Date of first hearing
The Constitutional Court was set to hear the Prime Minister’s request concerning the full composition of the court. The motion, submitted at the start of June, seeks to examine the constitutionality of a provision in the law governing the organization and procedure of trials before the Constitutional Court. Specifically, it targets Article 37, paragraph 2, first sentence, which states that the examination of a case by a full chamber shall require the participation of at least eleven judges. The Tribunal is currently composed of fifteen judges.
The Prime Minister argues that any regulation which excludes or limits the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court undermines the Constitution. In the application, the government asserts that the operating principles of the Constitutional Tribunal should be adjusted only to ensure that the Court can carry out all of its functions efficiently under the Constitution. The Constitution designates a fifteen-member court but does not explicitly specify a quorum for a plenary session, leaving room for debate about how a full chamber should operate.
According to the government, the full court comprises judges who can adjudicate in a given case, have the legitimacy to participate in the conduct of the proceedings, and are not barred from trial. The government claims that the proposal finds support in prior case law and argues that statutory rules introducing a quorum for the plenary session could block some judges from exercising the Court’s powers. Such regulations would, in the government’s view, be contrary to constitutional provisions.
For several months, a dispute has persisted in the Constitutional Tribunal over the term of office of Julia Przyłębska as President, a situation that has complicated efforts to assemble a full chamber of eleven judges for certain sessions.
Instances where a plenary session is required include hearings on amendments to the Supreme Court law. Earlier this year, President Andrzej Duda asked the Court to review these changes under preventive scrutiny. Proponents argue that the change is connected to broader goals tied to upcoming funding milestones tied to Europe’s recovery framework, with support from the ruling party citing strategic national interests.
The date for the first hearing on the Supreme Court amendment had been scheduled for June 27 but was removed from the agenda. At present, there is no rescheduled date for reviewing the presidential candidacy in question.
Meanwhile, a separate proceeding remains on the docket for July 20 when the full chamber will continue considering EU law matters. This includes issues related to sanctions imposed by the Court of Justice of the European Union in connection with the Turów mine and the disciplinary chamber of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal began hearing that case in October of the previous year, and its dates have been postponed several times.
Under Polish law, the full composition of the Constitutional Court is required in matters such as disputes over powers among constitutional authorities, determining obstacles to the exercise of office by the President of the Republic, ensuring compliance with the establishment of political parties, and assessing whether a statute or an international agreement aligns with the Constitution, especially in cases of particular complexity. The provision covers scenarios proposed by the President of the Constitutional Tribunal or when a jury panel deems a case particularly complex, including financial implications not covered by the Budget Act.
The ongoing discussions reflect a broader tension between constitutional procedure and political developments, with significant implications for Poland’s judicial landscape and its alignment with European Union standards.