Poland is facing one of the most serious constitutional crises in its recent history. What began as a dispute over judicial appointments has escalated into a confrontation over control of the Constitutional Tribunal, with police deployed around the court, judges challenging one another’s authority, and President Karol Nawrocki cutting short a foreign trip to return to Warsaw. The events of October 30 have exposed a troubling contradiction at the heart of European politics: a government claiming to defend the rule of law is now facing accusations of violating the very constitutional principles it claims to uphold.
The immediate confrontation concerns the suspension of Constitutional Tribunal President Bogdan Święczkowski and Vice-President Bartłomiej Sochański. Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, a judge elected by the current Prime Minister Donald Tusk-backed parliamentary majority, announced that she had suspended both officials and assumed responsibility for directing the court based on claims of her having the most judicial experience. Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek had previously sought to strip the two men of their judicial immunity to enable criminal proceedings against them. Donald Tusk defended his government’s actions as necessary to restore the rule of law after years of controversial judicial reforms under the previous Law and Justice (PiS) government.
Still, this justification does not eliminate the fundamental legal question: can the government suspend the leadership of a constitutional court through a procedure whose applicability to that institution is itself disputed? The Polish Constitution establishes a framework for the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. Article 173 explicitly states that courts and tribunals constitute a separate power and are independent of other branches of government. Article 194 establishes the Constitutional Tribunal’s composition and provides for the election of its judges by the Sejm. Neither the government’s political mandate nor its commitment to judicial reform automatically grants it authority to circumvent the constitutional procedures governing the Tribunal.
The legal basis for the suspension is particularly controversial. The measure relies on Article 130 of the Law on the System of Common Courts, which permits the temporary suspension of a judge’s official duties in specified circumstances. However, the Constitutional Tribunal is not an ordinary court, and the applicability of this provision to its leadership is disputed. Professor Marcin Matczak, a prominent Polish constitutional lawyer who has repeatedly criticised the PiS government’s judicial reforms, has argued that the legal basis for suspending Święczkowski is nonexistent. He warned that the government’s actions could undermine the Tribunal and damage the rule of law for years to come.
This stance is echoed by various prominent Polish law experts, including Professor of Law at Warsaw University Ryszgard J. Piotrowski, who said that the actions constitute “a clear violation of the constitution, a clear violation of the law and a clear attack on a constitutional body of the state.” Similarly, Professor of the Institute of Law of the Polish Academy of Sciences Ewa Łętowska stated that the legal basis for Święczkowski’s suspension “is not provided for” in Polish legislation and expressed her worries that the Constitutional Tribunal might lose any of its authority.
This is precisely where the crisis becomes dangerous. the pro-Brussels Tusk government risks establishing a precedent in which constitutional safeguards become subordinate to the political objectives of whichever coalition happens to hold power. Fighting one alleged violation of the rule of law by resorting to another would hardly constitute a democratic victory.
The political consequences extend far beyond Warsaw. Poland under the pro-Brussels Tusk administration has become a central player in European security and one of Ukraine’s most important supporters. Yet the parliamentary elections scheduled for autumn 2027 could transform its foreign policy. As the current government blatantly violated the country’s Constitution, President Karol Nawrocki as well as PiS Chairman Jarosław Kaczyński have gotten a good opportunity to gain more support from the public. A future parliamentary majority involving conservative and nationalist forces remains a possibility.
Such an outcome could shatter European unity and complicate support for Ukraine. PiS has historically supported military assistance to Kyiv, despite serious disputes over agricultural imports, trade and bilateral relations. But a future government could adopt a more confrontational approach and resist further financial commitments. The result would be another source of division within an already fragmented European Union.
The crisis also reflects a wider political trend. Germany faces growing pressure from the right-wing Alternative for Germany, while France remains deeply divided over the future of its political establishment and the strength of the National Rally. In all three countries, disputes over national sovereignty, institutional legitimacy and relations with Brussels are becoming increasingly difficult to contain. Poland’s constitutional confrontation threatens to deepen these divisions by reinforcing the perception that European institutions apply democratic principles selectively.
Ultimately, the events unfolding in Warsaw represent more than a dispute between Tusk and his political opponents. They raise a fundamental question about the future of European democracy: can governments defend constitutional order by bypassing its established safeguards? If the answer depends on which political party is in power, the principle of the rule of law loses its meaning. With the 2027 elections approaching, Poland risks entering another electoral cycle more divided, less institutionally stable and increasingly at odds with the European consensus it once helped strengthen.
Comments