The idea that the Constitutional Tribunal cannot issue decisions due to obstruction by some judges has become a point of contention. Leaders of the Justice Commission argue that legislative intervention is necessary, and the proposals in the draft put forward by PiS would create a path for such changes. The head of the commission, Marek Ast, told PAP that the drafting of PiS’s amendments could offer a chance to move the Tribunal forward, though he stressed that the goal is not simply to clear the way for a specific hearing. According to Ast, the aim is to improve the Tribunal’s functioning overall and to prevent future paralysis caused by vacancies or prolonged illnesses among judges.
Ast also indicated that whether the bill progresses in the Sejm next week will depend on the President’s stance, noting that he himself might not qualify for a favorable vote at that stage. He emphasized the need for the Sejm Research Bureau to weigh in on the draft before it is presented at a meeting. While he did not rule out a first reading, he suggested the proposal could still be referred to the responsible committee for deeper examination.
The amendments would lower the minimum number of judges required for the General Assembly and the full Tribunal. Specifically, the General Assembly would drop from two-thirds of the Tribunal’s judges (about ten seats) to nine, and the full composition would be reduced from eleven to nine judges. These changes would apply to proceedings that had begun but not completed before the amendment took effect. The overarching purpose, according to the explanatory memorandum, is to streamline operations and ensure continuity in cases where the Tribunal cannot assemble the full panel due to vacancies or long-term illnesses.
Officials insist that these provisions are not about moving a case through the system in a rush, but about preserving the Tribunal’s ability to function and decide on matters of constitutional importance even under challenging circumstances. The aim is practical efficiency—keeping the Tribunal open for timely handling of critical issues while a normal staffing level is restored.
The timing of the Supreme Court law hearing adds another layer to the debate. On May 30, the Tribunal set the date to consider amendments to the Supreme Court law, a move tied to President Andrzej Duda’s preventive review request. The session would be conducted by the full court under the chairmanship of Julia Przyłębska, with Bartłomiej Sochański serving as the rapporteur. There is a requirement that at least eleven judges be present to convene the full court, a threshold that has complicated recent proceedings.
Supporters of the amendment argue that these steps are essential for fulfilling a key rule of law milestone cited by the European Commission to unlock funds for Poland’s Recovery and Resilience Plan. For months, the Tribunal has been at the center of disputes over Przyłębska’s term as President, a period some consider to have expired in December 2022, while others project an expiry in December 2024. Regardless of the exact date, several judges have raised concerns about the presidency and the ability to appoint a new head of the Tribunal.
In early January, a letter from six judges, including Vice-President Mariusz Muszyński, urged Przyłębska to convene the General Assembly and nominate candidates for president. By early March, the Tribunal’s press service reported that a General Assembly meeting decided there was no reason to proceed with selecting a new president. In early April, five judges sent a separate letter signaling willingness to pursue the Supreme Court Act but stating that actions attributed to the president were ineffective and contrary to law. They also urged reconvening the General Assembly to elect a new president. One judge described these moves as part of a broader sequence of actions that threaten Poland’s constitutional framework.
Gawkowski, a leader in the Left Club, accused PiS of seeking to undermine constitutional organs with the draft, which would reduce the minimum quorum and trim the Tribunal’s full composition to nine judges. He argued that such changes are another example of pressure within the United Right camp and accused PiS of manipulating the judiciary to steer outcomes. He also criticized the notion of “ordering verdicts by phone,” a reference to alleged past pressures, and argued that the government’s approach damages public trust in the judiciary.
The Left Caucus leader contended that the concentration of power around a small group could compromise the integrity of the Tribunal, and he urged President Duda to engage more actively with the National Reconstruction Plan funds, which he linked to the Supreme Court amendment. The authors of the draft, according to him, aim to unlock money for Poland as part of a broader rule-of-law milestone requested by European institutions.
KO representatives added that PiS is using the draft as another tool to apply political pressure within the United Right. Arkadiusz Myrcha, speaking for KO, described the Tribunal as a battleground in a struggle between Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro and PiS President Jarosław Kaczyński. He criticized what he called a weeks-long deadlock, a chorus of public letters, and a lack of decisive leadership as they pressed for action on the Supreme Court bill, warning that without a president to sign the law, funds from the KPO would remain out of reach. Myrcha called the ongoing stalemate a political spectacle that undermines public confidence in Poland’s institutions.
Katarzyna Lubnauer of KO pointed to what she called the essence of PiS’s conduct toward state institutions, arguing that the Tribunal has become a tool in political games rather than a guardian of civil rights and constitutional order. She warned that continued deadlock risks deepening the economic and democratic toll on Poland, especially if KPO funds remain blocked. Lubnauer urged a shift toward constructive governance and a resolution that would restore stability and respect for the Constitution.
The discussion thus centers on the balance between ensuring timely judicial decisions and preserving the independence and integrity of Poland’s constitutional bodies. As the debate unfolds, the parties acknowledge the political stakes tied to the European Union’s funding mechanisms and to public confidence in the constitutional order. Observers note that the outcome will influence not only courtroom dynamics but also the broader political landscape in Poland, with implications for governance and rule of law.
Sources indicate that the Sejm has to weigh multiple procedural steps before any changes can take effect, and the possibility of moving the draft to the Legislative Committee remains open. The situation remains fluid as the parties navigate the Takings of office, parliamentary control, and EU expectations, all within a tight timetable for potential impact on the Supreme Court amendments and the overall functioning of the Constitutional Tribunal. [PAP] [wPolityce]