Constitutional Tensions in Poland: Law, Courts, and Political Power

Calls to redefine Poland’s constitutional order spark controversy

Donald Tusk’s stance on reforming the law and public media drew sharp, public statements months ago. He asserted that any changes would align with existing legal frameworks, a claim that critics say skirts constitutional boundaries. Among those raising alarms was Prof. Stanisław Biernat, a former vice president of the Constitutional Court, who spoke to OKO.press about what he sees as attempts to rewrite legal norms without direct constitutional revision.

A retired Constitutional Tribunal judge described these moves as a rewriting of the law with selective omissions of the Constitution itself, a critique he argued mattered for public accountability and the integrity of the judiciary. The tension centers on how legal norms should be interpreted when political pressures introduce new words or ideas into public debate.

In the discussion, it was argued that the Sejm, the Government, the Prosecutor General, and other potential participants in judicial proceedings should not recognize Julia Przyłębska as President of the Constitutional Court, nor should they acknowledge the consequences of her actions. The argument continued that the Tribunal currently has no vice-president because the president had not chosen one from the candidates previously submitted, and by law the vice president’s duties are tied to the president’s presence and direction.

According to Prof. Biernat, the judges themselves selected Julia Przyłębska to lead the Constitutional Court, a fact he noted while recounting recent proceedings and resolutions. He pointed readers to a recent OKO.press feature about the court’s term and the decision not to convene a meeting to elect new candidates for the chairmanship. The General Assembly of Judges reportedly declared there were no grounds to call such a meeting, with the chairmanship in question remaining unresolved.

From Biernat’s perspective, the court appears unable to act in practice, described as dormant or hollowed out. He urged authorities to draw practical conclusions, stating that the court cannot hear cases, issue judgments, or publish rulings in the Journal of Laws. The dialogue raised questions about the limits of political influence on constitutional bodies and the potential legal liabilities for attempts to undermine or replace constitutional norms with political resolutions.

When pressed about what the idea of a hollowed-out constitutional body means in concrete regulatory terms, Biernat suggested consulting specific provisions that define how the court operates. He reminded readers that constitutional rulings are final and not subject to revision, a cornerstone of the constitutional order and a reminder that attacks on constitutional institutions can carry criminal penalties.

A shift from constitutional text to political resolutions?

The discussion did not end there. Biernat warned against using parliamentary resolutions to replace the constitution, noting that such a move could shorten the terms of office for the Constitutional Court and the National Council for the Judiciary. He described a scenario in which a special constitutional law would be issued to suspend office terms and pave the way for new elections, underscoring the importance of how the constitution governs the election and verification of judges.

He also floated the idea that the Sejm alone might regain primary authority to elect Tribunal judges, while proposing explicit constitutional provisions to govern the election of members of the National Council for the Judiciary, including how many judges are elected by the judicial community. Such points formed a recurring thread in the OKO.press interview, highlighting the ongoing debate over constitutional supremacy versus parliamentary action.

Observers online have noted that supporters of political figures may interpret constitutional hierarchy through a partisan lens. The conversation emphasized that constitutional supremacy remains a guiding principle, even when political rhetoric calls for dramatic changes. It is argued that constitutional law trumps parliamentary resolutions, a concept that some critics say has been underappreciated in recent discourse. Critics suggest that a shift away from the constitutional framework could undermine Poland’s alignment with European norms and institutions.

Several voices within the broader European context have stressed that the constitutional order should remain the highest authority. The discussion recalled past high court positions: the court’s stance that the constitution stands above international agreements in matters of national sovereignty and the limits of EU law when it conflicts with fundamental constitutional guarantees. Those points served as a foil to claims that EU norms could override national constitutional principles, a debate that has featured prominently in recent public commentary.

Recent commentary also referenced historical rulings under previous court leadership that affirmed the Constitution as the supreme law and reiterated that international agreements must be interpreted in a way that respects Poland’s constitutional framework. The discussion acknowledged that these positions continue to influence contemporary debates about Poland’s place within the European Union and the obligations that flow from it.

In this climate, some observers warned against casual language that equates routine legal debates with a broader decline in the rule of law. The aim, they argued, is to ensure that constitutional processes remain stable and transparent, regardless of shifting political winds. The broader takeaway is a reminder that the constitution provides the ultimate framework and that any attempt to substitute it with provisional parliamentary acts could carry significant legal and political costs.

Ultimately, the dialogue around the role of the Constitutional Court, the election of its judges, and the relationship between national and European law continues to unfold. The central question remains: how should a constitutional order respond when political actors press to redefine its core features? The answer, many observers say, lies in upholding the constitution as the supreme law and ensuring that judicial independence and accountability are preserved for citizens across North America and Europe alike.

Oko.press, WB

Source: wPolityce