Poland: dispute over constitutional court escalates
The long-running power struggle over Poland's constitutional court has escalated. Donald Tusk's government wants to reform the court, which was politically influenced by the PiS for years. However, President Karol Nawrocki, who has close ties to the PiS, is blocking the swearing-in of new judges. PiS supporters demonstrated outside the constitutional court in Warsaw at the weekend, and there were also disturbances inside the building.
Violence instead of justice
Polityka criticises the head of state:
“President Nawrocki has apparently decided to escalate the conflict. To what end? Having forced his way into the constitutional court, it seems his sole aim was to impose his will: I have decided to prevent five judges elected by this Sejm from carrying out their duties, and I will ensure that this is the case. This is not the rule of law; this is violence. One could argue that Judge Korwin-Piotrowska misinterpreted and misapplied the legal provision which allows for the exclusion of another judge whose actions could prejudice the administration of justice. There are some legal doubts. But this is a legal measure, not an act of violence.”
Government betraying its own ideals
Paweł Kapusta, editor-in-chief of Rzeczpospolita, voices his disappointment with Tusk’s government:
“Donald Tusk stood for election alongside the entire coalition under the banner of redress, the rule of law and inviolable principles. ... They were convinced that the restoration of the rule of law would take place swiftly and with dignity. ... Today, however, we hear from those in power that there is 'no alternative' – a trite phrase that can be used to justify all courses of action. Batons, police cordons outside the constitutional court, people entering the building under cover of night, exploiting loopholes in the law, and the fact that the president is abroad – none of this is evidence of decisiveness and strength, but rather an expression of helplessness.”
Fear of losing immunity
The conflict has been smouldering for years, explains La Repubblica:
“When Donald Tusk won the elections in 2023, he promised to restore the independence of the judiciary and the democratic separation of powers, but he found himself having to contend with two Presidents of the Republic from the ranks of the PiS – Andrzej Duda and Karol Nawrocki – who wield enormous veto powers and have attempted to thwart his plans in every conceivable way. The loss of a majority in the constitutional court and the Supreme Court would also mean the loss of immunity for many PiS representatives. This applies in particular to the President of the constitutional court himself, Bogdan Święczkowski, who faces four pending criminal proceedings.”
Tusk not aiming for judicial independence
For Prime Minister Tusk, this is not about the independence of the constitutional court, writes Interia:
“In his speech, Tusk spoke out against a constitutional reset. In his view, PiS has 'stolen' the constitutional court, so he is not planning to share what has been stolen with them. Rather, he wants to reclaim it in its entirety. Does this mean in practice that eight judges (out of the required fifteen) will form a 'renewed' constitutional court? These people, although portrayed as independent, behave like an army's disciplinary unit carrying out government orders. ... Tusk prefers to take over the existing system and use it for his own purposes.”
No victory for the constitutional state
In any case, this does not serve the rule of law, argues Gazeta Wyborcza:
“You may well ask: But what else could have been done? This can be answered with a counter-question: What, in fact, has been gained by these actions? A new, weakened constitutional court, should it continue to exist, will have no authority – just as it had none before. Only Tusk's government will recognise its rulings. ... So, just as under the PiS, we will have a constitutional court that examines motions only from a single party – namely, the one currently in power. Yet the constitutional court is supposed to be an instrument of the opposition, which challenges the laws passed by the majority.”
Rules must apply regardless of who is in power
Political analyst Alexandru Grumaz writes in Adevărul:
“Breaking the deadlock will take more than simply filling the post of President of the Court. Everything should be clarified separately: the status of the elected judges, a valid swearing-in procedure, grounds for suspensions, and who, if anyone, bears individual responsibility. … A constitutional court loses its significance if each party only recognises it on days when it rules in their favour. And the restoration of its authority is not measured by the satisfaction of a majority but by the fact that the rules remain valid even after a change in political power.”