On Tuesday, president Karol Nawrocki will accept a vow from prof. Sławomir Patyra, 1 of the judges elected by the Sejm to the Constitutional Court. To those who swore “before the column” in the Column Hall, the head of state inactive says “no”. Is it chaos, or is it a precise game of control over the guardian of the Constitution?
One vow, 4 refusals
On Tuesday, July 28, president Karol Nawrocki will receive a vow from Prof. Sławomir Patyra, a constitutionalist at Maria Curie-Sklodowska University in Lublin. Patyr was elected by the Sejm in June to replace justice Andrzej Zielonack, who ends his nine-year term. The fresh justice twice addressed the President's Chancellery asking for a deadline, declaring full readiness to take up duties.
On the same day, the head of state will present nominations to 4 fresh ultimate Court judges and appointments for more than 200 judicial asessors. A broad but selective gesture: more judges elected by the Sejm, including Maciej Taborowski, Marcin Dziurda and Krystian Markiewicz, are inactive waiting for the vow. The president says no.
The President's criterion: Who swore “in front of the column”
Nawrocks don't hide why 1 invites 1 to the Palace and the another skips. The president explained: “Judge Patyr is the only justice who did not curse in front of a column in the Column Hall. He behaves like a liable man." In his opinion, the remainder took part in a performance that undermines the seriousness of the office.
This is simply a symbolic "marriage" that had previously been filed in the Sejm erstwhile the president waited for the term. Nawrocki added: “As we have judges who curse in front of a column or in front of an unqualified talker of the Sejm, I think everyone feels that this is simply a ridiculous thing.” Refusal to others justifies the alleged errors in the selection procedure made by the Sejm.
Żurek: “power usurpation”
On the another side of the dispute stands the Minister of Justice and the lawyer General Waldemar Żurek, for whom selective taking of vows means exceeding competence. The politician convinces that the Sejm elects the judges of the Court, and the president cannot decide which of them will invitation to the Palace. The refusal was explicitly referred to as “the usurpation of power” and announced that the case could end before the Court of State.
Żurek assures that his ministry has a plan of "reflection" of the Court and carries it out “step by step, according to the law”. The president is accused of seeking to change the strategy to presidential without changing the constitution. In the background, the Court itself is paralyzed, whose General Assembly under the direction of president Bogdan Święczkowski failed one more time to successfully assemble, and the prosecutor and police entered 1 of the meetings.
Dispute over the Guardian of the Constitution
Behind the procedural tug lies the stakes far more serious: who will control the Court erstwhile the 2027 elections approach. The government wants to break the current arrangement in the institution, and the president does not intend to corporateize a cast he considers defective. Constitutionalists are divided. Part, like Dr. Marcin Krzemiński of the Jagiellonian University, questions the legality of the president's movements; others remind us that taking a vow is his constitutional prerogative, not a purely method act.
Nawrock plays for time and precision: he takes a vow where the procedure does not rise his doubts, and pauses where he sees the political rush of the majority. This is simply a maneuver that allows him to avoid the charge of full blockade of the Court and at the same time not to give control of it. The question remains: in a country where the government and the president number judges as votes, who else treats the Court as an impartial arbitrator?
