The Constitutional Tribunal has moved the hearing date on the Prime Minister’s request for a full tribunal composition to July 19. It has also adjusted the lineup of judges who will hear the case, with Krystyna Pawłowicz taking the place of Stanisław Piotrowicz.
Shifts in the hearing leadership
Initially, the Tribunal planned to hear the Prime Minister’s petition on July 13. In its latest update, the Tribunal states the session will now take place on July 19. The hearing will be presided over by Judge Krystyna Pawłowicz, replacing Judge Stanisław Piotrowicz, who will not be a member of the case panel. Judge Bartłomiej Sochański will serve as the new presiding judge. Judge Jarosław Wyrembak will act as the rapporteur, with Justices Justyn Piskorski and Piotr Pszczółkowski also participating as members.
The Prime Minister’s Doubts
The motion filed by Prime Minister Morawiecki questions the constitutionality of a provision in the law governing the organization and procedure of cases before the Constitutional Court, specifically Article 37, paragraph 2, first sentence. The provision states that a full chamber examination requires a minimum of eleven judges to participate, while the Tribunal currently comprises fifteen judges.
The Prime Minister argues that any regulation that excludes or limits the Court’s jurisprudence violates the Constitution.
In the application, the government contends that the operating rules of the Constitutional Tribunal should allow only those solutions that enable the Court to perform all its constitutional duties efficiently. The Constitution itself confirms that the Court is made up of fifteen judges and that decisions are reached by majority, though it does not explicitly mandate a fixed quorum for a full chamber.
Succinctly, the full court exists to adjudicate each case with the judges who are eligible to participate. Their legitimacy is grounded in appearance and participation in procedural actions—this supports the government’s argument and is reinforced by references to prior case law.
As the Prime Minister’s filing concludes, statutory rules setting a plenary quorum that limits the Court’s full chamber could permit some judges to block or constrain the Tribunal’s powers, potentially conflicting with constitutional provisions.
The Dispute Over Julia Przyłębska’s Tenure
A prolonged dispute surrounding Julia Przyłębska’s term as President of the Tribunal has complicated efforts to assemble a full panel of eleven judges. This leadership question has hindered the Court’s ability to address a full docket.
For example, a plenary session was necessary for ruling on the January amendments to the law on the Supreme Court, requested by the President and referred to the Tribunal earlier in the year under preventive scrutiny. Supporters argue the changes are crucial for progressing the European Commission’s milestones linked to Poland’s national reconstruction plan.
Other Court Hearings
The hearing date for the Supreme Court amendments was set for June 27 but was withdrawn from the agenda. At present, a new date for the presidential candidacy remains undetermined.
Meanwhile, on July 20 the Tribunal is scheduled to continue the full-chamber review related to EU law, including matters tied to sanctions imposed by the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the Turów mine and the disciplinary chamber of the Supreme Court. This application was first heard on October 19 of last year and has seen several postponements since.
By law, a full composition of the Constitutional Court is required in cases of state power disputes, obstacles to the President’s duties, alignment of statutes with the Constitution prior to signing, or international agreements prior to ratification. This is especially true in particularly complex matters or where financial expenditures not provided for by the Budget Act are involved, including at the initiative of the President of the Constitutional Tribunal or when a panel of judges requests recognition of a case as particularly complex.
This overview reflects ongoing debates within the Tribunal as it evaluates the balance between procedural norms and constitutional mandates in Poland’s highest court system.