Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has called on President Karol Nawrocki to recognise the judges elected by parliament to the Constitutional Tribunal, arguing that the escalating constitutional crisis can be resolved without changing Poland’s constitution. The proposal, made on Monday, 2 November, comes amid a confrontation over the court’s leadership and the status of judges whose appointments have not been recognised by the president.
In a statement published on X, Tusk described the solution as straightforward.
“The solution to the conflict is simple and possible without changes to the constitution,” he wrote.
- Find more news from Poland on our Homepage .
The prime minister argued that Nawrocki should accept the judges elected by the Sejm, Poland’s lower house of parliament, enabling them to begin performing their judicial duties.
He also accused the president of pursuing a confrontation that could impose significant costs on Poland.
Tusk’s remarks represent his clearest recent explanation of how he believes the immediate judicial appointments dispute should be resolved, following several days of extraordinary events at the Constitutional Tribunal’s headquarters in Warsaw.
Government and president remain sharply divided
The prime minister’s intervention followed his televised address on Saturday, in which he accused opposition politicians and the president of undermining the rule of law and pledged that the government would protect the Tribunal’s ability to function.
In Monday’s statement, Tusk again accused opposition groups of pursuing confrontation and referred to unspecified external forces supporting their actions.
He did not provide evidence in the statement establishing the nature or extent of that alleged outside support.
The president’s office offered a fundamentally different account.
Presidential spokesman Rafał Leśkiewicz, speaking to Polsat News on Monday, accused Tusk and the governing coalition of unlawfully attempting to take control of an independent constitutional institution.
According to the official account published by the president’s office, Leśkiewicz argued that the prime minister was responsible for creating the current confrontation.
He also disputed the authority of Judge Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, who has claimed responsibility for directing the Tribunal following orders interrupting the duties of its president and vice-president.
Leśkiewicz said the presidential office remained open to discussions about resolving the crisis but maintained that an initiative must come from the government and parliament.
The competing accounts demonstrate that the dispute extends beyond the immediate question of judicial appointments to the legitimacy of the Tribunal’s leadership and the actions taken by the executive authorities.
What the constitution says about appointing judges
The disagreement centres partly on the respective responsibilities of parliament and the president in appointing Constitutional Tribunal judges.
Under Article 194 of Poland’s constitution, the Tribunal consists of 15 judges individually elected by the Sejm for nine-year terms.
The constitution gives the president a separate role in appointing the Tribunal’s president and vice-president from candidates presented by the court’s judges.
Ordinary legislation also provides for newly elected Constitutional Tribunal judges to take an oath before the president.
The interpretation of that requirement has become central to the current conflict.
In March 2026, parliament elected six Constitutional Tribunal judges. Nawrocki subsequently received the oaths of two of them but declined to receive the remaining four.
The Sejm maintained that all six had been validly elected and that the president had no constitutional authority to block their appointments.
The remaining judges participated in an oath-taking ceremony organised in parliament in April, but the president’s office rejected the procedure as insufficient.
The dispute has consequently developed into a wider confrontation over whether those judges can exercise judicial authority without the president accepting their oaths.
Tusk’s latest proposal effectively calls for the president to abandon his objections and recognise the parliamentary appointments.
Whether that could immediately resolve the wider institutional crisis remains disputed.
Legal concerns extend beyond the appointments
The confrontation intensified on 30 October when Judge Anna Korwin-Piotrowska issued orders interrupting the duties of Tribunal President Bogdan Święczkowski and Vice-President Bartłomiej Sochański.
Both men reject the legitimacy of those decisions.
President Nawrocki cut short a foreign trip and returned to Warsaw, subsequently becoming involved in a confrontation at the Tribunal building.
The disputed leadership changes have also attracted criticism from organisations that have previously challenged the Tribunal’s functioning under earlier governments.
The Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, a leading Polish civil liberties organisation, has questioned whether Korwin-Piotrowska had the legal authority to interrupt the duties of the Tribunal’s senior officials.
Its position is particularly significant because it simultaneously supports the right of properly elected judges to assume their duties.
As Poland-24 reported in its examination of the Foundation’s assessment, the organisation warned that the leadership suspension orders could establish a dangerous legal precedent.
The Foundation instead advocated a broader constitutional reset, involving changes to judicial selection procedures and a fresh composition of the Tribunal.
That approach differs significantly from Tusk’s proposal, which focuses on recognition of the existing parliamentary appointments without changing the constitution.
Is a constitutional compromise still possible?
Nawrocki held consultations with political representatives over the weekend following the confrontation at the Tribunal.
Various proposals emerged, including a broader institutional reset intended to rebuild confidence in the court.
Such a solution would require agreement across political divisions that have persisted for more than a decade.
The dispute has its origins in the contested judicial appointments of 2015 and subsequent changes to Poland’s judiciary under the former Law and Justice government.
European courts have since issued significant judgments concerning irregularities in the Tribunal’s composition and the independence of Poland’s judicial institutions.
The present conflict also raises questions about the procedures being used by the current government and newly appointed judges to restore the Tribunal’s functioning.
For readers unfamiliar with the longer dispute, Poland-24 has published a comprehensive explanation of the Constitutional Tribunal crisis, covering its origins, the competing legal arguments and the role of European courts.
For now, Tusk’s proposal has not produced an agreement with the president.
The government maintains that the disputed judges should be allowed to exercise their responsibilities, while Nawrocki’s office continues to question the legality of the procedures used to enable them to do so.
With both sides presenting their positions as necessary to defend Poland’s constitutional order, there is still no agreed mechanism for ending the confrontation.
