Polish Tribunal Power Struggle Deepens Institutional Risk for Business

Poland’s escalating constitutional crisis entered a volatile new phase after Constitutional Tribunal judge Anna Korwin-Piotrowska announced the one-month suspension of the institution’s chairman, Bogdan Święczkowski, and vice chairman, Bartłomiej Sochański. The move triggered protests, a police cordon around the tribunal’s Warsaw headquarters and the emergency return of President Karol Nawrocki, who had been traveling to Senegal.

For companies operating in Poland, the confrontation raises concerns extending beyond the immediate dispute over judicial leadership. The Constitutional Tribunal reviews the compatibility of legislation with Poland’s constitution, making its authority relevant to the durability of statutes, regulatory decisions and the broader predictability on which boards and investors depend. The competing claims to control the institution could further complicate assessments of Polish legal and political risk.

Korwin-Piotrowska, one of the tribunal’s 15 judges, published her decision on its website on Friday evening, Oct. 30. The document said Święczkowski and Sochański had, among other actions, prevented judges appointed by the Sejm, Poland’s parliament, in 2026 and subsequently sworn in from participating in cases.

She based her authority on a 2016 law governing the tribunal’s organization and procedures, which she said allows the longest-serving judge to act in such circumstances. Korwin-Piotrowska also called a general assembly of tribunal judges for Nov. 3.

Rival leadership claims expose an institutional fracture

A sharply different account appeared on an X account presented as belonging to the tribunal. The post alleged an “illegal seizure” of the institution’s website, insisted that Święczkowski remained chairman and Sochański vice chairman, and asserted that Korwin-Piotrowska was not a Constitutional Tribunal judge. It described those involved in the action as committing the crime of a coup. The tribunal’s website, however, stated that the X account was not associated with the institution.

Sochański told the newspaper Rzeczpospolita that Korwin-Piotrowska had called him and said she was now leading the tribunal. He said he had no further information and described the development as unprecedented.

“I do not know of any legal provision that would allow such interference in the independence of the tribunal or an individual judge. A coup is taking place,” Sochański said.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk supported the temporary removal of the tribunal’s leadership. Tusk and the Sejm are aligned against Nawrocki, who is associated with the opposition Law and Justice party, known as PiS.

“Restoring the rule of law is our duty,” Tusk wrote on X. He said that after years of lawlessness under PiS, the process would be difficult, sometimes painful and require decisive action, adding that there was no alternative.

The competing statements leave corporate leaders facing a familiar but intensifying governance question: which decisions by Poland’s constitutional institutions will ultimately command legal recognition? The immediate conflict does not itself change commercial rules, but prolonged uncertainty over judicial legitimacy can affect how companies evaluate regulation, litigation exposure, investment timetables and contractual safeguards.

President returns as confrontation moves to tribunal headquarters

Nawrocki said he turned his aircraft around because of the situation. After returning to Poland, he met Święczkowski and Supreme Court First President Zbigniew Kapiński. Nawrocki and Kapiński then entered the tribunal building, according to presidential chief of staff Paweł Szefernaker.

The president entered despite Korwin-Piotrowska’s willingness to meet him only at the Presidential Palace. Maciej Berek, a tribunal judge elected by the Sejm but not permitted by Nawrocki to take the oath, said the president had chosen a path of “physical confrontation” with Korwin-Piotrowska by attempting to enter. Berek also said people identifying themselves as presidential office employees tried to obtain keys to rooms inside the tribunal.

Warsaw police said Prosecutor General and Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek had asked officers to pay particular attention to security during protests outside the building. Police also received a letter from a tribunal judge warning of a potential threat to life and health.

Officers cordoned off the building but said police were not stationed inside. Authorities reported that protesters threw “dangerous objects” at officers. Three demonstrators were detained after climbing over a barrier and entering tribunal grounds.

Months-long standoff tests Poland’s legal architecture

The confrontation stems from a dispute lasting several months between Tusk’s government and Nawrocki’s PiS camp. It began when the president refused to accept the oaths of new judges chosen by the current parliament. Święczkowski likewise refused to recognize their authority or allow them to hear cases.

The government considers the tribunal illegitimate because it still includes judges selected under the previous authorities. The governing coalition and judges supporting its position argue that Nawrocki has unlawfully obstructed the institution’s work.

Pressure on the suspended leadership is also increasing through prosecutorial channels. On Oct. 30, Żurek said he had submitted five applications to the Constitutional Tribunal seeking the lifting of immunity. He said the applications concerned, among others, Święczkowski and Sochański.

The crisis now presents Poland’s political leaders with a boardroom-style governance problem on a national scale: rival groups claim lawful authority, internal procedures are disputed and security concerns surround the institution responsible for resolving constitutional conflicts. Until the leadership question and the status of contested judges are clarified, businesses may need to treat Polish institutional risk as a more prominent factor in strategic decisions.