The Venice Commission has adopted a confidential opinion regarding the constitutional powers of Polish President Karol Nawrocki, a move that threatens to intensify the institutional standoff in Warsaw over the composition of the Trybunał Konstytucyjny. The advisory body of the Council of Europe weighed in on Friday during its plenary session in Venice, advocating for a systemic resolution to the ongoing disputes surrounding judicial appointments.
Venice Commission Session and Polish Delegation Arguments
The closed-door opinion was drafted using reports compiled by constitutional experts from Austria, Germany, Netherlands, Ireland, and Finland, following a request from the Monitoring Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). The final text remains classified pending its official publication, expected on Monday or Tuesday. Representing the Polish delegation in Venice were presidential advisor and constitutionalist Professor Dariusz Dudek alongside Daniel Kędzierski from the Sejm Chancellery.
Professor Dudek presented the position of President Karol Nawrocki during the plenary debate, addressing the controversy over unadministered oaths for judges elected by the Sejm. The Venice Commission’s analyses focused closely on Articles 179 and 194 of the Polish Constitution, which govern presidential appointments and the operational structure of the constitutional court. Professor Dudek maintained that the president has never categorically refused to administer oaths to newly elected judges, attributing the current deadlock to historical legislative overreaches dating back to 2015.
Political Friction in Warsaw Over Judicial Appointments
The confrontation between the executive branch and the governing coalition centers on the interpretation of constitutional obligations. Government ministers and coalition representatives assert that withholding oaths from elected judges violates the constitution. Minister of Justice Waldemar Żurek publicly insisted that the president is legally bound to administer the oaths. Prime Minister Donald Tusk echoed this sentiment, stating that taking oaths is a mandatory constitutional duty rather than a matter of personal political preference.
This friction has left multiple judicial seats vacant or contested. Four of the six judges chosen by the Sejm in March have been barred from adjudicating cases after failing to receive presidential oaths in person, though they attempted a separate swearing-in ceremony in the Sejm using the formula “wobec prezydenta” (before the president), an action rejected by Constitutional Tribunal President Bogdan Święczkowski. Meanwhile, a fresh deadlock has emerged surrounding the candidacy of Maciej Berek, who was chosen by the Sejm in early September. Presidential Spokesperson Rafał Leśkiewicz indicated that President Nawrocki will administer Berek’s oath only after receiving confirmation that all formal criteria have been met.
Legal Challenges and International Scrutiny
The administrative and political gridlock has now spilled over into international and criminal jurisdictions. Four of the judges bypassed by the president have filed formal complaints with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Simultaneously, the National Prosecutor’s Office has launched an active investigation into allegations that individuals facilitated the president’s failure to administer oaths and blocked the affected judges from taking up their seats.
While the Venice Commission operates strictly as an advisory body whose guidelines carry no direct power to repeal domestic laws or overturn court verdicts, its recommendations carry substantial weight among European institutions. As official publication of the opinion approaches next week, legal scholars and political actors in Warsaw await the precise wording that will dictate the next phase of Poland’s constitutional crisis.
