On behalf of the Prime Minister’s Chancellery, an opinion will be sent to the Constitutional Tribunal indicating that the amendment to the law on the Supreme Court is in accordance with the Constitution; we will ask the Tribunal to confirm such compliance – said government spokesman Piotr Müller.
Asked at a press briefing in Słupsk about the issue of funds from the National Reconstruction Plan, which Poland has still not received, a government spokesperson assured that “first of all, we are not losing any amounts, because KPO is currently suspended” and that “it is not so that if KPO’s funds are shifted in time, they are lost”.
What we can do now is wait for the decision of the Constitutional Tribunal
– he said, referring to the motion submitted by President Andrzej Duda to the Constitutional Tribunal regarding the amendment of the law on the Supreme Court, the provisions of which – according to PiS – should constitute the main “milestone” for the European Commission to raise funds for the implementation of the National Reconstruction Plan.
Decision of the Constitutional Court
The government spokesperson added that an agreement was reached last year at the level of the European Commission and the government, which was later implemented at the level of parliament, i.e. an amendment to the Supreme Court law was passed, but the president decided to submit it to the Constitutional Tribunal.
Müller stressed that until the decision of the Constitutional Tribunal “we have no other possibility to take other measures”.
This decision is crucial, because if initiatives are to be taken, we first need to know whether this law is in accordance with the constitution
– he said.
An opinion will be sent today to the Constitutional Tribunal on behalf of the Chancellery of the Prime Minister stating the arguments that this law is constitutional, and in accordance with our request we will ask the Tribunal to declare such compliance
he inquired.
That the Constitutional Tribunal has asked the Prime Minister’s Office to “express its position on the amendment”, was announced in mid-March by EU Affairs Minister Szymon Szynkowski vel Sęk.
Such a position has already been prepared by us and will be submitted to the Constitutional Tribunal at any time
– announced Szynkowski aka Sęk.
He added that this is “a very detailed legal position of several dozen pages, refuting the arguments made in the president’s motion.
In February, the President referred the amendment to the law on the Supreme Court to the Constitutional Court under the preventive scrutiny procedure. At the end of February, the President of the Constitutional Court, Julia Przyłębska, announced that the Tribunal had initiated proceedings in response to the President’s request and that a hearing would soon take place.
The Supreme Court amendment passed by PiS in January stipulates, among other things, that judges’ disciplinary and immunity cases should be adjudicated by the Supreme Administrative Court, and not – as now – by the Supreme Court’s Professional Liability Chamber. The amendment also provides for fundamental changes with regard to the so-called review of judicial independence and impartiality.
In the request submitted to the Constitutional Court in February, the President asked the Constitutional Court to review the constitutionality of, among other things, a number of entries on the test of judicial independence and the transfer of disciplinary and immunity cases from judges to the Supreme Court. Supreme Administrative Court. In addition, the more than one hundred pages of the application also question provisions that allow requests for the resumption of legally concluded disciplinary and immunity cases to be resumed, as well as the vacatio legis provided for in this amendment, set at 21 days. .
READ ALSO:
— This is how they will blackmail the Constitutional Tribunal? Bloomberg: Poland could lose more than €75 billion from the EU budget
— The Prime Minister’s Chancellery has prepared a position on the amendment of the Supreme Court law at the request of the Constitutional Court. “Very detailed position refuting the president’s arguments”
Mon/PAP
Source: wPolityce