- They are to perform [newly elected to the CT] such an act, which is a ritualistic act, although today I am reading many lawyers who say clearly that the fact that there was a tradition of doing it before the President does not mean it should be continued, if the President says he does not want to receive it - said Waldemar Żurek in an interview with Katarzyna Kolenda-Zaleska in "Fakty po Faktach" TVN24.

- Today I very much liked the discussion of another example by Prof. Wróbel, who says that in the Code of Administrative Procedure there is a formulation that a person can renounce the means of appeal against an administrative decision to the administrative body that issued the decision. And the word "to" does not mean "in the presence of", "directly before", but rather refers to a statement, signing the oath, so that it reaches the head of state - he continued, when asked about the provision in the act regarding the fact that a person elected to the CT takes an oath before the President.

- This formulation is clear, parliament elects judges, they should submit something like this to the President. Of course, there was a good tradition of submitting it before the head of state, but if we apply the so-called literal interpretation, meaning what the provision says, it does not mean "directly before", "in the presence of", but rather "to" - he went on to say.