October 31, 2026

On the night of Friday into Saturday, events took place in Warsaw that may become one of the most important episodes in the recent history of Polish democracy. Below are the facts of what happened, the legal grounds of the dispute, and its history since 2015.

Historical Background

The Polish tradition of constitutional review begins long before the modern Constitutional Tribunal.

The constitutional court was meant to prevent any authority, including one with the strongest democratic mandate, from going beyond the limits set by the constitution.

What Happened on Friday and Overnight

Friday, 30 October 2026:

• Tribunal judge Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, elected by the Sejm, ordered the one-month suspension of Tribunal Chairman Bogdan Święczkowski (Świączkowskiego in the source) and his deputy Bartłomiej Sochański from their official duties. She considered that she had the right to replace the chairman.
• Świączkowski challenged both her authority and the decision itself.
• Prosecutor General Waldemar Żurek reported that five motions to lift the immunity of both judges had been submitted: four concerning Świączkowski and one concerning Sochański.
• Significant police forces, opposition representatives, and demonstrators arrived at the Tribunal building. Demonstrators had been keeping watch at the Tribunal for several months. Clashes broke out, and there were attempts to break through the barrier.
• Three people were detained.
• In Świączkowski's presence, a man with an angle grinder cut through the gate lock, trying to clear a path for him. Police blocked further progress.

President Karol Nawrocki:

• The president cut short his visit to Senegal and returned to Warsaw.
• Anna Korwin-Piotrowska initially refused him a visit to the Tribunal. She then proposed a meeting without escorts.
• After midnight, Karol Nawrocki arrived at Szucha Street. A scuffle broke out at the entrance involving the head of state. Video recordings show a physical confrontation. Each side accuses the other of provoking it.
• According to a published recording, upon entering the building, the president said to Anna Korwin-Piotrowska and others present: "You are not judges of the Constitutional Tribunal."

As of 2:00 a.m., the situation remained unresolved. It is not known what decisions will be taken or whether new clashes will occur.

Assessment of the Situation

Regardless of who initiated the physical confrontation, the appearance of such scenes involving the head of state is a serious event. The President of the Republic of Poland represents the state, and his authority matters beyond the country's borders.

The president's determination to defend the constitutional order is understandable if he considers it his duty. However, recordings of a physical confrontation around the head of state may weaken the image of Poland as a stable democracy. This is especially significant because world news agencies have already reported on events at the Tribunal.

A dispute over who may lead one of the key institutions, which ended in a physical clash at its entrance, makes it harder to perceive Poland as a state with strong and predictable institutions.

Origins of the Conflict: Autumn 2015

To understand the causes of the crisis, we need to go back to autumn 2015. At that time, the term of the Sejm was ending, a parliament in which Civic Platform and the Polish People's Party held the majority.

• The outgoing parliament elected five judges to the Tribunal. The terms of two of them were to begin only after the elections, during the work of the new Sejm.
• In December 2015, the Tribunal ruled that the basis for the election of three judges complied with the constitution, and that of the other two did not.
• In the autumn, power passed to the Law and Justice party. The new majority challenged the election of all five and appointed its own candidates, including three to seats that the previous parliament had filled properly.
• President Andrzej Duda did not administer the oath to the three previously elected judges. This gave rise to the dispute over "duplicate judges."

The outgoing majority did indeed exceed its powers regarding two seats. Law and Justice also challenged three elections whose legality the Tribunal had confirmed. This part of the conflict is often presented in a simplified way, so it is important to mention it.

Further developments:

• In 2016, the Law and Justice government refused to publish some of the Tribunal's rulings.
• Julia Przyłębska became the Chair of the Tribunal.
• In the following years, the Tribunal included, among others, Krystyna Pawłowicz and Stanisław Piotrowicz. Before their appointments, both were active politicians of Law and Justice.
• Past political affiliation does not prohibit someone from serving as a Tribunal judge. However, the selection of people closely tied to a single party reinforced doubts about the independence of the institution.
• In 2021, the European Court of Human Rights found that the participation of an improperly elected judge in considering cases violated the right to a tribunal established by law.
• After the 2023 elections, Donald Tusk's government announced its intention to restore the Tribunal. The change of power did not resolve a problem that had been building for many years.
• In December 2024, Bogdan Święczkowski became Chair of the Tribunal. Previously, he served as National Prosecutor, was one of the closest allies of Zbigniew Ziobro, and headed the Internal Security Agency. He is known for his tough style of work in the prosecutorial community; informally, he is called "Godzilla."
• In March 2026, the Sejm elected new Tribunal judges. The President administered the oath to two of them, and the rest took the oath in the Sejm. The former Tribunal leadership challenged their powers.

Legal Grounds of the Dispute

Anna Korwin-Piotrowska relies on the provisions on replacing the chair of the Tribunal with the judge who, by calculation, has the longest seniority. She also cites Article 130 of the law on the system of common courts. This article allows, in certain circumstances, the immediate suspension of a judge's activity for a period of no more than one month. In her view, these norms can be applied to the Tribunal by analogy.

Critics of the decision dispute:

1. the competence of a judge to apply such a measure to the chair of the Tribunal;
2. the assumption that she may perform the functions of the head of the Tribunal;
3. the status of judges elected by the Sejm whose oath the President has not accepted.

Thus, within a single institution there are competing interpretations of the law, leading to entirely opposite conclusions about who may lead it. An institution designed to resolve disputes about the constitutionality of laws has itself become the subject of dispute, and its participants do not recognize each other's powers.

The debate includes grave accusations, including the accusation of a coup d'état. However, the legal qualification of events requires establishing specific actions, intentions, and the responsibility of individual persons in the course of judicial proceedings. Political accusations cannot substitute for such determinations.

Criminal Law Provisions

• Article 128 of the Criminal Code provides for imprisonment for actions directly aimed at the violent elimination of a constitutional body of the Republic of Poland. For the use of violence or unlawful threats to influence the official actions of such a body, the penalty is imprisonment from one year to 10 years.
• Article 135 of the Criminal Code establishes special protection for the President. For an active assault on the head of state, the penalty is imprisonment from three months to five years. For publicly insulting the head of state, the penalty is up to three years.

A scuffle at the entrance to the Tribunal does not in itself constitute an active assault. However, the disputed actions of the Tribunal's leadership do not automatically amount to an attempted coup d'état. The final legal classification will be determined by the courts.

The Role of the Tribunal in the System of Checks and Balances

The Constitutional Tribunal is one of the key elements of the separation of powers: legislative, executive, and judicial. It may:

• review the conformity of laws with the constitution;
• review constitutional complaints from citizens;
• resolve competence disputes between the central constitutional bodies of the state;
• assess the conformity of political parties' goals or activities with the constitution.

The Tribunal also ensures the continuity of state functioning. In cases provided for by the constitution, it may determine that the President is temporarily unable to perform his duties. The duties are then transferred to the Marshal of the Sejm.

Guarantees of the independence of Tribunal judges:

• Judges are elected for a term of nine years, without the right to be re-elected.
• They enjoy immunity and guarantees of independence.
• They may not be members of political parties.
• Their remuneration is under special protection.

These privileges are retained after the end of the term of office. The judge transitions to the status of a retired judge and receives an allowance of 75% of his last monthly remuneration, excluding the functional supplement. The amount is indexed together with changes in the remuneration of Tribunal judges. As a rule, this payment is made for life, with exceptions established by law.

A retired judge retains some of the guarantees associated with the status of a judge. At the same time, restrictions on political activity and additional employment, as well as disciplinary liability, continue to apply to him.

These guarantees are designed to enable judges to make decisions independently of the expectations of politicians. The key function of a constitutional court lies precisely in its ability to challenge a decision even of a very strong parliamentary majority.

International Context

G20 foreign ministers have gathered in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Poland is represented at the meeting by Radosław Sikorski. The country is taking part in the talks at the invitation of the American presidency and is seeking a permanent seat at the table of the world's largest economies. Russia has already challenged Polish aspirations.

At the same time, Poland is negotiating with the United States on expanding the American military presence, including the possible creation of a new permanent base. The project may cost several billion dollars and carry strategic significance for the security of NATO's eastern flank for decades to come.

The domestic crisis coincided with a period when, just days before the US midterm elections, the capacity for political decision-making is limited. Poland seeks to strengthen the position of one of the United States' key partners in Europe. Meanwhile, global media report on a president who interrupted a foreign visit to return to a country embroiled in a dispute over its most important institutions.

At present, there is no basis for claiming that the events of this night have affected the position of American authorities or decisions regarding the military base. However, such events make it harder to strengthen the international authority of the Polish state. In diplomacy, not only economic strength and army size matter, but also the stability of institutions and the predictability of a partner.

Economic Consequences

The events took place on Friday, on the eve of All Saints' Day and ahead of the long weekend, so markets had time to partially react to the news before trading opened on Monday. This does not rule out a further reaction.

For comparison, the most significant currency declines linked to constitutional crises in recent times occurred in 2021 in countries with well-established democracies, such as Pakistan and Peru. Poland is in a fundamentally different situation. There are no grounds to predict a fall in the zloty on Monday.

However, a prolonged institutional crisis may raise the risk premium that investors demand for investing capital in the country. This could lead to pressure on the currency, rising bond yields, and greater caution among companies when planning investments. This is especially true in situations where the conflict calls into question the predictability of how law is made and applied.

Entrepreneurs and investors who make decisions about building factories, technology centers, and infrastructure must be confident that the existing rules will be observed in a few years' time as well.

Investors' reaction to the events in Warsaw will be revealed by trading on Monday.

Historical Parallels

In 2016, Jacek Zalewski, a columnist for Puls Biznesu, wrote about the consequences of the non-publication of the Tribunal's rulings and the significance of the conflict for international perceptions of Poland. Since then, questions about the impact of the constitutional crisis on trust in the state have arisen regularly.

A medieval analogy also illustrates the situation. During the Great Western Schism, the Church split between a pope and an antipope, and at some point it was no longer clear which of them was legitimate. The way out was found by convening a council, which deposed all the claimants and elected one.

Выводы

Конституционный спор в Польше затрагивает вопрос о том, кто имеет право толковать конституцию и защищать её. Сам по себе смена руководства Трибунала, новое распоряжение или политическое заявление о победе не решат проблему, которая накапливается с 2015 года.

Демократическое государство нуждается в институтах, законность и полномочия которых признаются большинством. Ему также нужны процедуры, которые действуют независимо от результатов очередных выборов, и доверие граждан к праву.

В демократии политические споры естественны. Конституция, в частности, существует для того, чтобы даже самые острые конфликты между властями разрешались без применения силы. В Польше же спор идёт о том, кто вправе толковать и защищать саму конституцию.

Если каждое новое парламентское большинство будет заново решать, кто является законным судьёй, кто руководит Трибуналом и чьи решения подлежат исполнению, кризис будет воспроизводиться и умножаться при каждых выборах. Поэтому, по оценке автора материала, для восстановления авторитета институтов и доверия к процедурам потребуется более широкое решение.