On Thursday, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled that conservation organizations should have the right to challenge forest management plans in court. The case concerned a complaint against Poland by the European Commission. “We are facing further actions from the European Commission and the European Court of Justice, who want to take away the powers of a Member State to manage forests and impose their own solution,” said Anna Zalewska, MEP for Law and Justice, in an interview with the wPolityce.pl portal.
wPolityce.pl: What is your opinion on the CJEU’s ruling on the assumption that conservation organizations should have the right to challenge the plans of state institutions regarding forest management in court?
Anna Zalewska, PiS MEP: First. This is a judgment at the level of a decision to apply a protective measure. Just like Turow. Although it was more illegal back then. They tried to close Turów in one day and rob 60,000 of them. working people.
In this case we have a verdict, but there are many objections from the Polish side. Not all submitted documents have been analyzed by the CJEU. In addition, not all persons who were scheduled to consult with lawyers have been heard.
This is a judgment that shows how far the Court of Justice has sunk. It clearly convinces us that justice has nothing to do with it. Such a judgment is not in accordance with the Treaties. The CJEU is an institution masquerading as a court. It creates its own regulations without looking at the treaties. After all, they mention the exclusive competence of the Member States in the field of forest management.
Second. This testifies to the decay and blasphemy of the Court of Justice, which is absolutely political. His political activities prove his involvement in the election campaign in Poland.
Thirdly. Blind faith in ‘climate’ NGOs. Among them, one stands out, who was also present at Turów. They are the ones who make money from such “interventions” and processes, receiving funding from various companies or institutions. I regret that reports on funding sources are not available.
READ MORE: CJEU ruling in case EC vs. Poland: Nature conservation organizations should have the right to challenge forest management plans in court
An urgent problem comes back. Verification of annual accounts at NGOs.
As regards the annual accounts, a decision would have to be taken at both national and European Union level. It should be borne in mind that attempting to explain the complexity of funding sources is a very difficult process. The European Parliament or the European Commission do not have the right tools to oversee these matters. All this is absolutely clear, and it is there that decisions about huge amounts of money are made. This is a burden on Poles and all Europeans in general. The whole climate or energy package should be mentioned here, and now the issue of Polish forests. There is a very simple mechanism here.
Any foundation or organization, regardless of where and on behalf of whom it acts, will therefore have to provide information about the method of financing if it wishes to raise funds later. Such information should be available on the organization’s website. These are simple rules, you just need to implement and apply them. Those who want to receive a subsidy must comply with these rules. We have a right to know who is behind these organizations and whether they really have pure intentions. This is extremely important, for example in the context of recent corruption scandals in the European Parliament and EUR 320 million. Russian money went to EU NGOs dedicated to the “climate” or directly to German NGOs supposed to create good PR for Gazprom.
What should we do after such a ruling by the CJEU?
Therefore, we can submit the case to the Constitutional Tribunal in Poland. Why? He will rule as the Germans, Czechs, French or Spaniards have ruled in many cases when the CJEU ruled against their law. Remember that the Tribunal is also flawed because it is a single instance. This is absurd in the legal world and resembles functioning in the “Orwellian reality” when it comes to the CJEU. Therefore, this provision should be submitted to the Tribunal in Poland to decide whether it applies. Let me remind you that regardless of the Presidency, the Constitutional Tribunal in Poland has always clearly defined that the Polish Constitution is superior, and if there is a clash between European and national law, then national law always prevails.
Thank you very much for the interview.
Maciej Marcinek spoke
READ ALSO:
— Beata Szydło has no doubts: the CJEU is not about “protection of nature”, but about the influence of foreign organizations on Polish decisions
— OUR INTERVIEW. Sałek: The forest is to a Pole what the sea is to an Englishman. The CJEU addresses our sensitivity and cultural identity
– ONLY HERE. What will the judgment of the CJEU lead to? Sulfur: Complete paralysis of the economy. It would be a catastrophe, something incomprehensible
Source: wPolityce