President Andrzej Duda decided to submit the amendment to the law on the Supreme Court to the Constitutional Tribunal under the preventive review procedure. “The president’s decision is very prudent. It by no means closes Poland’s access to KPO funds, and on the other hand points out certain dangers related to the interpretation of the law in light of the Polish Constitution. But what’s more, I think it also points to the president’s caution as a result of his contacts with the European Commission so far, says Prof. Genowefa Grabowska, lawyer, specialist in international and European law.
The EC’s game with Poland, the multiplication of new conditions, have probably also made the president more careful to accept something the other side demands without giving anything in return. We have met the vast majority of the European Commission’s conditions for the disbursement of these funds. So why is the Commission withholding all of KPO’s funds and showing no good will by unblocking at least some of them?
– says the interlocutor of the portal wPolityce.pl.
Prof. Grabowska analyzes the situation regarding the amendment of the Supreme Court Act from a legal point of view.
Legally, any piece of legislation that leaves parliament must be drafted to be in line with the constitution. The question now arises whether, on the basis of the proposed amendment to the Supreme Court law, all constitutional prerogatives of the president have been respected, or whether, for example, its provisions will not be used by some Polish judges to undermine the president’s status. of their peers, ie the judges recommended in recent years by the National Judicial Council and appointed by the President. After all, there are statements from some judges, mainly from the association “Iustitia”, that they will be heading for this, and this would already be a disorganization of the judiciary, which means – a road to nowhere!
– underlined.
In submitting this law to the Constitutional Court, the president probably also wanted to hear the voice of the only body competent to judge whether it is in conformity with the Constitution, while at the same time obtaining information on the interpretation of the provisions of this law. law. act in light of the applicable constitution. Even if at first sight the law does not clearly contradict the Polish constitution, the question of the interpretation of its provisions will be very important. In reasoning the verdict, the Constitutional Tribunal will have to answer many questions, including, for example, how the presidential prerogatives are understood and how far they go, where the boundary lies between the constitutional powers of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court, and also look at the status of judges or the model of disciplinary responsibility
he adds.
The lawyer emphasizes that the new law cannot destroy the legal order in force in Poland.
The introduction of the new law, as the president has repeatedly emphasized, cannot destroy the constitutional order in place that has been questioned by some judicial circles – both in terms of unacceptable political involvement and questioning of status of judges appointed by the President on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council. An attempt to dismantle another constitutional body of the state, namely the National Judicial Council, is another step towards increasing legal chaos in Poland and emphasizing that the constitution can be treated selectively
he says.
Prof. Grabowska notes that the average Polish citizen does not care about the relationship between the judges examining his case.
A citizen standing before a court “came for a verdict” and is not interested in whether the judges who judge his case like each other, respect each other, whether they want to cooperate with each other or not. No one has given any judge the right to judge the usefulness in another judge’s profession, or to judge his procedural path in relation to appointment to this office. Judges should not reject colleagues they work with, refuse to judge, that is, avoid their work, which unfortunately happens in the politicized part of the judiciary
– say.
Can the Supreme Administrative Court consider disciplinary cases of judges?
The expert draws attention to another problematic case related to the Law on the Supreme Court to be dealt with by the Constitutional Court – it concerns the transfer of the examination of disciplinary cases from judges to the Supreme Administrative Court.
Another problematic issue to be assessed by the Constitutional Court is whether the transfer of the examination of disciplinary cases from judges to the Supreme Administrative Court falls within the constitutional competence of the Supreme Administrative Court. Here it will probably be necessary to thoroughly analyze the provisions of the constitution in conjunction with current practice and the place of both courts in the institutional system of the state. However, this solution adopted in the amendment of the Supreme Court Act is used in several European countries. The only question is whether the administrative court should rule on what happens in the Supreme Court or in the common jurisdiction. Personally, this solution surprises me more than it catches my eye
– underlined.
The lawyer hopes that the Constitutional Tribunal will quickly deal with the issue of amending the Supreme Court Act, regardless of information leaked to the public about disputes within the Constitutional Tribunal.
The president, while addressing this law to the Constitutional Court, also appealed for its consideration as soon as possible. I believe he intended to make a ruling within the next three months as he mentioned June as the month when the first KPO payments would be made. There is no doubt that the amendment of the Supreme Court law is a matter of our security in the administration of justice, as well as the assurance that our cases will be examined according to clear procedures, before an independent court and without undue delay. I am aware that the Court should not be ‘hurried’, but this case must be concluded quickly. Therefore, it can be expected that the Constitutional Court will be up to the task and that absolutely all its judges, headed by President Julia Przyłębska, will be able to pass judgment within the expected time limit. In any case, I do not think that the judges of the Constitutional Court, who closely monitor political life in Poland, including the legislative work of the Sejm, no longer have their own position on the most sensitive issues related to the amendment of the law on the Supreme Court. Therefore, working out a common position for the Constitutional Tribunal should not be difficult and I have no doubt that the Constitutional Tribunal is up to the task.
he makes clear.
Prof. Grabowska doubts whether even the entry into force of the law on the Supreme Court will end the dispute with the EC.
Does this mean that the political dispute with the EC will come to an end? I personally doubt it. For almost a year now, the political dispute surrounding KPO has been escalating and I’m afraid it will continue! The EC has even stepped into the shoes of the Polish legislature, which I do not particularly like. The EU Commissioner almost indicates what the specific provisions of Polish law should look like. This contradicts what the EC should be doing as an EU body, but not only Poland has problems in this area
he notes.
What happens if the Constitutional Court decides that the amendment to the Supreme Court law is unconstitutional?
If the Constitutional Tribunal ruled that this law is unconstitutional, then it will – to put it trivially – go in the trash. Then we would still have an open case, not only about our judiciary reform, which has been going on for many years, but we would also have an endless history of litigation with the European Commission, which would then say: ” You see, there is no such law.”
– say.
note ace
READ ALSO:
— President: I have decided to submit the amendment to the Law on the Supreme Court to the Constitutional Court, as part of the preventive review procedure
— Mec. Markiewicz: What was the president supposed to do? This bill rejected his act. The head of the EC cheated him. Did he have to sign it?
Source: wPolityce