For social welfare
The media and some judges from the Constitutional Tribunal paint a picture of a chamber where political wrangling crowds out legal reasoning. At the same time, questions were raised about the quorum at the General Assembly of Judges of the Constitutional Tribunal (ZOSTK), convened on March 1. Yet, the minutes seen by the wPolityce.pl portal show that the quorum was in place and that the discussion among judges was not a riot but an attempt to navigate a rare and delicate situation concerning the term of office of the Tribunal’s President.
READ ALSO: ONLY WITH US. The president of the Constitutional Court teaches Judge Stelina and the rebellious members a lesson: “I hold office until the end of my mandate.”
READ ALSO: The Constitutional Tribunal resolved the question of the President’s term; it found no reason to convene a meeting to elect candidates.
Those who predicted a tumult in the Assembly may not be proud today. The minutes reveal a climate of legal deliberation. When the attendance list was analyzed, it emerged that 10 judges were present, which, in accordance with article 8, section 1 of the Law on the Organization and Procedure of the Constitutional Tribunal, empowered the Assembly to pass resolutions and ensured a valid quorum.
Critics of President Przyłębska claimed the judge feared rebellious members. The protocol contradicts this: at the outset, the President of the Constitutional Court, Judge Julia Przyłębska, recalled the events preceding the General Assembly and clearly presented the arguments from a January letter signed by six judges. The issue of correspondence between Judge Jakub Stelina and the President of the Constitutional Tribunal was also raised: ONLY WITH US. The president teaches Judge Stelina and the rebellious members a lesson: “I hold office until the end of my mandate.”
In the interest of social welfare
Even so, the matter did not end there. At President Przyłębska’s request, a letter dated March 1 from five judges—Jakub Stelina, Wojciech Sych, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski, Andrzej Zielonacki, and Mariusz Muszyński—was read during the General Assembly. Discussion began in earnest.
STK Bogdan Święczkowski stated that he remains aligned with the February 28 letter he signed and that his participation in the ZOSTK meeting aimed at state welfare remains unchanged by subsequent views on the letter’s content.
— the minutes show that the purpose of the discussion was to find a solution, not to argue blindly.
Judge Bartłomiej Sochański echoed this sentiment, noting the diversity of legal interpretations, yet arguing that a concrete decision was needed. He advocated a resolution by the ZO, since two thirds of the full panel were present to reach a decision on how to proceed with selecting candidates for the President’s post.
– the minutes record these words.
Judge Jarosław Wyrembak spoke with force about the term “former president,” urging careful use of terminology in case law and stressing that there was no official basis to call for candidates’ selection in that moment.
– the minutes quote his remarks.
Wyrembak also questioned why the signatories of the February 28 letter did not attend the ongoing hearing, despite urging haste to resolve the issue. This raised doubts about goodwill in the action.
– said Judge Wyrembak.
The pivotal moment
The President of the Constitutional Court asked the attendees to take a stand on the matter being heard, specifically the February 28 letter from the Court’s judges.
Judge Michał Warciński, aligning with STK Bartłomiej Sochański, proposed that the ZO adopt a resolution on whether it was justified to convene a ZGSTK meeting to vote on candidates for the President. This moment marks a crucial turning point in the General Assembly for the Constitutional Court.
– the protocol notes this development, which was also captured by media summaries.
This moment defined the General Assembly: eight judges concluded there were no legal or factual grounds to call a ZGSTK meeting under art. 11, section 3 of the Constitutional Tribunal to select candidates for the President. Two judges did not vote and did not participate in the tally, underscoring that non-participation did not erase the quorum.
The President then announced that the resolution had been adopted by an absolute majority in the presence of two thirds of the Court’s total judges—ten judges were present.
– the protocol records this decision.
Judge Piotr Pszczółkowski explained that he abstained from voting because he had not reviewed the catalog of cases listed in Article 6, section 2 of the appropriate statute. He added that as a judge, he did not walk away from his duties and did not see a path to breaking the process, because the Court serves society rather than individual interests.
– this line is contained in the minutes.
The closing lines of the protocol highlight the responsibility of the judges. Although opinions differed on interpretation, they remained committed to serving the constitution and citizens’ rights. Judge Bogdan Święczkowski suggested the resolution lacked binding force because one third of the judges did not participate. Judge Warciński responded by pointing to the unique context of the entire situation and the unprecedented nature of the question at hand. The legislature expects a judge to know the term of office he holds and to participate in decisions that affect the constitution and public order.
STK Michał Warciński stressed that the outcome matters more than the exact interpretation in isolation. The form of the final decision matters as much as its substance, and the President’s initiative to convene the ZO and present it to the General Assembly was not without precedent. The Court remains a constitutional body, and the possibility of a decision being made by the President to call a meeting for this purpose is not objectionable.
However, what ultimately matters is the willingness of judges to accept the outcome. They may disagree, yet they sign off on decisions in the name of public order and the proper functioning of the Constitutional Tribunal, a principle Judge Warciński emphasized.
Consensus and duty
What connects the figures in this debate is a shared willingness to engage with the other side. Judge Wyrembak, while signing the February 28 letter, acknowledged the participation of a former State Prosecutor in the Assembly and saw value in that involvement. Judge Sochański later stated that there was no alternative but to pass a ZO resolution to move forward.
The broader context matters. The judges acknowledge the unusual situation and stress that public duty requires action in line with the oath and constitutional order. The decision to convene and then vote reflects a balance between legal argument and pragmatic governance, a balance intended to safeguard the state’s constitutional framework.
The minutes, partially published, signal the press and political spheres that the Constitutional Tribunal can host a robust exchange of diverse viewpoints. The Assembly demonstrated that lawful discourse, respect for colleagues, and adherence to constitutional text can coexist with firm decisions. Looking ahead, this episode provides a blueprint for future conduct, emphasizing that disagreement does not excuse paralysis and that the court’s integrity depends on a shared commitment to constitutional principles.
End of report. This is a snapshot of a moment when legal minds navigated a delicate question about the highest offices of the Constitutional Court and proved that function can prevail over discord.