Poland's Political Fight Over the Constitutional Tribunal Continues
Poland's Constitutional Tribunal is effectively paralysed because President Navrocki has for months refused to accept the oath of newly elected judges. The dispute is part of a long struggle between conservatives and Prime Minister Tusk's liberals ahead of the 2027 elections.
A political and legal battle over Poland's Constitutional Tribunal (KT) is continuing, and the court is currently effectively paralysed. At the centre of the dispute is President Navrocki, who for months has refused to accept the oath of new judges elected by parliament. It is the latest stage in a rivalry between conservatives and pro-European liberals that has lasted more than two decades in Poland.
What the dispute is about
The conservatives are led by the Law and Justice party (PiS). The main liberal force is the Civic Coalition (KO), headed by Prime Minister Donald Tusk. The tribunal has been one of the arenas of this struggle since 2015. Until the end of October, conservative-minded judges dominated it.
Parliament elects the new judges, but the law says they must take their oath in the president's presence. The new judges, who hold liberal views and are linked to KO, have taken the oath only before parliament. The sides disagree on whether such judges have actually assumed office, and on whether the president must accept the oath immediately or may postpone it indefinitely.
Political context
Tusk has chosen to escalate the confrontation. The opposition calls this an attempted coup, while the governing side calls it restoring the rule of law. The commentary notes that Sejm elections are expected in late 2027, and polls show voter sympathy shifting toward the conservative bloc as a whole, not only PiS.
The tribunal can significantly influence the political process and is the only body able to bar a party from elections. Both camps therefore want a friendly tribunal. For Tusk's liberal camp, however, a paralysed court that cannot make decisions is also not among the worst outcomes. A country without a functioning top court looks poor, but the commentary suggests the combatants are hardly troubled by this.
