Julia Przyłębska serves as the president of the Constitutional Court, a fact some critics challenge by asking whether the law in force has truly kept pace with reality. Jarosław Kaczyński, a leading figure in the ruling coalition, told PAP that there is no legal dispute here, only concerns about the urgency of some people to claim the position.
PAP: The motion by President Andrzej Duda to amend the Supreme Court law remains before the Constitutional Tribunal. The case should be heard in full. In your view, is it possible to assemble the required number of judges, given the ongoing debate over whether Julia Przyłębska’s term as president of the Constitutional Court has ended?
Jarosław Kaczyński: He expresses cautious optimism, acknowledging that people’s differing attitudes can complicate matters. Yet these attitudes lack justification. Mrs. Julia Przyłębska remains the president of the Constitutional Tribunal, and challenging that status is essentially a challenge to the current law, regardless of how one tries to interpret it.
Meanwhile, some judges of the Constitutional Court contend that Przyłębska’s term ended last December. One argument has circulated that the president’s tenure had expired because she served a six-year term. The provisions describing the president’s term of office only took effect in January 2017, meaning they were not in force at the time of Przyłębska’s election in December 2016.
In two cases, the law accelerated the entry into force of certain provisions, but not those related to the president’s term. Therefore, by standard legal reasoning a contrario, the legislature clearly intended that this law would apply from the next election of the President of the Constitutional Court.
So where did the dispute originate?
There is no real legal dispute here. These are matters tied to the aspirations of a few individuals who seem to be in too much of a hurry. They can run as presidential candidates, but only when President Przyłębska’s term ends, which is anticipated to be December next year.
In short, the disagreement appears largely engineered, lacking a solid legal foundation. The hope is that judges who have taken an unjustified stance will still recognize the national interest and act accordingly. The decision on this issue is treated as a state matter; it carries enough weight that personal beliefs unrelated to the law should not influence the outcome.
It should be noted that every judge of the Constitutional Court is entitled to consider himself a potential candidate for the future presidency, provided his term ends before Przyłębska’s does. There is no point in appointing a new president for several months. The law itself is not being questioned here, but timing is crucial, and the timing will come at the end of next year.
Essentially, there is a question whether a full bench of 11 justices can convene to hear the Supreme Court amendment case.
The expectation is that those 11 judges will render decisions with due regard to the law. As far as the speaker knows, the prospect is not far from that reality.
The interpretation of the legislator’s intent is also a factor. The legislator’s will, shaped by the political coalition to which the speaker belongs, is believed to be clear. There is conceptually room for historical interpretation, which aims to reconstruct the real intent behind the law. This method can be employed, and it seems to support the present position.
Is settlement of this case the sole obstacle to addressing the Supreme Court law amendment?
If the Tribunal can gather a sufficient number of members for a full bench to consider the presidential decision, then the bench will decide the outcome. The speaker believes the law is constitutional, though the precise verdict—whether it requires a full squad or a majority—remains uncertain. What matters is that a decision is reached, because delaying it harms the state, threatens stability, and delays the application of rules designed to keep the Constitutional Tribunal efficient and swift. The president’s requests to the court should be handled with that sense of urgency.
Do they hope the issue will be resolved in time to unlock funds from the National Reconstruction Plan ahead of the elections?
There is a hope for a resolution, but it is unlikely that funds will flow immediately once the matter is settled. The timeline suggests it could take some time, though a positive resolution cannot be ruled out entirely.
Ultimately, the priority is to see the president’s request resolved. The speaker notes this position as a citizen, acknowledging no direct influence over Tribunal decisions.
Rafał Białkowski spoke (PAP).
kk/PAP