“The Chancellery of the President does not share the position in the Sejm’s draft position on the amendment of the law on the Supreme Court; serious doubts about the law were not only on the part of the president, but were also signaled by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court and the register of the National Court, Małgorzata Paprocka, minister at the KPRP told PAP.
Act on the president’s desk
On 10 February, President Andrzej Duda announced that he had decided to submit the amendment to the law on the Supreme Court to the Constitutional Tribunal for pre-emptive review. The presidential motion questioned the amendment’s basic provisions, including the so-called test of judge independence and the transfer of disciplinary and immunity cases from judges to the Supreme Administrative Court, as well as the novella’s vacatio legis, set for 21 days .
On Tuesday, the Sejm’s draft position on the issue was adopted by the Sejm Legislative Committee; the presidential charges were judged largely unwarranted and imprecise in the draft, and the regulations challenged by the head of state were in accordance with the constitution.
For obvious reasons, the Chancellery of the President does not share this view
— the Sejm’s draft position was commented on by Presidential Minister Małgorzata Paprocka in an interview with PAP.
Serious doubts of Andrzej Duda, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court and the Register of the National Court
As she noted, “serious doubts” about the amendment “were not only on the side of the president, but were signaled by the Supreme Court, reported by the Supreme Administrative Court, by the National Council for the Judiciary.”
It is also clear that on the one hand the position of the Sejm and the position of the Prime Minister do not agree with the doubts expressed by the President, on the other hand there are statements by the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General, (…) who – at least according to media information – fully shares the president’s doubts
– she noted.
According to her, “such serious discrepancies are already serious evidence that the President’s decision to finally resolve the matter with the Constitutional Tribunal was justified.”
Presidential Justification
Paprocka, referring to allegations raised at the committee meeting about what she said was “alleged insufficient justification” of the presidential motion, noted that the president’s motion is more than 100 pages long.
I think for this fact alone it is difficult to treat this view in any other categories than some malice, perhaps insufficiently thorough reading
she said.
Paprocka reiterated that in the opinion of the President’s Chancellery, the provisions of the Supreme Court amendment are unconstitutional. “They affect not only the status of judges, their independence, impartiality, prerogatives of the president, the right to a fair trial and all such foundations of a democratic state,” summed up the presidential minister.
Paprocka also pointed out that the presidential application to the Constitutional Court “has been constructed from the perspective of looking at the whole of these regulations”, while the position taken at the committee meeting “focused on fragments of provisions, without a comprehensive overview, without references to the existing jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, which of course the president did in the petition.
The Chancellery of the President counts on the Constitutional Tribunal
The minister stressed that the Constitutional Tribunal should resolve as soon as possible the doubts about the law, which President Andrzej Duda, she recalled, had requested. The President’s Minister recalled that the Constitutional Tribunal had set March 20 as the deadline for the presentation of views on this issue by the mandatory participants, ie the Attorney General and the Sejm.
I must admit that the Chancellery of the President is counting on the fact that if these views are finally presented to the Tribunal, the Tribunal, after reviewing them, will immediately hold a hearing and consider the matter
said Paprocka.
Determined in January amendment of the law on the Supreme Courtby PiS, is – according to the authors – an important “milestone” for the European Commission to release resources from the national reconstruction plan.
At the end of February, the President of the Constitutional Court, Julia Przyłębska, announced that the Constitutional Court had initiated proceedings in connection with the President’s request to examine the constitutionality of the provisions of the amendment to the Supreme Court law.
The prime minister’s position, nearly 100 pages long, has already been submitted to the tribunal, requesting that the provisions of the law be declared consistent with the constitution.
Positions in the Attorney General and Sejm are still required. The Constitutional Tribunal has not yet set a date for examining this case. The Tribunal should deal fully with the President’s request. At least 11 judges of the Constitutional Court are required to convene a full court hearing.
READ ALSO:
What about the Supreme Court Act? Prime Minister: I hope that the Constitutional Tribunal will consider this in a month or two
— GUT is preparing a position for the Constitutional Court on the amendment of the Supreme Court law. Ziobro: It will be radically different from the Prime Minister’s proposal
— 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”
– What about the law on the Supreme Court? Minister Szrot: The president still expects the Constitutional Tribunal to resolve internal disputes and deal with this issue
rm/PAP
Source: wPolityce