Darth Flatulus

Poland is facing a serious constitutional crisis following events at the Constitutional Tribunal in Warsaw on Friday, 30 October, and during the following night. For those unfamiliar with the Polish legal system, the Constitutional Tribunal is an independent constitutional body responsible for reviewing the constitutionality of legislation, but it also has other very important competences concerning the constitutional status of the President of the Republic and the President of the National Bank of Poland. Its independence and the legal status of its judges are protected by the Polish Constitution. Since this spring, Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s government has been taking steps aimed at gaining control over the Tribunal, most recently by attempting to install a former minister from his own cabinet as a new “judge” of the Tribunal. The government presents these actions as an effort to restore the rule of law. However, the methods employed raise fundamental questions about respect for the Constitution itself. On Friday, 30 October, approximately 3,000 police officers were reportedly deployed in connection with the situation at the Constitutional Tribunal, following a notification from Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, who claimed the authority to assume the Tribunal’s leadership. Claiming that the President and Vice-President of the Tribunal were absent, she issued decisions announcing their suspension from official duties. The legal basis for these decisions is strongly disputed, including by the First President of Poland’s Supreme Court. Zbigniew Kapiński, First President of Poland’s Supreme Court, issued an official statement strongly opposing the actions taken at the Constitutional Tribunal. His objections concerned both the involvement of the police and the legal basis for “suspending” the Tribunal’s leadership. He referred specifically to Articles 7, 10 and 173 of the Polish Constitution, which establish the principles of legality, separation of powers and judicial independence. He also challenged the application of Article 130 of the Law on the Organisation of Ordinary Courts, arguing that it did not authorise a person without the relevant statutory powers to suspend the Constitutional Tribunal’s President and Vice-President. Kapiński warned that police powers must not be used to restrict the functioning of constitutional institutions or enforce political decisions concerning their leadership. Professor Jacek Chlebny, President of Poland’s Supreme Administrative Court, issued a separate official statement addressing the events of 30 October. He described the police presence around the Tribunal and the obstruction of its President and Vice-President as unprecedented. He raised fundamental concerns about compliance with the principles of the rule of law and stated that constitutional boundaries had been crossed. Prof. Chlebny also emphasised that restoring public confidence in the Constitutional Tribunal requires a political compromise, but that any action must remain within the existing legal framework and respect the Tribunal’s constitutional independence. Serious legal objections have therefore been raised independently by the First President of the Supreme Court and the President of the Supreme Administrative Court. Their official statements provide a documented basis for examining the events and the constitutional questions they raise. This is not merely a political dispute between the government and the President of the Republic. When police forces were deployed at the Tribunal, President Karol Nawrocki was travelling to Senegal. Immediately upon being informed of the situation, he interrupted his flight and returned to Poland. After arriving in Warsaw, he held consultations with the First President of the Supreme Court, Zbigniew Kapiński, and the Constitutional Tribunal’s President, Bogdan Święczkowski. 1/2