges; PAP reported seven elected by the current Sejm inside overnight.^13,23
• Counter-position: Sochański cites his six-year term and says no provision allows this.¹⁰

2. Five motions for consent to prosecute

• Basis: Art. 196 of the Constitution – no criminal liability or deprivation of liberty for a Tribunal judge without its prior consent; detention only if caught in the act.^24,18
• Procedure: under Arts. 20–23 of the Status Act the Prosecutor General files with "the President of the Tribunal"; the Assembly decides by absolute majority within a month; the judge concerned may explain but does not vote.²⁵
• Disputed point: the motions went to Korwin-Piotrowska, whom Święczkowski's side recognises neither as a judge nor as standing in for the President.^15,6
• Status: not on the 3 November agenda; nothing further known by 4:00 on 31 October.^19,16
• Precedent: in September 2025 Żurek sought consent to prosecute Święczkowski over his conduct as a prosecutor in 2020–2021; the Assembly refused.^26,27

3. The one-month "break in official duties" and its review

• Provision cited: Art. 130 § 1 of the Law on Common Courts lets a court president or the Minister of Justice order an immediate break of up to a month; against a court president only the Minister may act (§ 2).²⁸
• Next steps: the issuer notifies the disciplinary court within three days, which suspends the judge or lifts the order before the break ends (§ 3).²⁸ The orders promise notice to the "competent disciplinary court" within three working days, without naming it.^1,2 Under the Status Act the President of the Tribunal draws disciplinary benches by lot (Art. 25); the orders acknowledge that the Act does not cover an accused President.^29,1
• Positions: Patyra told Rzeczpospolita that the court's dignity and the interests of the service required an immediate break; Sochański says no provision allows it.¹⁰ According to PAP, the Head of the President's Chancellery, Zbigniew Bogucki, said she had no basis for the orders.¹³
• Distinction: a break is neither suspension nor dismissal; the President of the Tribunal's six-year term ends early with the judicial term, mandate expiry or resignation (Art. 10(2)–(3) Organisation Act).²²

4. Competence dispute Kpt 1/26 and possible steps by the President

• Trigger: the President's April 2026 application (President v. Sejm) asks the Tribunal to rule that the Sejm may not organise acts replacing the personal oath "before the President" and that the 9 April acts had no effect.³⁰
• Basis: Art. 189 of the Constitution (competence disputes between central constitutional organs); a full bench is at least 11 judges (Art. 37(2) Organisation Act).^24,22
• President's position: Bogucki said in May that everything is on hold until the ruling; on 30 October he invoked the President's role as guardian of the Constitution (Art. 126).^31,9
• Counter-position: Berek, Marcin Dziurda, Korwin-Piotrowska, Krystian Markiewicz and Taborowski said on 23 October that the dispute "does not exist" and needs at least 11 judges.³² Dariusz Szostek and Bentkowska refused to sit, contesting the bench and rapporteur.³³
• Related judgment: on 12 May 2026, in K 3/26 (motion by PiS MPs), a five-judge bench including two persons elected to seats held filled in K 34/15 (Justyn Piskorski and Jarosław Wyrembak) held Art. 4(1) of the Status Act unconstitutional insofar as it obliges the President to receive the oath; Rafał Wojciechowski and Wyrembak dissented.³⁴ The government does not treat it as binding.³⁵
• Status: a Tribunal communiqué of 19 October shows the case pending; no hearing date known.^36,37

5. Criminal and disciplinary proceedings under way

• Investigation: since 21 April 2026 the National Prosecutor's Office has been investigating alleged aiding of the President's failure to perform duties (Art. 18 § 3 with Art. 231 § 1 Criminal Code) and failures by Tribunal officials, on a complaint by judges Bentkowska and Szostek.³⁸
• Charges: according to OKO.press and Notes from Poland, in September prosecutors charged the director of the Tribunal's Chancellery and its security chief, according to the prosecutors over preventing four persons elected in March from taking up duties; both denied the charges, and the Tribunal called them a means of pressure.^39,40
• Patyra's complaint: according to OKO.press, on 28 September Patyra complained to prosecutors that Święczkowski exceeded his powers in assigning benches (Art. 231).⁴¹
• In the other direction: on 24 September Święczkowski opened proceedings against Szostek, Bentkowska and Patyra, who refuse to sit and to attend the Assembly.^42,40 In February 2025 he filed a complaint alleging a “coup d'état” by the Prime Minister and ministers.⁴³
• Status: no court has ruled on anyone's liability.^38,40

Who claims what

1–2 years

6. The 2027 parliamentary election

• Calendar: the 10th-term Sejm first sat on 13 November 2023; Art. 98(2) of the Constitution implies an election window of about 13 October – 12 November 2027, ordered by about 14 August 2027.^53,24
• What depends on it: the Sejm elects judges individually for nine years (Art. 194(1)).²⁴ Nawrocki's term runs to 6 August 2030.⁵⁴
• Upcoming terms at the Tribunal: according to OKO.press, Wyrembak's term ends in January 2027 and Wojciech Sych's in May 2028.³
• The President's practice for vacancies arising in his term: he received the oaths of Szostek, Bentkowska and Patyra, but for Berek (elected 4 September) his Chancellery questioned his experience and said no service relationship arose.^55,56,57,44

7. A law on how the oath is taken

• Recommendation: in CDL-AD(2026)031 (13 October 2026) the Venice Commission, as reported by TVN24 and Interia, called the President's role ceremonial and recommended allowing the oath without his physical presence if he refuses or delays, with the prescribed form, verification and delivery to him.^59,49,50
• Who must act: the Sejm and Senate; the President may sign, veto or refer the law to the Tribunal (Art. 122(3)).²⁴
• Precedent: the laws of 13 September 2024 set a 14-day deadline for the oath and an oath before a notary; on President Andrzej Duda's application the Tribunal held in Kp 3/24 (29 July 2025; bench including Piskorski and Wyrembak) that these oath provisions were unconstitutional.^60,61
• Reactions: presidential spokesman Rafał Leśkiewicz said the opinion "has no legal force"; Żurek said the President has no veto over judges the Sejm elects.⁵⁰

8. Strasbourg: Dziurda and Others v. Poland

• Status: on 5 May 2026 (European Commission; ECtHR press release: 6 May) the ECtHR granted an interim measure: the authorities are not to obstruct the four applicants from taking up and exercising their duties (no. 17392/26).^48,62,31
• The Tribunal's position: its spokeswoman says the ECtHR cannot rule on Poland's constitutional system.³¹
• Precedent: after Xero Flor (7 May 2021) the Committee of Ministers called in December 2023 for, inter alia, admitting the judges elected in October 2015 and regularising decisions taken with persons elected to occupied seats.⁶³

9. European Union: complying with judgment C-448/23

• Status: on 18 December 2025 the CJEU held that the Tribunal is not an independent tribunal established by law, because three persons were elected to occupied seats in December 2015 and the candidate for President was irregularly selected in 2016.⁶⁴
• Mechanism: non-compliance could bring a new Commission action and financial penalties.⁶⁵
• The Tribunal's position: the CJEU lacks jurisdiction over it.⁶²
• Monitoring: the Commission's Rule of Law Report of 17 July 2026 recommends continuing the Action Plan, with no Tribunal-specific recommendation.⁶²

5–10 years

10. Constitutional amendment

• Draft: in March 2024 coalition senators tabled a constitutional amendment (including a four-year cooling-off period for politicians and a three-year term for the President of the Tribunal); its fate is unknown.^69,70
• Venice Commission (December 2024): per Deputy Minister D. Mazur, it opposed ending all judges' terms, accepted ending by statute the terms of those elected to occupied seats, and judged an amendment politically unlikely.^71,72
• The Tribunal's position: in Kp 3/24 (two of those persons, Piskorski and Wyrembak, on the bench) it held that stripping those persons of status would shorten terms and require a constitutional amendment.⁷³
• A limit set in 2016: the Venice Commission said replacing all judges would breach European standards even with a constitutional majority.⁷⁴

11. Safeguards from other countries

• Germany: amendments to Arts. 93–94 of the Basic Law and the Constitutional Court Act (December 2024): if one body fails to elect within three months of the court's proposal, the other elects; the explanatory statement cited Poland and Hungary.^75,76
• Slovakia: Constitutional Act 422/2020 – three-fifths of all MPs, then an absolute majority; after two months of parliamentary inaction the president may appoint from elected candidates; terms staggered 4/4/5.⁷⁷
• Italy and Montenegro: two-thirds-then-three-fifths thresholds did not prevent vacancies of over 20 months (Italy, 2016–2018) or a loss of quorum (Montenegro, 2022–2023).^78,79
• Hungary: after 2010 one party's two-thirds majority changed nominations and enlarged the court from 11 to 15, electing 11 of 15 with its own votes.⁸⁰

12. How other countries got out of similar disputes

• Slovakia 2014–2017: President Andrej Kiska refused for about 3.5 years to appoint some candidates; on 6 December 2017 the constitutional court ordered three appointments, and on 13 December he complied while criticising the ruling.^82,66
• Albania 2019–2020: the Venice Commission found the president's refusal of an oath justified because the selection was disputed, and a notarial oath defective; new appointments ended the paralysis in December 2020.^83,67
• Ukraine 2021: the Supreme Court quashed a presidential decree revoking the constitutional court president's appointment as a judge.^84,85

Level of detail: Expert34 min read

Scope, applicable law and method

This section sets out the paths the dispute over the Constitutional Tribunal could take as described in documents, statements by participants, opinions of public bodies and analyses, over three horizons: 1–3 months, 1–2 years and 5–10 years. The facts cover events up to about 4:00 CET on 31 October 2026 (the latest press entries are from 3:56–3:57) and documents published on trybunal.gov.pl up to that time; later events, including the General Assembly called for 3 November, were not researched.^1,2,3 The site does not rank the options, assess their merits or likelihood, or recommend anything; each path is attributed to whoever proposed or analysed it, and hypotheses from the research notes are labelled separately.⁴

Law in force on 31 October 2026: the Constitution of 2 April 1997; the Act of 30 November 2016 on the Status of Judges of the Constitutional Tribunal (the Status Act; Dz.U. 2016 item 2073; consolidated text Dz.U. 2018 item 1422) and the Act of 30 November 2016 on the Organisation of the Constitutional Tribunal and the Procedure before It (the Organisation Act; Dz.U. 2016 item 2072; consolidated text Dz.U. 2019 item 2393), both in force; and the Law on the System of Common Courts (consolidated text Dz.U. 2024 item 334).^5,6,7,8,9 The Tribunal Acts of 13 September 2024 never entered into force after judgment Kp 3/24; the only amendment to the Status Act in this period (Dz.U. 2026 item 26) takes effect on 1 January 2027, and its scope has not been established.^6,10

Starting point: two incompatible legal positions

On 31 October 2026 the Tribunal's 15 seats are attributed (English Wikipedia list) to seven persons elected by the Sejm of the 8th and 9th terms; three elected in 2026 whose oath the President received (Szostek and Bentkowska on 1 April, Patyra on 28 July); and five who took their oath only in the Sejm (Dziurda, Korwin-Piotrowska, Markiewicz and Taborowski on 9 April; Berek on 14 October).^11,12,13,14 The Sejm and the government regard those five as judges, but the Sejm's resolution of 6 March 2024 declared Wyrembak, one of the seven, not to be a judge of the Tribunal.^15,16 According to the President and the President of the Tribunal, those five have no service relationship; the President's Chancellery stated this for Berek in a letter of about 26 October.^17,18

Korwin-Piotrowska's two orders of 30 October (with no number in the visible text), published on trybunal.gov.pl, cite in their heading Art. 12(4) read with Art. 11(2) of the Organisation Act and, on the merits, Art. 130 § 1 of the Law on the System of Common Courts read with Art. 10 § 1 of the Supreme Court Act of 8 December 2017 and Art. 19 of the Status Act; the reasoning also cites Art. 30 of the Status Act.^19,20 The reasons given regarding Święczkowski include failing to convene an Assembly with the persons elected on 13 March, not admitting five persons to adjudication and not complying with the ECtHR interim measure of 5 May 2026, letting politicians onto the Tribunal's premises, political statements, and assigning benches out of alphabetical order (including in K 3/26 and Kpt 1/26); regarding Sochański, passivity as a Vice-President acting under a written authorisation (Art. 12(2)) and widening the scope of the motion in K 3/26 as rapporteur.^19,20 On seniority, the order counts Korwin-Piotrowska's service from her judicial traineeship (1 September 1995); Wojciech Sych has been a common-court judge since 3 August 1995, but the author does not count his period at the Supreme Court (2018–2019) – this is her interpretation.¹⁹ Order no. 1/2026 (based on, among others, Art. 7(2) and (4) and Art. 6(2)(9) of the Organisation Act) convenes the Assembly for 3 November with one item: the Tribunal's draft revenue and expenditure plan for 2027.³

On 30 October the police operated on the Tribunal's outer grounds at Korwin-Piotrowska's request; the Prosecutor General also wrote to the police about the Tribunal's security that day; according to police statements they did not enter the building and detained three people.^21,22 After midnight the President entered the Tribunal's premises with the First President of the Supreme Court; a recording from 1:39 shows him in a corridor, and a photograph published by his spokesman shows him inside with Kapiński, Bogucki, the head of the National Security Bureau Bartosz Grodecki, and Sochański.^23,24,1 Accounts of the scuffle at the entrance conflict: the President's spokesman Rafał Leśkiewicz and other aides say people at the entrance violated the President's bodily inviolability, while Berek and the head of the Prime Minister's Chancellery (unnamed in the report) say the President physically attacked the judges.^25,26 Prosecutor Andrzej Piaseczny was also on site overnight; Żurek said he was to carry out actions with the police, without naming the case or its file number.²⁷ US Ambassador Thomas Rose called on the government, the services and demonstrators to calm the situation; no statements by the European Commission, the Venice Commission, the Council of Europe or the Marshals of the Sejm and Senate were found.^28,29

A. 1–3 months

A1. The General Assembly on 3 November 2026

Trigger and author. Order no. 1/2026 by Korwin-Piotrowska, signed as “judge of the Tribunal standing in for the President of the Tribunal”, convenes the Assembly for 3 November 2026 with one item – the Tribunal's draft revenue and expenditure plan for 2027; the document gives no time for the meeting.³ It confirms the date that Polityka on 30 October considered unconfirmed, and its agenda does not include the immunity motions, although Prawo.pl had pointed to that possibility.^36,37,3

Position of President of the Tribunal Święczkowski. On 30 September Święczkowski wrote to the Marshals of the Sejm that the government's draft Budget Act for 2027 did not include the Tribunal's part of the budget; on 20 October he stated that he could not convene the Assembly on the financial plan because one judge had been absent for a prolonged period with good reason, that two earlier attempts to vote had been thwarted by the presence of unauthorised persons and the departure of two judges, and that he had sent the draft plan to the Marshal and committees of the Sejm.^38,39

Provisions. The General Assembly adopts, among other things, the Tribunal's draft budget and performs other statutory tasks, including consent to criminal prosecution (Art. 6(2) of the Organisation Act).⁸ The President convenes it with seven days' notice, which may be shortened in justified cases (Art. 7); resolutions are adopted by an absolute majority with at least two-thirds of all judges present, and the presence of the President is required except for the resolution under Art. 11(14) (Art. 8(1)–(2)).⁸ During a vacancy, the judge with the longest combined service directs the Tribunal's work and convenes the Assembly (Art. 11(2)–(3)); when the post is filled, the Vice-President stands in for the President within the scope of a written authorisation, and where authorising the Vice-President or another judge "is not possible", the judge referred to in Art. 11(2) stands in (Art. 12(2)–(4)).⁸ Only judges who took the oath before the President take part in the Assembly that selects candidates for President (Art. 11(5)).⁴⁰

Who must act. At least ten judges whose presence is recognised; according to PAP, seven people elected by the current Sejm were in the building overnight – Korwin-Piotrowska, Markiewicz and Berek were identified in the recording, and Bogucki, pointing at Patyra, said he saw only one judge there.^23,41

Precedents. The Assembly of about 15 October 2025 on the President's immunity was chaired by Vice-President Sochański – an example of substitution in a matter in which the President had an interest.⁴² From the comparative note: in Ukraine in 2021 the president of the constitutional court and his deputy issued parallel orders, and the secretariat registered both series; the Supreme Court quashed the presidential decree.^43,44

A2. The break in official duties (Art. 130 of the Law on Common Courts) and its review

Provision. Art. 130 § 1 of the Law on the System of Common Courts: a court president or the Minister of Justice may order an immediate break in a judge's official duties pending a resolution of the disciplinary court, for no longer than a month, where the judge was caught in the act of an intentional offence or where the nature of the act requires immediate removal from duties for the sake of the court's dignity or essential interests of the service; § 2: for a court president, only the Minister; § 3: notification of the disciplinary court within three days, which before the break ends either suspends the judge or lifts the order.⁹ According to Prawo.pl, the Tribunal held Art. 130 constitutional in 2009 as an emergency procedure.⁴

Content of the 30 October orders. The break covers the judge's duties, including those of President (or Vice-President), for one month; the orders are to take effect immediately, and within three working days the competent disciplinary court is to be notified, which within a month will either suspend the judge or lift the order; until then Korwin-Piotrowska is to direct the Tribunal.^19,20 The documents do not say which court is competent or how it will be formed, and they acknowledge that the Act does not regulate the appointment of a disciplinary officer or bench when the accused is the President of the Tribunal.¹⁹ The author derives her power over the President from Art. 12(4) read with Art. 11(2) (the President cannot act against himself), and over the Vice-President from the fact that he has no superior while the President is on a break.^19,20 A notice on the Tribunal's website maintains that Art. 130 § 2 "requires the assumption" that a break for a president is ordered by someone other than that president.⁴⁶

References in the Status Act. Art. 30 – matters not regulated in the disciplinary chapter are governed, as appropriate, by the Law on Common Courts and the Code of Criminal Procedure; Art. 19 – matters not regulated in the Act are governed, as appropriate, by the rules on Supreme Court judges; the disciplinary chapter (Arts. 24–29) provides for disciplinary courts of Tribunal judges drawn by lot by the President (3 judges at first instance, 5 at second), a disciplinary officer chosen by the President by lot, and penalties from a reprimand to removal from office, with no provision on suspension.⁷

Domestic precedent. In 2021–2022 the Minister of Justice used Art. 130 against common-court judges who questioned the status of other judges; the then RPO intervened, challenging those orders.^47,48

A3. Motions for consent to criminal prosecution

Provisions. Art. 196 of the Constitution: without the Tribunal's prior consent a judge of the Tribunal may not be held criminally liable or deprived of liberty; detention is allowed only when caught in the act, and the President of the Tribunal must be notified.^5,4 Status Act: Art. 20(1)–(2) (no criminal liability without the Assembly's consent; until consent only urgent steps), Art. 21(1) (the motion is filed by the Prosecutor General), Art. 22(1) (it is filed with the President of the Tribunal), Art. 23(1)–(3) (resolution by an absolute majority of those voting within one month; the judge may give explanations and does not vote).³⁵ Combined with Art. 8(1) of the Organisation Act, a quorum of 10 of 15 judges is required.³⁷

Author and status. Żurek announced on X that he had filed four motions concerning Święczkowski and one concerning Sochański (224 pages, 50 volumes of files); no file numbers or legal qualifications were disclosed.^49,22 The motions were not placed on the agenda of the Assembly called for 3 November, and up to about 4:00 on 31 October there was no information on what will happen to them.^3,1 No court has ruled on this matter.⁴⁹

Precedent. On 30 September 2025 Żurek sought consent to prosecute Święczkowski for exceeding his powers as National Prosecutor in 2020–2021; the Assembly, chaired by Sochański, refused.^50,42

A4. The presidential path: Kpt 1/26, K 3/26 and possible further steps

Provisions. Art. 189 of the Constitution – competence disputes between central constitutional organs of the state; Art. 126(1)–(3) – the President is the guarantor of the continuity of state authority, ensures observance of the Constitution, and acts within the scope and on the principles laid down in the Constitution and statutes; Art. 144(3)(21) – the prerogative to appoint the President and Vice-President of the Tribunal; Art. 194(1) – judges are elected by the Sejm.^5,10 The Constitution does not mention an oath for Tribunal judges; the oath "before the President" and the start of the service relationship upon the oath derive from Arts. 4–5 of the Status Act.⁷ A full bench means at least 11 judges (Art. 37(2)), and the President of the Tribunal assigns benches in alphabetical order (Art. 38(1) of the Organisation Act).⁸

Kpt 1/26. The President's application (over 20 pages) argues that the Marshal cannot take the President's place without an express rule, that powers are not presumed, and that a notarial record confers no legal effect.⁵¹ The research did not establish the exact filing date; on 6 May Bogucki spoke of an application from April.⁵² On 13 May Szostek and Bentkowska refused to sit, arguing that the rapporteur had been appointed contrary to Art. 38(1).⁵³ A Tribunal communiqué of 19 October confirms the case was then pending; the 30 October orders describe it as being heard by the full bench with Piskorski as rapporteur.^54,19

K 3/26 (12 May 2026). Bench: Święczkowski (presiding), Sochański (rapporteur), Justyn Piskorski, Wojciechowski, Wyrembak; motion by a group of PiS MPs represented by Marcin Warchoł; operative part: Art. 4(1) of the Status Act, understood as obliging the President to receive the oath, is unconstitutional, and proceedings were otherwise discontinued; reasoning: "before the President" means in his physical presence.^30,55 Dissents: Wojciechowski – the bench went beyond the motion and against case law; Wyrembak – a dangerous precedent for filling offices, though he accepted that in exceptional circumstances the President may delay an oath.³⁰ The six persons elected on 13 March 2026 had asked for Święczkowski, Piskorski and Wyrembak to be excluded.³⁰ The government does not recognise the judgment; government spokesman Adam Szłapka said the Constitution clearly gives the election of judges to the Sejm.⁵⁶ By comparison, K 34/15 (3 December 2015, point 5) held the analogous Art. 21(1) of the 2015 Act consistent with Art. 194(1) only when understood as obliging the President to receive the oath without delay.³¹

A5. The Sejm's and government's path: oaths in the Sejm, protection of the persons elected, change of leadership

Origin. On 1 April 2026 Minister Żurek announced a "plan B" – an oath taken, for example, in parliament with notification to the President; Bogucki replied that any other form had no legal basis and that organising it would be a serious offence.¹² On 3 April the Chancellery of the Sejm stated that all six had been validly elected and were in an identical legal position.¹⁵

Implementation. On 9 April, in the Sejm's Column Hall, the six elected on 13 March took the oath using the formula "before the President", in the presence of the Marshals of the Sejm and Senate, four former Presidents of the Tribunal and a notary; signed oath texts with notarised signatures were delivered to the President's Chancellery the same day.^18,60 The National Council of Notaries stated that a notarial record documents events but does not produce their legal effects.⁶¹ On 14 October Berek took the oath in the Sejm in the presence of the Marshal of the Sejm and the Marshal of the Senate; a notarially certified text was delivered to the President's Chancellery.^14,62

State action. On 14 October Tusk announced that order would be restored "by the means available to the state"; on 15 October Interior Minister Marcin Kierwiński said two judges had been given protection by the State Protection Service.^63,64 On 30 October Żurek wrote to the Chief of Police about the Tribunal's security, and Korwin-Piotrowska called in the police.²¹

A6. Criminal and disciplinary proceedings

On 21 April 2026 the National Prosecutor's Office opened an investigation into aiding the President's alleged failure to perform his duties by not receiving the oath of four persons elected on 13 March (Art. 18 § 3 read with Art. 231 § 1 of the Criminal Code) and into failure to perform duties by Tribunal officials (Art. 231 § 1 and Art. 218 § 1a read with Art. 11 § 2 of the Criminal Code).⁶⁵ According to Notes from Poland, the September 2026 charges against the director of the Tribunal's Chancellery, Zofia H., and the commander of its security service, Piotr P., concern Art. 231 § 1 and Art. 218 § 3 of the Criminal Code; both denied the charges, and the Tribunal called the charges a means of pressure.⁶⁶ OKO.press gave the date as 23 September and reported a suspension from duties and a ban on entering the Tribunal's premises.⁶⁷ According to OKO.press, on 28 September Patyra filed a complaint against Święczkowski over assigning benches in disregard of Art. 38(1) of the Organisation Act.⁶⁸

In the other direction: on 24 September the President of the Tribunal opened proceedings against Szostek, Bentkowska and Patyra, asking among other things why they refuse to adjudicate and to attend the Assembly and whether they had reported a crime that had not been committed.⁶⁹ Notice of a disciplinary offence is given to the President of the Tribunal, and the disciplinary officer is chosen by lot (Arts. 26–27 of the Status Act).³⁵ In February 2025 Święczkowski filed a criminal complaint alleging a “coup d'état” by Prime Minister Tusk, Minister Adam Bodnar and others; the prosecutor examining it was suspended by Bodnar.⁷⁰ On 16 October 2026 the President of the Tribunal described in a communiqué a visit by prosecutor Andrzej Piaseczny with police officers, who according to the communiqué attempted a search; the President decided to hand over documents voluntarily and considered that the visit met, in his view, the elements of Art. 128 of the Criminal Code.^71,72 During the night of 30–31 October the President's Chancellery publicly claimed that the President's bodily inviolability had been criminally violated, and Żurek said that anyone who breaks the law will face a court; no information on complaints filed or proceedings opened was found.^2,27 No court has ruled on the liability of any person named in this section.^65,66

B. 1–2 years

B1. The 2027 parliamentary election

Calendar. The 10th-term Sejm first met on 13 November 2023; Art. 98(2) of the Constitution (elections ordered no later than 90 days before the end of the term, for a non-working day within the 30 days before it ends) gives a window of roughly 13 October – 12 November 2027 (Sundays 17, 24 or 31 October, or 7 November) and an order by about 14 August 2027.^73,5 Fitch wrote that elections were due by October 2027.⁷³

Who must act and what depends on it. The President orders the election, and the new Sejm will elect the Tribunal's judges (Art. 194(1)); in Xero Flor the ECtHR treated as a fundamental rule that a judge is elected by the Sejm of the term in which the vacancy arises.^5,74 The President's term runs until 6 August 2030, and that of Marshal Włodzimierz Czarzasty until the end of the 10th term.⁷⁵ Wyrembak's term ends in January 2027, and Sych's in April 2028 according to English Wikipedia or on 8 May 2028 according to OKO.press; Święczkowski's six-year term as President runs from 9 December 2024 (his judicial term until February 2031).^11,76

Documented context. Fitch (5 September 2025) lowered Poland's rating outlook, citing polarisation and the influence of domestic politics before the 2027 election; Moody's (about 18 September 2026) downgraded the rating from A2 to A3, citing political deadlock.^73,77 In the CBOS survey of March 2026, 26% rated the Tribunal's work as good and 37% as bad, with strong differences by party preference.⁷⁸

B2. A law on the oath procedure and other statutory changes

Recommendation. CDL-AD(2026)031 (Opinion No. 1294/2026, requested by the Monitoring Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe): the President's role is "ceremonial in nature" (para. 62); the President should receive the oath promptly and may not examine the grounds of the election; recommendation (para. 98) – if he refuses or delays, enable the oath without his physical presence while keeping the form, verification and delivery; for other judicial appointments, judicial review (para. 92). The paragraphs are known from press reports.^79,33,80

Statutory precedent. The Sejm passed the MPs' bills of 6 March 2024 (prints 253 and 254) on 24 July 2024 (242 to 202 and 242 to 200), finally on 13 September; according to the European Commission they provided for election by a three-fifths majority, and they also set a 14-day deadline for the oath and had the most senior judge take over the President's duties; an amendment by The Left for election by simple majority after two months without three-fifths was rejected.^81,82,83 On 7 October 2024 President Duda referred them to the Tribunal under Art. 122(3).⁸⁴ Kp 3/24 (29 July 2025, full bench of 11, presided by Święczkowski, rapporteur Sochański, with Justyn Piskorski and Jarosław Wyrembak – elected to seats held filled in K 34/15 – on the bench, dissents by Jakub Stelina, Sych and Andrzej Zielonacki) held, among other things, Art. 20(2)–(3) (deadline and mode of the oath) incompatible with Art. 7 read with Art. 126(2)–(3) of the Constitution and found an inseparable link with the whole Acts, which obliged the President to refuse to sign (Art. 122(4)).^10,85

Obstacles and positions. By 11 June 2026 the President had vetoed 37 laws, including the January 2026 law on the National Council of the Judiciary.^75,86 Notes of the Committee of Ministers' Secretariat (September 2024) listed as relevant a temporary bar on active politicians, a wider range of nominating bodies, a higher majority and a 14-day deadline for the oath.⁸⁷

B3. Domestic court routes

B4. Strasbourg: Dziurda and Others v. Poland (no. 17392/26)

Interim measure of 5 May 2026 (European Commission; Polsat News) or 6 May (ECtHR press release, OKO.press): the authorities are to refrain from obstructing the four applicants from taking up and exercising their duties.^95,86,96 According to Żurek, seven judges decided unanimously; according to one source, the government was to provide information by 20 May and respond to the application by 2 June 2026.^52,97 Tribunal spokeswoman Wioletta Ścibor said the ECtHR has no competence to rule on Poland's constitutional system.⁵²

Precedents. Xero Flor (no. 4907/18, 7 May 2021, final 8 August 2021) – a Tribunal bench including a person elected in December 2015 to an occupied seat was not a tribunal established by law; the Court applied the three-step test from Ástráðsson v. Iceland (1 December 2020); the judgment does not decide the fate of earlier Tribunal rulings.^74,98 M.L. v. Poland (no. 40119/21, 14 December 2023, §§ 169–174) concerned the bench in case K 1/20.⁸⁶ In December 2023 the Committee of Ministers expressed “deep regret” and called for measures ensuring a lawful composition of the Tribunal.⁸⁷

B5. European Union: C-448/23 and rule-of-law monitoring

C-448/23 Commission v Poland (18 December 2025): Poland failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Art. 19(1) TEU and the principles of autonomy, primacy, effectiveness and uniform application of EU law in connection with Tribunal judgments of 14 July 2021 and 7 October 2021; it may not invoke constitutional identity against the values of Art. 2 TEU.^99,100 In the 2016 election of the candidate for President, 8 of the 14 judges present refused to vote and the candidate received 5 votes, including those of 3 persons whose appointment was contested; in case of non-compliance, a new action and penalties are possible.⁹⁹ The Commission closed the Art. 7(1) TEU procedure on 29 May 2024; the Rule of Law Reports of 2024–2026 were published in July, and the 2026 report (SWD(2026) 921) recommends continuing the Action Plan.^{101,83,102,86}

C. 5–10 years

C1. Constitutional amendment

Art. 194(1) of the Constitution provides for 15 judges elected individually by the Sejm for nine years without re-election, and Art. 194(2) for the appointment of the President and Vice-President by the President of the Republic from candidates presented by the Assembly; the Tribunal's organisation is set by statute (Art. 197).⁵ The initiative of coalition senators of March 2024 (work announced on 2 May by Senator Krzysztof Kwiatkowski) included diffuse constitutional review by the courts, a four-year cooling-off period for politicians and a three-year term for the President of the Tribunal; the European Commission described it as preventing mass elections of judges within one Sejm term.^106,83 Notes of the Committee of Ministers from 2024 mention drafts amending Arts. 193–194 in committee.⁸⁷ CDL-AD(2024)035 (6–7 December 2024, requested by Minister Bodnar on 3 September 2024), as reported by Deputy Minister D. Mazur: opposition to ending the terms of all judges, ending by statute the terms of those elected to occupied seats, publication of judgments with an annotation, and a constitutional amendment politically unlikely.^104,107,108 The Tribunal in Kp 3/24 (with Piskorski and Wyrembak, two such persons, on the bench): treating those persons as not entitled to adjudicate shortens terms and would require a constitutional amendment.¹⁰⁹ The Venice Commission (14 October 2016, § 14): replacing all judges would breach standards even with a constitutional majority.¹¹⁰

C2. Safeguards from other countries

Germany. Bills by the SPD, CDU/CSU, Greens and FDP (Bundestag prints 20/12977 and 20/12978); vote on 19 December 2024: 600 to 69 (threshold 489); Art. 93 of the Basic Law anchors the court's status, 16 judges, a 12-year term, an age limit and a ban on re-election, and Art. 94 the binding force of its decisions; the two-thirds majority stayed in the statute; fallback mechanism: failure to elect within three months of the plenum's proposal passes the choice to the other body; the explanatory statement cited the experience of Poland and Hungary.^111,112 Test in 2025: on 11 July the election was taken off the agenda, and on 25 September the Bundestag elected three judges (446, 440 and 424 votes against a threshold of 409) without triggering the mechanism.^113,114

Slovakia. Constitutional Act 422/2020 (from 1 January 2021): Art. 84(5) – three-fifths of all MPs, then an absolute majority after an unsuccessful repeat vote; Art. 134(2) – open vote after a public hearing, and after two months of inaction the president may appoint from those already elected; Art. 134(3) – 12 years, and a judge serves until the successor takes the oath; age limit of 72; Art. 154g(9) – groups of 4/4/5.⁸⁹

Italy, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Spain. Italy: two-thirds in the first three ballots, then three-fifths; election on 13 February 2025 at the 14th attempt; a record of over 20 months.^115,116 Montenegro: Art. 91 – two-thirds, then three-fifths; quorum lost in September 2022, unblocked on 27 February 2023 (77 of 81 votes).^117,118 Bulgaria: four judges rotate every three years; on 9 July 2024 the court held that late-elected judges complete the term to 2030, and that assessing qualifications is for the electing body.^119,120 Spain: the judicial council (three-fifths threshold) went unrenewed for over five years, until the PSOE–PP agreement of 25 June 2024 with Commission Vice-President Věra Jourová present.¹²¹

Hungary (counter-example). 2010–2013: nominations without the opposition, enlargement from 11 to 15, terms extended from 9 to 12 years, the age limit abolished, 11 of 15 judges elected with Fidesz-KDNP votes; the Venice Commission (CDL-AD(2013)012) criticised the repeal of earlier case law and the limits on the court's powers.^122,123,124

C3. How other countries got out of similar crises

Slovakia 2014–2017. A chamber of the Constitutional Court on 17 March 2015 (III. ÚS 571/2014) quashed the president's decision but did not order an appointment; the plenum (PL. ÚS 45/2015, 28 October 2015) rejected the president's request for an interpretation; the ruling of 6 December 2017 ordered the appointment of three judges, and Kiska swore them in on 13 December; the dispute lasted about 41 months with the court sitting with 10 of 13 judges; the constitution was amended in 2020.^{125,93,126,127}

Albania, Czechia, Ukraine, Moldova, Romania. Albania: CDL-AD(2020)010 – the oath before the president was a constitutional precondition for taking office, and a refusal while the procedure was disputed was justified; the US and EU ambassadors welcomed the unblocking of 22–23 December 2020 as meeting a condition for opening accession talks.^128,129,130 Czechia: about 29 months with an incomplete court, a political solution without any ruling.^131,132 Ukraine: decree no. 124/2021 of 27 March 2021 quashed by the Cassation Administrative Court on 14 July 2021; the Grand Chamber dismissed the president's appeal.^43,44 Moldova 2019: the court annulled its own rulings and the judges resigned.^133,134 Romania 2012: the constitutional court's rulings were implemented, and the crisis lasted about six months.¹³⁵

Disputed points

• Whether an oath taken in the Sejm with delivery of a notarial deed creates a service relationship (Art. 5 of the Status Act) – the Sejm, the government and those sworn in at the Sejm say yes; the President and the President of the Tribunal, citing K 3/26, say no.^15,17,30
• Whether the President is obliged to receive the oath – the Tribunal held yes in K 34/15 (point 5) and no in K 3/26 (bench including Piskorski and Wyrembak; the government rejects the ruling); the Venice Commission, in a non-binding opinion, said the President should accept the oath without delay.^31,30,32,56
• Whether Art. 130 of the Law on Common Courts can apply at the Tribunal and who could use it against the President of the Tribunal – Prof. Matczak and Korwin-Piotrowska's side take opposite views.^4,9
• Whether Korwin-Piotrowska can act under Art. 12(4) read with Art. 11(2) when the President's inability to act results from her own order.^8,4
• Whether an Assembly without the President can adopt a budget or immunity resolution (Art. 8(2)), and whether the immunity motions could go to her rather than to the President (Art. 22(1)).^8,35
• The force of judgments Kp 3/24 and K 3/26 given the government's non-publication of Tribunal judgments since 2024.^86,10
• The jurisdiction of the ECtHR and CJEU over the Tribunal – the Tribunal contests it, both courts exercise it.^52,86
• Whether the Venice Commission's recommendation describes the law in force or a proposal for the future.³³

Evidentiary gaps

• The content of the 30 October orders is known from published scans (separate break orders for Święczkowski and for Sochański, with no visible number; the Assembly convened by Order no. 1/2026), but it is not known whether, or which, disciplinary court was notified, or who that court would be.^19,20,3
• The Tribunal's web page with information on the orders shows an upload date of 21 October 2026, although it concerns orders of 30 October; the discrepancy has not been explained. It has also not been established who administers the Tribunal's website and its profiles on X.^136,137
• Events after about 4:00 CET on 31 October – including whether and when the President, Kapiński and Sochański left the building, where Święczkowski is, what prosecutor Piaseczny did, and whether the 3 November Assembly took place – were not researched.^1,27
• The content, file numbers and legal qualifications of the five immunity motions, and the date for considering them, are not known.^49,3
• The status of Kpt 1/26, its current rapporteur, a hearing date and the exact filing date have not been established; the Tribunal's communiqué of 19 October refers to a statement by “three” judges, while Prawo.pl refers to eight.^54,138,51
• The full text of CDL-AD(2026)031 was unavailable; paragraphs 62, 92 and 98 are known from press reports.^79,33
• There is no information on communication of the Dziurda and Others application or extension of the measure, and no current status of the Committee of Ministers' supervision after 2024.^95,87
• Whether a bill on the oath procedure was tabled in 2026 was not researched; the fate of the 2024 Senate constitutional initiative is not known.^106,86
• Up to about 4:00 on 31 October no decision or official statement by the President, no government act, and no statements by the European Commission, the Venice Commission, the Council of Europe, the KRS or the Marshals of the Sejm and Senate were found; RPO Sylwia Gregorczyk-Abram's remark is known from Rzeczpospolita's report, with no communiqué on the RPO's website.^29,139
• Discrepancies in the material: the date of the ECtHR measure (5 or 6 May 2026); the case number of the 12 May judgment (Prawo.pl: K 3/26; Notes from Poland: “K 323/26”; one note treats it as unconfirmed); the Commission's July 2026 report says the President had not allowed the judge elected on 11 June to take the oath, which was overtaken by the oath of 28 July; the legal qualification of the September charges (Art. 218 § 1a in the investigation communiqué, § 3 according to Notes from Poland) and their date (23 or 24 September); an election window to 12 November 2027 compared with Fitch's wording "by October 2027"; and the start of Sych's term (English Wikipedia: 8 April 2019; OKO.press: term ends 8 May 2028; the 30 October order: oath on 9 May 2019), and hence its end.^{95,30,56,86,66,73,11,76,19}
• Comparative data: the case number of the Slovak ruling of 6 December 2017 and the wording of the new Art. 93(2) of the Basic Law have not been confirmed in primary sources.^126,140