WARSAW, POLAND — November 1, 2026. The European Commission has defended the constitutional authority of Poland’s Parliament to appoint judges to the country’s Constitutional Tribunal, intervening in a rapidly escalating institutional crisis that has brought the government, the presidency and the judiciary into direct confrontation. The dispute intensified on October 30 when rival judicial authorities claimed control of the court, prompting a major police deployment, demonstrations and accusations of unconstitutional interference. What began more than a decade ago as a disagreement over judicial appointments has become a wider test of Poland’s constitutional order, the separation of powers and the relationship between national institutions and European legal standards.
In a statement provided to Euronews on October 31, a European Commission spokesperson emphasized that the appointment of eight new Constitutional Tribunal judges falls within the constitutional powers of the Sejm, Poland’s lower house of Parliament. Brussels also stressed that Polish authorities must ensure the tribunal operates in accordance with the national constitution and relevant rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Commission’s intervention does not constitute an endorsement of every action taken by the Polish government; rather, it affirms Parliament’s appointment authority while reiterating the obligation to respect judicial independence and applicable legal requirements.
The immediate confrontation followed a decision by Judge Anna Korwin-Piotrowska to suspend Constitutional Tribunal President Bogdan Święczkowski and Vice-President Bartłomiej Sochański from their duties for one month. Korwin-Piotrowska, who was elected to the tribunal by Parliament earlier this year, announced that she would assume responsibility for directing the institution, arguing that its existing leadership had obstructed the participation of lawfully elected judges. Święczkowski and his supporters rejected the suspension as unlawful, disputing both her authority to issue the order and the legal basis invoked to remove the court’s leadership temporarily. The competing interpretations produced an extraordinary situation in which rival groups claimed legitimate authority over the same constitutional institution.
The dispute reached a highly visible confrontation when President Karol Nawrocki, politically aligned with the opposition Law and Justice party (PiS), returned to Warsaw and attempted to intervene at the tribunal’s headquarters. Police officers secured the building while demonstrators and political representatives gathered outside, and the confrontation was broadcast on television. Nawrocki described the developments as an attempted takeover of a constitutional institution, while the government defended the security operation as necessary to maintain order. The episode demonstrated how a prolonged legal disagreement had evolved into a confrontation involving executive authority, judicial leadership and the physical control of a public institution.
Prime Minister Donald Tusk addressed the country on October 31, condemning the disturbances and pledging to restore conditions necessary for independent justice. He argued that maintaining public order could not require accepting unlawful conduct and reiterated his government’s commitment to restoring the rule of law after the judicial reforms introduced during PiS’s previous administration. The opposition contests that interpretation, accusing Tusk’s coalition of attempting to replace existing judicial authorities through politically motivated measures. These competing accusations reflect fundamental disagreements over constitutional legitimacy rather than a dispute that can be resolved merely by identifying which political camp currently controls Parliament.
The origins of the crisis date to 2015, when Poland’s outgoing governing coalition and the incoming PiS administration disputed the appointment of five Constitutional Tribunal judges. Subsequent decisions concerning judicial appointments and the tribunal’s composition generated controversy over whether some judges had been selected lawfully and whether the court continued to operate independently. Since taking office in 2023, Tusk’s coalition has sought to reverse aspects of the previous government’s judicial restructuring, but its reform efforts have encountered institutional resistance. The resulting deadlock has affected the recognition of judicial decisions, the appointment of new judges and the legitimacy of the tribunal itself.
The confrontation intensified during 2026 after Parliament elected eight judges to the 15-member Constitutional Tribunal. President Nawrocki administered the oath to three of them but declined to accept the remaining five, citing concerns about appointment procedures and constitutional requirements. Those five subsequently took their oaths through alternative proceedings in Parliament, while Święczkowski refused to recognize their entitlement to participate in the tribunal’s work. The central legal disagreement concerns whether the president’s role in receiving judicial oaths permits him to prevent parliamentary appointees from assuming office, or whether that role is essentially ceremonial once the constitutionally authorized selection process has been completed.
European judicial institutions have already addressed aspects of this conflict. In May, the European Court of Human Rights granted interim measures concerning four judges elected by Parliament in March, requiring Polish authorities not to obstruct their assumption and exercise of judicial duties while the matter remained under consideration. Separately, the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission concluded in October that Poland’s president should receive the oaths of properly elected Constitutional Tribunal judges without undue delay and should not use that procedure to exercise powers of selection not granted by the constitution. These findings provide important legal context, although the European Court of Human Rights is an institution of the Council of Europe rather than the European Union, and its interim measures should not be confused with a final judgment on every issue in the dispute.
Political reactions within the European Parliament have revealed how deeply divided interpretations of the crisis remain. Nicola Procaccini, co-chair of the European Conservatives and Reformists group, condemned the Polish government’s actions, arguing that they threatened judicial independence and constitutional safeguards. He urged European institutions to apply rule-of-law principles consistently, regardless of political affiliations. The European Commission, meanwhile, has emphasized Parliament’s appointment powers and the need to comply with European judicial standards. The disagreement illustrates a broader challenge for Brussels: defending judicial independence while avoiding the perception that institutional assessments depend on the ideological orientation of individual governments.
The controversy has also divided Poland’s legal community. Four former Constitutional Tribunal presidents—Marek Safjan, Jerzy Stępień, Bohdan Zdziennicki and Andrzej Zoll—have supported steps taken by judges elected under the current parliamentary majority, arguing that institutional action is necessary to overcome the prolonged paralysis. However, other constitutional lawyers have questioned whether the mechanism used to suspend Święczkowski and Sochański possesses a sufficiently clear legal foundation, even when they acknowledge longstanding concerns about the tribunal’s independence. Their disagreements highlight the difficulty of restoring contested institutions without creating additional disputes over the legality of the measures adopted.
The next significant development is expected on November 3, when Korwin-Piotrowska has called a general assembly of tribunal judges to address institutional matters, including preparations for the 2027 budget. The agenda also raises questions surrounding requests to remove the judicial immunity of Święczkowski and Sochański, although the legality of the assembly itself remains disputed. The immediate outcome could influence the tribunal’s administrative functioning, but a durable resolution will require broader agreement on judicial appointments, institutional authority and compliance with constitutional procedures.
For the European Union, Poland’s constitutional crisis extends beyond the composition of a single court. Independent constitutional review is an essential component of legal certainty, ensuring that public authorities exercise their powers within established constitutional limits and that citizens have access to functioning judicial safeguards. Prolonged disputes over the legitimacy of judicial institutions can weaken confidence in legal decisions and complicate relations between national and European authorities. The challenge confronting Poland is therefore not simply determining who controls the Constitutional Tribunal, but establishing a legal framework whose legitimacy can withstand political changes and preserve the independence of the judiciary.
As the confrontation continues, the European Commission’s statement reinforces the importance of distinguishing constitutional appointment powers from the contested methods used to exercise or enforce them. Poland’s elected institutions, judiciary and presidency remain bound by legal obligations, even when they advance conflicting interpretations of those obligations. The crisis demonstrates how difficult institutional reconstruction becomes when political polarization and unresolved judicial controversies reinforce one another. Its eventual resolution will depend on whether the competing authorities can establish procedures that protect constitutional continuity, judicial independence and public confidence without subordinating the rule of law to immediate political objectives.
Phoenix24: Beyond the headline, the context. / Más allá del titular, el contexto.