The December 13 coalition does not limit its activity to public media and the public prosecutorial offices. Reports from a major Polish news portal indicate that Donald Tusk and his associates may attempt to alter the standing of judges serving on the Constitutional Court.
There is contention that the so‑called dual judges, including Krystyna Pawłowicz and Stanisław Piotrowicz, were never properly appointed and therefore do not hold seats on the Constitutional Court.
The outlet notes that such assertions are expected to appear in draft resolutions the Sejm plans to adopt at its forthcoming session, scheduled for early February.
According to the same source, the coalition intends to fill five vacancies in the court with their own appointees, arguing that these positions have been left vacant deliberately or unnecessarily.
The draft resolutions allegedly state that individuals commonly referred to as doubles – Mariusz Muszyński, Jarosław Wyrembak, and Justyn Piskorski – have never served as judges on the Constitutional Court, and that neither Krystyna Pawłowicz nor Stanisław Piotrowicz held seats in the court at any point.
One informant told the outlet that these claims are part of a broader push to redefine the constitutional body through new regulations.
Names such as Roman Hauser, Krzysztof Ślebzak, and Andrzej Jakubecki were mentioned as possible members of a reconstituted Constitutional Court. These names had previously appeared in discussions tied to the court in 2015.
Such changes are seen by some observers as laying groundwork for further reforms to the court and potentially for broader legislative amendments.
In the same vein, the informant suggested that the December 13 coalition could pursue two separate bills: one focused specifically on the Constitutional Tribunal, and another that would address the broader framework of how the Constitutional Tribunal operates.
One proposed rule would render judgments rendered with the participation of the doubles null and void by operation of law, but only in the context of abstract reviews and only when initiated by entities outlined in Article 191 of the Constitution.
The stated aim of these proposals is to address concerns about precedents and to challenge perceived constitutional questions raised by certain EU treaties and the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly Article 6, which guards rights related to fair trial and due process.
Disciplinary mechanisms could be invoked against judges who are deemed to have betrayed their judicial mission, including accusations of serving on panels with substitutes or underqualified jurists, a point critics describe as undermining the court’s integrity.
Taken together, the December 13 coalition is portrayed as pushing for a new order within the judiciary, with the Constitutional Tribunal appearing to face pressure from political forces that question its authority. Critics argue that democratic norms and the court’s institutional prestige could be compromised in the process.
On the broader political landscape, observers warn that such moves risk diminishing the constitutional system’s independence and its ability to act as a check on power.
gah/Observations from the Polish press
Note: Information cited from a major political news outlet is presented here for context and is attributed accordingly.