The media associated with the total opposition and some judges of the Constitutional Tribunal paint the image of the Constitutional Tribunal as a place where political interests collide and legal issues fade into the background. There is also an alleged lack of quorum at the General Assembly of Judges of the Constitutional Tribunal (ZOSTK), which was convened on March 1. Nothing can be wrong anymore. The wPolityce.pl portal learned the contents of the minutes of the Assembly. This clearly shows that the quorum was maintained and that the joint discussion of the judges was not an argument, but an attempt to get out of a difficult and unprecedented situation regarding the term of office of the President of the Constitutional Tribunal.
READ ALSO: ONLY WITH US. The president of the Constitutional Court teaches Judge Stelina and the rebellious members of the Constitutional Court a lesson: “I hold office until the end of my mandate”
READ ALSO: The Constitutional Tribunal settled the question of the term of office of the President of the Tribunal! It turned out that there was no reason to convene a meeting to elect candidates
Those who foresaw or imagined that the Assembly would have a tumultuous course do not feel proud today. It is clear from the minutes that there was an atmosphere of legal discussion. Already during the analysis of the submitted attendance list, it appeared that 10 judges participated in the meeting, which, in the light of art. 8 seconds 1 of the Law on the Organization and Procedure of the Constitutional Tribunal meant that the Assembly was empowered to pass resolutions – a quorum was ensured.
Critics of President Przyłębska announced that the judge feared “rebellious” members of the Constitutional Court. The protocol contradicts this. Already at the beginning of the General Assembly, the President of the Constitutional Court, Judge Julia Przyłębska, recalled the events prior to the convening of the General Assembly. She has honestly and clearly presented the arguments from the letter from the six judges at the beginning of January this year. The issue of correspondence between Judge Jakub Stelina and the President of the Constitutional Tribunal was also raised: ONLY WITH US. The president of the Constitutional Court teaches Judge Stelina and the rebellious members of the Constitutional Court a lesson: “I hold office until the end of my mandate”
For social welfare
However, this is not the end. At the request of President Przyłębska, a letter was read from five judges (Jakub Stelina, Wojciech Sych, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski, Andrzej Zielonacki and Mariusz Muszyński), submitted on 1 March, the day of the General Assembly. The discussion has begun.
STK (Judge of the Constitutional Tribunal – ed.) Bogdan Święczkowski stated that he still stands by the contents of the letter dated February 28 this year, under which he signed, and participates in the ZOSTK meeting for the welfare of the state, even though it has not changed its mind on the subject raised in the contents of the letter
— we read in the minutes, which clearly show that the discussion was not intended to argue, but to try to solve the problem.
This is also apparent from the statement of Judge Bartłomiej Sochański.
(…) stated that he was aware of the diversity of views on the understanding of the law and the methods of its interpretation. However, the acknowledgment by a particular judge of the correctness of one of the many possible results sent does not allow the use of a diffuse sanction. According to STK Sochański, a decision must finally be made. That is why he argued for a decision in the form of a resolution, since 2/3 of the total number of judges of the Constitutional Court participate in the meeting of the ZO, and therefore in the intersection. existing arguments and whether it is necessary to convene a meeting of the ZO regarding the selection of candidates for the President of the Constitutional Court
– we read in the minutes.
Judge Jarosław Wyrembak also spoke in an unequivocal and strong tone, drawing attention to the controversial term “former president”.
(…) stated that he also respects the right of any judge to express his opinion on the law and its interpretation. Nevertheless, it considers it unacceptable to use the term “former president” in case law, and such a situation has arisen. He notes in this regard, referring to the contents of the letter dated February 28 this year, that it is based solely on a legal view and that there is no official mention anywhere of the need to select candidates for the position of the President of the Constitutional Court.
– we read in the minutes of the meeting
Judge Wyrembak expressed surprise that the signatories of the letter, with the exception of STK Bogdan Święczkowski, did not attend the ongoing hearing, despite calling for haste in settling the case mentioned in the letter. Therefore, there is doubt whether this is an action characterized by goodwill
– said Judge Wyrembak.
The key moment
The President of the Constitutional Court, Julia Przyłębska, asked those present to take a position on the issue that is the subject of the hearing, namely the contents of the letter from the judges of the Constitutional Court dated February 28.
At that time, Judge Michał Warciński, who endorsed STK Bartłomiej Sochański’s position, suggested that the ZO adopt a resolution on whether it is justified to convene a meeting of the ZGSTK to vote candidates for the President of the Constitutional Court. Selecting.
– we read in the protocol, the content of which was reached by the wPolityce.pl portal.
This is a key moment of the General Assembly of Judges of the Constitutional Court. There is an important mood. As a result, 8 judges of the Constitutional Tribunal ruled that there were no legal and factual grounds to convene the General Assembly of Judges of the Constitutional Tribunal under art. 11 Section 3 of the Constitutional Tribunal, to select candidates for the post of President of the Constitutional Tribunal. Two judges were found not to take a position on the resolution and not to participate in the vote. This is an important moment. it turned out that the fact that the judges did not vote did not mean that the quorum had been taken away from the meeting.
The President of the Constitutional Tribunal therefore announced that the resolution had been adopted by an absolute majority of votes in the presence of 2/3 of the total number of judges of the Constitutional Tribunal – 10 judges present (…)**
– we read in the protocol.
Judge Piotr Pszczółkowski stated that he had not voted because he had not read the catalog of cases listed in Art. 6 seconds 2 uotp TK of such competencies. He also stated that as a judge of the Constitutional Court, he did not run away and did not resort to strong solutions, and that is why he did not see any possibility of breaking anything, because judges of the Constitutional Court do not sit in this body for themselves, but for society
– recorded in the minutes.
The last sentence of the protocol in particular bears witness to the responsibility of the judges, who, although they differed on the interpretation of the provisions, still want to serve the most important good, namely the constitution and the rights of citizens. Judge Bogdan Święczkowski, in turn, would state that, in his opinion, the resolution was not binding because 1/3 of the total number of judges of the Constitutional Tribunal did not participate in the hearing. He was answered by Judge Michał Warciński, who drew attention to another important context and circumstance of the whole situation. It’s about the uniqueness of it.
STK Michał Warciński pointed out that the drafters of the constitution had not foreseen the situation that had arisen. No one expected that a problem would arise in such a fundamental and at the same time obvious issue as the term of office of the President of the Constitutional Court. The legislature assumes that such a matter is not subject to discussion, that is, the judge who holds this position knows for what term of office he has been appointed and it is he who makes the final decision, holding office for the time which he considers stated by law, using common methods of interpretation
– we read in the protocol.
According to STK Michał Warciński, it is not the substantive aspect of this case that is of primary importance, but the form of the final decision in it and the submission of all judges to this decision, regardless of their positions. The President of the Constitutional Tribunal decided to convene the ZO in this case and submit it to the General Assembly for consideration. The ZO is a constitutional body of the Constitutional Court (…), so the possibility of taking a decision on the initiative of the President of the Constitutional Court does not raise any objections.
– recorded in the minutes.
However, the key is to submit to such a decision. Judges make decisions they don’t always agree with. Sometimes they are outvoted, their legal opinions are rejected by their peers in the assembly, and yet they sign such decisions and take part in their voting. All this in the name of public order. In the name of the same values and the proper functioning of the Constitutional Tribunal, all its judges must also submit to the decision adopted by the General Assembly in this case, whether or not they agree with its substantive justification
Judge Warcinski said.
Agreement and duty
That judges above dividing lines can talk to each other is evidenced by the fact that Judge Wyrembak, in discussion with Judge Święczkowski, expressed his appreciation for the fact that, despite signing the February 28 letter, the former State Prosecutor participated in the Assembly.
Important words were also spoken by Judge Bartłomiej Sochański, who stated that there was no other way out than to pass a resolution from the ZO.
The context of the case in the form of the situation in which the Constitutional Court finds itself is important. Judge Bartłomiej Sochański stressed that it is the duty of judges to act in accordance with their oath, and that the public interest is the highest value judges should be guided by. Adopting a resolution is not only the competence of the judges of the Constitutional Court, but also their (…)
– we read in the minutes of the General Assembly of the Judges of the Constitutional Court.
The protocol, extensive excerpts of which are the first to be published on our website, sends a clear signal to the media and politicians. The Constitutional Tribunal is a place where different views collide, often far from each other. There, a creative discussion about Polish law takes place and conflicts are resolved in an atmosphere of respect for one’s own views and the letter of the constitution. The General Assembly has also taught a good lesson for the future and allows us to look optimistically at the future of the Constitutional Tribunal.
WOJCIECH BIEDROŃ
Source: wPolityce