In Poland, 28 judges will boycott the Supreme Court’s General Assembly — Interia

In Poland, 15 judges of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court and another 13 judges from other chambers said they would not take part in the General Assembly of Supreme Court judges convened for November 3, 2026. This was reported by Interia, citing two statements published on Facebook by Judge Włodzimierz Wróbel.

Judges challenge the convening of the assembly

One of the statements was signed by 15 judges of the Criminal Chamber, while the other was signed by 13 judges from the Civil Chamber and the Chamber of Public Affairs of the Supreme Court. Both documents have identical content.

The signatories stated that the General Assembly was convened by a person appointed to the position of First President of the Supreme Court in violation of Poland’s Constitution and the 2017 Act on the Supreme Court. This concerns Zbigniew Kapiński, who convened the meeting in connection with the situation surrounding the Constitutional Tribunal.

More current news is available on the UA.News Telegram channel Telegram.

The judges also claim that judges appointed to the Supreme Court under the rules of the 2017 Act on the National Council of the Judiciary would be taking part in the assembly. According to the authors of the statements, the procedure for such appointments flagrantly violated constitutional norms.

Statement concerning the Constitutional Tribunal

The signatories believe that an assembly involving judges whose appointments they call improper would not constitute a properly formed General Assembly of the Supreme Court. They also stated that the meeting date was set in violation of the rules and that the required quorum for adopting a decision would not be present.

The statements mention Kapiński’s participation in events surrounding the Constitutional Tribunal: on the night from Friday to Saturday, he arrived at the tribunal’s building together with Polish President Karol Nawrocki. The judges stated that the First President of the Supreme Court’s relations with executive authorities, including the president, should be limited to cases explicitly specified by law. They regard the convening of the assembly as an attempt to legitimize violations of these principles.