- The law provides no alternative here. The creators of the constitution, the creators of the laws, did not foresee such a situation [where the president would not invite constitutional judges for the swearing-in ceremony] - said Marcin Wiącek in "Graffiti" on Polsat News.

"Sooner or later, a court will have to rule on this"

- However, sooner or later, a court will have to rule on this matter. Because if a dispute arises between two state institutions, and one of such a fundamental nature, it will certainly end up before a court, whether national or European, at some point - he stated.

- Let's remember 2015, when three judges of the Constitutional Tribunal were not invited for the swearing-in ceremony. Disputes on national and European dockets are still ongoing in this regard - he noted.

"We are dealing with a situation defined by law as inaction by a public administration body"

- If the president does not perform the swearing-in ceremony, does not swear in the four judges of the Constitutional Tribunal, we are dealing with a situation defined by law as inaction by a public administration body - indicated the RPO (Commissioner for Human Rights).

- In this role, in which he acts here, the president is a public administration body in the so-called functional sense. […] This stems from the rulings of administrative courts. And there are certain legal avenues to determine the nature of this swearing-in and for a court to confirm what type of competence it is – whether […] it is a competence related to the role of symbolizing the majesty of the nation, or whether the president has some room for decision here - he continued.