Constitutional Tribunal Judges Issued a Statement. There Is a Response to Nawrocki and ŚWięczkowski.

Rzeczpospolita

Factuality

Ownership

A jurisdictional dispute does not exist, cannot be a reason for barring judges from adjudicating, and cannot be resolved without a full bench. Thus, the five judges barred from adjudicating are accountable to the President of the Constitutional Tribunal and the President's representatives.

iustitia.pl

Factuality

Ownership

The president's authority does not extend to contesting the appointment of Constitutional Tribunal judges by the Sejm. The president's role as "guardian of the Constitution" does not imply any general authority. The president's powers are strictly defined in the Constitution and statutes, explained Professor Ewa Łętowska on the program "Facts after Facts." The president has no active role in the swearing-in of judges. His only role is... The art…

Gazeta

Factuality

Ownership

The authors of the statement stated that they still cannot begin work at the Constitutional Tribunal because, according to the president, a "competence dispute" has arisen between him and Sejm Speaker Włodzimierz Czarzasty. According to the judges, there is no such dispute, and even if there were, the Constitutional Tribunal could not resolve it without their participation.

goniec.pl

Factuality

Ownership

Five judges of the Constitutional Tribunal have questioned the position of President Karol Nawrocki's representatives. In a statement issued on Friday, they rejected the argument that a competency dispute exists. The case concerns the inadmissibility of five judges from adjudicating in the Constitutional Tribunal. The authors of the document also pointed to an obstacle preventing the resolution of the alleged dispute.

Business Insider (Poland)

Factuality

Ownership

Five Constitutional Tribunal judges have issued a joint statement challenging Karol Nawrocki's key argument that they should not be allowed to adjudicate. They explain why the competence dispute between the president and the marshal of the Constitutional Tribunal, pending before it, does not exist and, consequently, cannot constitute grounds for suspending them from adjudicating.