Constitutional law scholar Wojciech Sadurski outlined on TVN24 what he believes could be a way for Poland’s December 13 coalition to take control of the Constitutional Tribunal (TK). His proposal envisions that individuals elected by the Sejm as Constitutional Tribunal judges, but who have not taken the oath of office before the president, would form an alternative Tribunal. “The ‘Sadurski Plan’ requires an urgent criminal-law assessment,” the legal association Veritas Et Ius in the Service of the Nation warned.
Sadurski’s proposal for the Constitutional Tribunal
Sadurski’s proposal calls for the seven individuals elected to the Constitutional Tribunal by the current parliamentary majority—and, in the future, an eighth person—to constitute themselves as an alternative bench of the Tribunal.
“I don’t think police measures alone will solve the problem, because, of course, you can use the police to bring in the new judges. You could even use the police to remove Mr. Święczkowski, who, I fully agree, is committing an ongoing and fundamental abuse of office by refusing to admit the properly elected judges. And he is doing so in coordination and cooperation with Karol Nawrocki,” Sadurski said.
In his view, the December 13 coalition should “adopt a positive, constructive strategy and recognize that those seven properly elected judges—and soon there will be an eighth, once substitute judge Justyn Piskorski leaves office—should constitute themselves as the legitimate Constitutional Tribunal.”
According to Sadurski, the alternative bench would not even need to meet at the Tribunal’s official headquarters.
“They don’t even have to do it in the Constitutional Tribunal building—they can meet elsewhere. In this way, Mr. Święczkowski, Mr. Sochański, and Mr. Piotrowicz can simply be marginalized and ignored,” he argued.
Veritas Et Ius calls for a criminal-law assessment
The legal association Veritas Et Ius in the Service of the Nation responded to Sadurski’s remarks.
“The ‘Sadurski Plan’ requires an urgent criminal-law assessment. What has been presented as the ‘Sadurski Plan’ no longer appears to be merely an academic critique of the Constitutional Tribunal. The described concept envisages creating an alternative Tribunal, taking over its functions, transferring its case files and financial resources, and effectively preventing the current leadership of the Tribunal from exercising its constitutional powers,” the organization stated.
The association argued that such a scenario “raises legitimate questions as to whether it could constitute preparation for an offense under Article 128 §2 of the Polish Penal Code, which criminalizes preparations to remove a constitutional authority of the Republic of Poland by force or to seize its functions by force. Article 128 §1 also covers acts committed through force or unlawful threats.”
According to the organization, “particularly alarming are the proposals to use the police to remove individuals from the Constitutional Tribunal’s headquarters, deprive the current leadership of access to documents, and redirect case files, salaries, and infrastructure to a rival body.”
The association added:
“If such statements were to evolve from journalistic speculation into actual agreements, division of roles, or preparations for the forcible takeover of the Tribunal’s functions, they could fall within the scope of criminal liability under Article 128 of the Penal Code. The distinction between legal reform and the de facto takeover of a constitutional authority through faits accomplis must not be blurred. The Constitution provides that the Constitutional Tribunal consists of 15 judges elected individually by the Sejm for nine-year terms, while the President and Vice President of the Tribunal are appointed by the President of the Republic from among candidates presented by the General Assembly of Tribunal judges.”
In the association’s opinion, “the matter should not be dismissed as merely ‘a professor’s bold idea.’ Law enforcement authorities should determine whether this is only a media statement or part of an actual plan to seize the functions of a constitutional body.”
“The proposal is serious enough that its possible classification under Article 128 of the Penal Code should be professionally and impartially examined rather than dismissed as a political metaphor,” the statement concluded.
Oath ceremony held without the president
On April 9, a ceremony described by its participants as “taking the oath before the president” was held in the Sejm’s Column Hall, despite the president not being present. In the presence of Sejm Marshal Włodzimierz Czarzasty, the oath was recited by Magdalena Bentkowska, Marcin Dziurda, Krystian Markiewicz, Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, Maciej Taborowski, and Dariusz Szostek.
Bentkowska and Szostek had previously taken the oath at the Presidential Palace. President Karol Nawrocki did not administer the oath to Dziurda, Markiewicz, Korwin-Piotrowska, or Taborowski.
Nevertheless, the four later went to the Constitutional Tribunal’s headquarters, declaring their readiness to assume judicial duties. Tribunal President Bogdan Święczkowski did not allow them to participate in adjudication, arguing that the legal relationship required for serving as Constitutional Tribunal judges had not been validly established.
The individuals who were not permitted to perform judicial duties later continued to appear at the Constitutional Tribunal’s headquarters. They were also transported to the building in a vehicle belonging to the Chancellery of the Sejm.