Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal Session of November 3 Is Invalid: Ordo Iuris Identifies Nine Defects in the Convening of the General Assembly

---

Conclusion of the opinion: the convening of the General Assembly of Judges of the Constitutional Tribunal (CT) (hereinafter: the General Assembly) for November 3, 2026, by Anna Korwin-Piotrowska is invalid, and any resolutions that might be adopted at that sitting cannot produce legal effects.

Factual background

By two unnumbered orders of October 30, 2026, Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, having declared herself the person substituting for the President of the Tribunal and directing the Constitutional Tribunal on account of her having the longest length of service, ordered an immediate break in the official duties of CT President Bogdan Święczkowski and CT Vice-President Bartłomiej Sochański^[1]. Then, by Order No. 1/2026, she convened a sitting of the General Assembly for November 3, 2026, whose agenda includes the adoption of the draft CT budget for 2027^[2], and announced that the agenda would be extended to include the drawing of lots for the disciplinary panels in the cases of the President and the Vice-President^[3]. The order was amended by Order No. 2/2026, which specified the time (3:30 p.m.) and place (the seat of the CT) of the General Assembly^[4]. This convening is marred by numerous defects, each of which, on its own, renders it invalid.

Legal analysis

1. Sittings of the General Assembly are convened by the President of the Tribunal, who sets their agenda and presides over the deliberations (Article 7(2) of the CT Proceedings Act^[5]). The Act provides for two exceptions to this rule, neither of which applies: Article 11(2)–(3) concerns only the period following the occurrence of a vacancy in the office of President, while Article 12(4) concerns a situation in which it is impossible to authorize the Vice-President or another judge to exercise the President’s powers. Yet the office of President is filled, and the President can – and wishes to – exercise his powers. The First President of the Supreme Court assessed these provisions in the same way^[6].

2. Anna Korwin-Piotrowska is not a CT judge and therefore cannot be the “judge of the Tribunal” referred to in Article 11(2) and Article 12(4) of the CT Proceedings Act. This is because the service relationship of a CT judge is established only once the oath has been taken before the President of the Republic of Poland (Article 4(1) and Article 5 of the Status Act^[7]), and until the oath has been taken, “the filling of judicial posts has not yet occurred”^[8]. The event organized on April 9, 2026, by the Speaker of the Sejm was not an oath within the meaning of the statute. Moreover, choosing a form unknown to the law instead of the statutory one may even be regarded as a refusal to take the oath, which is tantamount to resignation from office (Article 4(2) of the Status Act)^[9].

3. Even if Anna Korwin-Piotrowska were considered a CT judge, the legal basis she invoked for ordering a break in the official duties of the CT President and Vice-President – Article 130 of the Law on the System of Common Courts^[10] – does not apply to the CT. Article 19 of the Status Act refers to the provisions on Supreme Court judges only with regard to those rights and duties of judges that are not regulated in that Act, whereas disciplinary liability is regulated exhaustively in its Chapter 3 (Articles 24–30), which provides for neither a break in official duties nor the suspension of a judge. Likewise, Article 30 of that Act refers solely to the provisions on disciplinary proceedings, and then only to be applied “accordingly” – it cannot, therefore, create a power that the Act grants to no one. Article 130 §§ 1 and 2 entrusts this power to the president of a court or to the Minister of Justice, and, with respect to the president of a court, solely to the Minister – that is, to bodies supervising the common courts. No one exercises such supervision over the CT, which is separate from the other branches of power (Article 173 of the Constitution) and whose judges, in the exercise of their office, are subject only to the Constitution (Article 195(1)).

4. Even if Article 130 applied to CT judges, its conditions have not been met. A break in official duties is permissible only where a judge has been detained after being caught in the act of committing an intentional offense, or where, owing to the nature of the act, the dignity of the court or the essential interests of the service require that the judge be immediately removed from his or her duties. The order does not identify any such specific act – still less can there be any question of the judge being caught in the act.

5. Anna Korwin-Piotrowska’s actions rest on circular reasoning. Article 12(4) of the CT Proceedings Act allows the President to be substituted only when he is unable to authorize the Vice-President or another judge. That “inability,” however, was created only by the “suspension” itself. Anna Korwin-Piotrowska thus granted herself the right to perform the duties of the President in order to suspend the President – yet since she suspended him only in that very same act, the condition on the basis of which she could have assumed those duties did not exist.

6. The General Assembly was convened in breach of Article 7(3) of the CT Proceedings Act, under which judges are to be notified of the date and agenda of the sitting no later than 7 days before it. Only four days elapsed between the order of October 30 and the sitting on November 3; moreover, the time and place of the sitting were set only on November 2, and the extension of the agenda was announced the day before the sitting. Admittedly, Article 7(4) allows a departure from this deadline in duly justified cases, but this power belongs exclusively to the President of the Tribunal. Furthermore, under § 5(2) of the CT Rules of Procedure^[11], judges are notified of the date and agenda of the sitting in writing, in paper form, and by telephone. Yet by an order of October 31, 2026, Anna Korwin-Piotrowska restricted the activities of the CT’s Chancellery, suspended the performance of duties by the Tribunal’s employees, and halted the operation of its registry^[12]; consequently, the proper delivery of written notices to the judges is, at the very least, doubtful. Moreover, merely publishing the order on the Tribunal’s website does not satisfy the requirement of written form.

7. Only judges who have taken the oath before the President may take part in a sitting of the General Assembly, as Article 6(1) of the CT Proceedings Act unequivocally provides. The five persons who, in lieu of taking the oath, took part in ceremonies in the Sejm are thus not members of the General Assembly – their presence can count neither toward the quorum nor toward the majority of votes.

8. Resolutions of the General Assembly are adopted in the presence of at least two-thirds of the total number of judges of the Tribunal (Article 8(1) of the CT Proceedings Act), which is 15 (Article 194(1) of the Constitution) – at least 10 judges are therefore required. However, all the judges elected during previous terms of the Sejm – seven in all, including the President and the Vice-President – have announced that they will not take part in the sitting^[13]. That leaves three judges who have taken the oath before the President and – together with the five persons who have not taken the oath – at most eight. Thus, without the participation of the judges elected before March 2026, there will be no quorum. Any attempt to calculate the two-thirds on the basis of the thirteen “non-suspended” judges, or of twelve – that is, excluding the one judge whom the media have labeled a “stand-in” – would also be groundless. Article 8(1) refers to the total number of judges, not to the number of judges able to take part in the sitting.

9. Finally, it should be noted that under Article 8(2) of the CT Proceedings Act, the adoption of a resolution by the General Assembly requires the presence of the President of the Tribunal. Since the lawful President will not take part in the sitting, and Anna Korwin-Piotrowska – for the reasons set out in points 1–5 – cannot substitute for him, this requirement will not be met either.

Conclusion

Whatever is adopted on November 3, 2026, by the group of persons convened by Anna Korwin-Piotrowska will be fundamentally invalid: the sitting was convened by an unauthorized person, in breach of the statutory deadline, with the participation of persons who are not CT judges, without the required quorum, and without the presence of the President of the Tribunal. Any “resolutions” adopted in this manner cannot produce legal effects – in particular, they can serve neither as the basis for disciplinary proceedings against the President and Vice-President of the CT nor as consent to their being held criminally liable.

Jędrzej Jabłoński – Senior Analyst at the Ordo Iuris Institute for Legal Culture

See also:

• Police Takeover of Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal: Anatomy of a Coup
• Statement of the Ordo Iuris Institute for Legal Culture on the Forcible Seizure of the Seat of the Constitutional Tribunal
• “The Constitution Binds Everyone.” Polish Lawyers Take a Stand in Defense of the Constitutional Tribunal
• Poland’s Constitutional Crisis Deepens Under Donald Tusk with the Swearing-In of New Constitutional Judges Without the President
• Constitutional Tribunal Appointments in Poland: Rule-of-Law Implications of a Flawed Sejm Vote

^[1] The text of both orders is available at: Informacja w sprawie zarządzenia przerwy w czynnościach służbowych Bogdana Święczkowskiego oraz Bartłomieja Sochańskiego na podstawie art. 130 ustawy – Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych [Information on the order of a break in the official duties of Bogdan Święczkowski and Bartłomiej Sochański pursuant to Article 130 of the Law on the System of Common Courts], https://trybunal.gov.pl/wiadomosci/uroczystosci-spotkania-wyklady/art/informacja-w-sprawie-zarzadzenia-przerwy-w-czynnosciach-sluzbowych-bogdana-swieczkowskiego-oraz-bartlomieja-sochanskiego-na-podstawie-art-130-ustawy-prawo-o-ustroju-sadow-powszechnych, accessed November 2, 2026.

^[2] Order No. 1/2026 of the Judge of the Constitutional Tribunal Substituting for the President of the Constitutional Tribunal of October 30, 2026, https://trybunal.gov.pl/fileadmin/content/uroczystosci_spotkania_wizyty/2026/2026_10_30/zarzadzenie_1_2026.pdf, accessed November 2, 2026.

^[3] Dyscyplinarka dla Święczkowskiego. Korwin-Piotrowska zapowiada nowe zarządzenie [Disciplinary Case for Święczkowski: Korwin-Piotrowska Announces a New Order], Rzeczpospolita, November 1, 2026, https://www.rp.pl/sady-i-trybunaly/art45429081-korwin-piotrowska-zapowiada-nowe-zarzadzenie-ws-dyscyplinarki-dla-swieczkowskiego, accessed November 2, 2026.

^[4] Order No. 2/2026 of the Judge of the Constitutional Tribunal Substituting for the President of the Constitutional Tribunal of November 2, 2026, amending Order No. 1/2026 of October 30, 2026, https://trybunal.gov.pl/fileadmin/content/uroczystosci_spotkania_wizyty/2026/2026_11_02/Zarzadzenie_nr_2_2026_termin_i_porzadek_ZO.pdf, accessed November 2, 2026.

^[5] Act of November 30, 2016, on the Organization of the Constitutional Tribunal and the Mode of Proceedings Before the Constitutional Tribunal (Journal of Laws 2019, item 2393), hereinafter: the CT Proceedings Act.

^[6] Statement of the First President of the Supreme Court in connection with the situation at the Constitutional Tribunal, https://www.sn.pl/pl/aktualnosci/wydarzenia/oswiadczenie-pierwszego-prezesa-sadu-najwyzszego-wobec-aktualnej-sytuacja-w-trybunale-konstytucyjnym, accessed November 2, 2026.

^[7] Act of November 30, 2016, on the Status of the Judges of the Constitutional Tribunal (Journal of Laws 2018, item 1422), hereinafter: the Status Act.

^[8] Judgment of the CT of December 3, 2015, ref. K 34/15 (Journal of Laws 2015, item 2129).

^[9] This interpretation, proposed by the Chancellery of the President, was deemed admissible by Prof. Ryszard Piotrowski: „Nieskuteczne”. Konstytucjonalista wskazuje, co z sędziami TK po ślubowaniu [“Ineffective”: A Constitutional Law Expert Explains What Happens to the CT Judges After the Oath], wp.pl, April 9, 2026, https://wiadomosci.wp.pl/nieskuteczne-konstytucjonalista-wskazuje-co-z-sedziami-tk-po-slubowaniu-7273482660796672a, accessed November 2, 2026.

^[10] Act of July 27, 2001 – Law on the System of Common Courts (Journal of Laws 2024, item 334, as amended).

^[11] Resolution of the General Assembly of Judges of the Constitutional Tribunal of July 27, 2017, on the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Tribunal (Monitor Polski 2017, item 767), hereinafter: the CT Rules of Procedure.

^[12] Order concerning the organization of the CT’s work, https://trybunal.gov.pl/fileadmin/content/uroczystosci_spotkania_wizyty/2026/2026_10_30/zarzadzenie_dot._organizacji_pracy_TK.pdf, accessed November 2, 2026.

^[13] See „Starzy” sędziowie TK nie wezmą udziału w Zgromadzeniu 3 listopada? [Will the “Old” CT Judges Stay Away from the November 3 General Assembly?], prawo.pl, October 31, 2026, https://www.prawo.pl/prawnicy-sady/zgromadzenie-ogolne-sedziow-tk-korwin-piotrowska-zapowiedz-swieczkowskiego,1556242.html, accessed November 2, 2026.

Source of cover photo: iStock