# Supreme Court Overturns Suspension of Constitutional Tribunal Judges Amid Legal Dispute Poland's Supreme Court intervenes in a Constitutional Tribunal internal power struggle, sparking intense judicial debate. - **Source:** [Rzeczpospolita](https://www.rp.pl) - **Published:** 2026-11-10 - **Topic:** [politics](https://brifing.si/c/politics) - **Original article:** - **On Brifing:** https://brifing.si/s/e1eeb430-1b50-4b80-917e-fa0650d5aac0 ## Supreme Court Intervention Poland's Supreme Court Professional Liability Chamber overturned the immediate suspension of Constitutional Tribunal judges Bogdan Święczkowski and Bartłomiej Sochański. This decision, issued on Tuesday, followed an appeal filed by the defense. The ruling effectively challenges the authority of the Tribunal's internal disciplinary measures, deepening the ongoing institutional crisis within the judiciary. ## Origin of Suspension The initial suspension order was issued on Friday, October 30, by judge Anna Korwin-Piotrowska. As the longest-serving judge, she had assumed leadership of the Constitutional Tribunal. Święczkowski and Sochański refused to recognize this decision, leading to a direct legal confrontation that eventually reached the Supreme Court for a final review. ## Procedural Legal Shift Initially, the Supreme Court declared itself incompetent to handle the case and referred it to the Constitutional Tribunal. However, the court reversed this stance on Tuesday, opting to rule on the merits of the defense appeal. This procedural pivot allowed the Chamber to formally strike down the suspension orders against both judges. ## Judicial Criticism Supreme Court judge Michał Laskowski publicly questioned the legal basis for this intervention. He argued that the Supreme Court lacks the jurisdiction to review disciplinary breaks concerning Constitutional Tribunal judges. Laskowski characterized the move as a political maneuver, suggesting it aims to protect the Tribunal's existing structure at any legal cost. ## Institutional Resistance Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, judge Anna Korwin-Piotrowska maintained that the decision holds no impact on the suspensions. She asserted that these disciplinary actions remain under the exclusive control of the Constitutional Tribunal's own disciplinary court. This creates a direct conflict between the two highest judicial bodies regarding their respective authorities. ## Defense Stance Bogdan Święczkowski stated he was targeted for political reasons and refused to succumb to pressure. He emphasized his commitment to the law, declaring he would not break regulations despite the ongoing conflict. His refusal to accept the suspension highlights the personal stakes involved in this high-level institutional power struggle. ## Broader Legal Implications The dispute underscores a systemic crisis where two major judicial institutions issue contradictory rulings. Legal experts like Laskowski warn that such actions undermine the rule of law, comparing the Supreme Court's involvement to an external body overstepping its mandate. The situation remains volatile as both sides claim legitimacy over the Tribunal's leadership. ## Future Outlook The conflict between the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Tribunal continues to escalate, with no clear resolution in sight. As both institutions maintain opposing interpretations of their disciplinary powers, the stability of Poland's constitutional framework remains in question. Observers are now watching for further procedural escalations or potential legislative interventions. ## Sources covering this story - [Rzeczpospolita — Supreme Court Ruling on Constitutional Tribunal Judges Sparks Legal Controversy](https://www.rp.pl/sady-i-trybunaly/art45473541-sedzia-laskowski-krytykuje-decyzje-w-sprawie-swieczkowskiego-sn-nie-ma-do-tego-prawa) - [Gazeta Wyborcza — Supreme Court Overturns Suspension Orders for Święczkowski and Sochański](https://wyborcza.pl/7,75398,33126573,sad-najwyzszy-uchylil-zarzadzenia-dotyczace-swieczkowskiego.html) --- _Summary written by Brifing from the original reporting. Copyright in the original article belongs to its publisher; read the full piece at the link above._