Maciej Berek took an oath as a Constitutional Tribunal judge in the Sejm, Poland’s lower house of parliament, on 14 October, RMF24 reports. He recited the words “I take the oath before the president”, although President Karol Nawrocki did not attend the ceremony. The ceremony itself does not, however, establish whether the oath is legally effective or whether Berek will begin hearing cases.
According to RMF24, those attending included Sejm Speaker Włodzimierz Czarzasty and Senate Speaker Małgorzata Kidawa-Błońska. The Sejm elected Berek to the Constitutional Tribunal on 4 September. Before the parliamentary ceremony, the president had not received his oath.
At the heart of the dispute is the meaning of the Polish word “wobec”, translated here as “before”, in the statutory wording of the oath. RMF24 reports that Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek has argued that it does not necessarily require the head of state to be physically present. That is the minister’s interpretation, not a legal ruling on the ceremony held on 14 October.
The dispute also concerns Berek’s qualifications. RMF24 cites objections from Zbigniew Bogucki, head of the President’s Chancellery, over the required length of Berek’s professional experience as a legal adviser. Marek Siwiec, head of the Sejm Chancellery, has in turn questioned the legal basis for challenging the election made by the Sejm. Neither position, in itself, settles whether Berek meets the requirements to take office.
According to RMF24, the decision to hold the ceremony in the Sejm followed publication of a Venice Commission opinion concerning oaths taken without the president present. We covered that issue previously in “Judges’ oaths without Poland’s president? Venice Commission sets out conditions”. The opinion should not be treated as unconditional confirmation that this particular ceremony was legally effective.
The key distinction remains between two separate questions: Berek recited the oath in the Sejm, but the account of the ceremony does not confirm that he has been admitted to hear cases in the Constitutional Tribunal. The ceremony is a new development in the dispute, not its legal resolution.
