WARSAW, POLAND — November 1, 2026. Poland’s constitutional crisis intensified on Sunday when Bogdan Święczkowski, the disputed president of the country’s Constitutional Tribunal, confronted police officers outside the court’s headquarters and demanded permission to enter the building. Insisting that he remained the institution’s legitimate leader despite his suspension, Święczkowski ordered officers to remove those he accused of unlawfully occupying the premises. Police declined to comply, transforming a prolonged dispute over judicial appointments into another public confrontation over constitutional authority, institutional independence and the limits of state power.
The incident followed an extraordinary sequence of events that began Friday, October 30, when Judge Anna Korwin-Piotrowska announced the suspension of Święczkowski and Tribunal Vice-President Bartłomiej Sochański. Korwin-Piotrowska subsequently assumed responsibility for directing the court’s work, arguing that its previous leadership had obstructed judges appointed by Poland’s Parliament. Święczkowski rejected the decision, maintaining that the suspension had no lawful foundation and that Korwin-Piotrowska lacked the authority to remove him from office. Their competing claims have left the tribunal facing a fundamental question: who possesses legitimate authority to direct the institution responsible for reviewing the constitutionality of Polish law?
Appearing before officers stationed at the courthouse entrance, Święczkowski demanded that the commander responsible for the security operation authorize his entry. He accused Korwin-Piotrowska of unlawfully invalidating his access credentials and preventing him from fulfilling his constitutional responsibilities. The former prosecutor also instructed police to remove individuals inside the building whom he described as usurpers, warning that officers could face legal consequences for refusing to act. His statements reflected his own interpretation of the situation, rather than a judicial determination that the suspension or police deployment was unlawful.
The confrontation did not end with Sunday’s unsuccessful attempt to enter the building. Święczkowski announced that he intended to return daily, arguing that he remained responsible for the court’s operations and for proceedings affecting citizens’ constitutional rights. He also pointed to three hearings scheduled for November in which he expected to participate, emphasizing that the institutional dispute could interfere with the tribunal’s ordinary judicial responsibilities. The practical consequences extend beyond access to a government building: uncertainty over the court’s leadership raises questions about its ability to conduct hearings, issue decisions and maintain the continuity of constitutional review.
The latest developments represent another stage in a conflict that has divided Poland’s political and judicial institutions since 2015. That year, competing decisions concerning appointments to the Constitutional Tribunal generated a dispute between the outgoing Civic Platform government and the incoming Law and Justice party, known by its Polish abbreviation PiS. During PiS’s subsequent years in power, European institutions and legal observers raised concerns about judicial independence, the composition of the tribunal and the authority of its rulings. Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s coalition, which assumed office in December 2023, has sought to reverse elements of those changes, but its reform efforts have encountered resistance from officials appointed during the previous administration.
The immediate disagreement concerns judges elected by the Sejm, Poland’s lower house of Parliament, whose appointments have been challenged by President Karol Nawrocki and the tribunal’s previous leadership. Nawrocki, politically aligned with PiS, has disputed aspects of the appointment process, while the governing coalition maintains that Parliament acted within its constitutional powers. The confrontation escalated dramatically on Friday night when newly elected judges entered the tribunal, police secured the premises and Nawrocki interrupted a journey to Senegal to return to Warsaw. The president subsequently accused the government of attempting to seize control of a constitutional institution, an allegation rejected by Tusk’s administration.
European institutions have entered the debate because Poland’s constitutional arrangements must operate alongside its commitments under European law. On October 31, the European Commission stated that appointing eight new Constitutional Tribunal judges falls within the constitutional authority of the Sejm, while emphasizing that Polish institutions must respect the national constitution and relevant European judicial rulings. The Commission also referred to interim measures issued by the European Court of Human Rights in May 2026 concerning the ability of parliamentary appointees to assume their judicial duties. These interventions provide legal context for the dispute, although they do not independently resolve every question concerning the extraordinary suspension of the tribunal’s leadership.
Prime Minister Tusk addressed the country on Saturday, condemning the confrontations surrounding the courthouse and promising to restore conditions necessary for independent judicial proceedings. He argued that defending the rule of law required public authorities to reject intimidation and unlawful interference, while maintaining that the parliamentary majority had followed constitutional procedures in appointing judges. Nawrocki and opposition representatives have advanced a sharply different interpretation, accusing the government of undermining judicial independence through an attempted institutional takeover. The competing positions demonstrate why the crisis cannot be reduced to a straightforward disagreement between two political leaders: it involves contested interpretations of legal authority, judicial appointments and the mechanisms available to resolve institutional disputes.
The situation poses broader challenges for Poland’s democratic governance. Constitutional courts serve as safeguards against the unlawful exercise of public power, but their effectiveness depends on the recognized legitimacy of their membership, leadership and decisions. When competing groups claim authority over the same court, uncertainty can extend to pending proceedings, government institutions and individuals seeking constitutional protection. The presence of police at the tribunal also raises sensitive questions about how public security should be maintained without allowing executive authority or physical control of institutional premises to determine the outcome of a judicial disagreement.
The confrontation has attracted European attention because judicial independence and effective legal remedies are central to the European Union’s rule-of-law framework. Poland’s continuing disputes over constitutional adjudication have implications for confidence in national legal institutions and the application of European legal obligations. At the same time, any durable solution must respect the distinction between political objectives and constitutionally authorized procedures, regardless of which party controls the government or presidency. Replacing one contested institutional arrangement with another would risk prolonging uncertainty unless the legal basis for appointments and leadership decisions can withstand independent scrutiny.
For now, Święczkowski’s announcement that he will continue attempting to enter the tribunal suggests that the confrontation is unlikely to disappear through police restrictions alone. The immediate challenge involves maintaining the court’s operations while the legitimacy of its leadership remains disputed, but the underlying problem is considerably deeper. Poland must establish a constitutional process capable of resolving competing claims without making the authority of its highest judicial institutions dependent on shifting political majorities. Sunday’s confrontation illustrates the stakes of that challenge: when the president of a constitutional court must demand entry from police officers who refuse his instructions, a disagreement about judicial appointments has become a visible crisis of institutional legitimacy.
Phoenix24: Beyond the headline, the constitutional stakes. / Más allá del titular, las implicaciones constitucionales.