The article by Bogusław Chrabota addresses a significant legal dispute in Poland regarding the Constitutional Tribunal and the legitimacy of its judges. The core issue is not merely about whether the judges were legally chosen, as there is a consensus that the Polish parliament has the exclusive authority to select them. Instead, the debate focuses on whether the judges' oath, which they take 'in front of the president,' is a requirement for their capacity to adjudicate. This aspect is contentious, with differing opinions among constitutional law experts about the necessity of the president's presence during the oath-taking ceremony.

Many legal experts argue that it is sufficient for the judges to take the oath before the National Assembly, which has a broader democratic mandate than the president, thereby allowing the president to be informed of the judges' oath without necessarily being present. Others maintain that the active presence of the president is crucial for the oath to be valid, closely linking the situation to the president's role in appointing judges to the Tribunal. This split in opinion illustrates the complex nature of constitutional interpretation and raises concerns about the implications for Poland's legal framework and governance.

The article raises the critical question of whether the Constitutional Tribunal can resolve this impasse on its own terms, which reflects broader tensions within the Polish judiciary and its relationship with state power. It suggests a need for clarity in constitutional law to preserve the integrity and functionality of the Tribunal, highlighting the stakes involved in this legal debate for the future of Polish democracy and rule of law.