The aim of the article is to analyze the nature and legal effects of judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal of Poland, in which its operative part explains motives of the decision or indicate what constitutional principle has been violated. These judgments can be described as argumentative judgments. The article attempts to explain why and in what situations the Tribunal has used the argumentative formula. Such formula has to be seen as a necessary instrument which makes the Tribunal’s jurisdiction effective and thus should be considered acceptable in some cases. In the article, attention is also given to practical problems related to the legal effects of argumentative judgments and their implementation by the lawmaker and courts.