The Supreme Court is not entitled to any assessment of the judgment of the Constitutional Court; There is a constitutional standard that clearly shows that the ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal ends the case – PAP told Prof. Anna Łabno, constitutionalist from the University of Silesia about the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M.Kamiński and M.Wąsik.
A clear ruling from the Constitutional Tribunal and a strange ruling from the Supreme Court
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court annulled the drop of the case of Mariusz Kamiński and other former heads of the CBA, convicted at first instance and pardoned by President Andrzej Duda; the case was referred back to court for re-examination.
“The administration of justice in the Polish legal order is the exclusive domain of the ordinary courts and the Supreme Court.
– said Judge Piotr Mirek in the oral statement of Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling.
Last Friday, the Constitutional Tribunal also ruled in this case and the power dispute between the Supreme Court and the president. It ruled that the right to a pardon is an exclusive and unverifiable competence of the President of the Republic of Poland, which has final legal effect. The Tribunal added that the Supreme Court has no power to review the president’s exercise of leniency law.
The Supreme Court cannot challenge the position of the Constitutional Court
Prof. Łabno stressed in an interview with PAP that “the Supreme Court has no right to any review of the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal.”
The Supreme Court cannot challenge the Tribunal’s position. If the Supreme Court has a different opinion, it is private, but it must act in accordance with the Constitution, i.e. recognize the irrevocability of the judgment of the Constitutional Court and stop the case.
emphasized the professor. As she added, the arguments put forward in the rationale for Tuesday’s Supreme Court judgment, according to which the Constitutional Court’s “determination method” resulted in the lack of any legal effect before the Supreme Court, are irrelevant.
The Supreme Court is not authorized to rule on this. Each body acts only on the basis and within the limits of the law and cannot decide according to what it thinks. There is no legal standard on the basis of which it could act in this way. On the contrary – there is a constitutional standard that clearly states that the ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal ends the case
stressed the constitutionalist. She also noted that the president’s prerogative — the right to a pardon — is indisputable.
“We are on the brink of anarchy”
As she noted, so far there has been no precedent for any entity to challenge the Constitutional Tribunal ruling.
The law does not provide for such a measure
– she said. She indicated that the possibility to appeal against the decisions of the Constitutional Court by the courts, for example, could lead to an endless spiral of mutual appeals.
It’s anarchy. We are on the verge of anarchy because the court broke the law
said Prof. Łabno.
The law of pardons and the dispute over powers
The Kamiński and Wąsik case has a history of almost ten years. In March 2015, the Warsaw-Śródmieście District Court at first instance sentenced the former head of the CBA Mariusz Kamiński (today the head of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration) and Maciej Wąsik (then Kamiński’s deputy in the CBA; currently deputy minister of Home Affairs and Administration) to, among other things, 3 years imprisonment for exceeding authority and unlawful management of the CBA during the “country scandal” in 2007. Two other former members of the CBA management were sentenced to prison terms after 2.5 years.
In November 2015, before the District Court in Warsaw examined the appeals, President Andrzej Duda pardoned all four unlawfully convicted persons. In March 2016, the SO overturned the SR’s verdict and, given the President’s clemency, legally discontinued the case. The assistant public prosecutors have lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court against this judgment of the Supreme Court.
The case was then suspended for a long time at the Supreme Court, due in part to the dispute over powers between the President of the Republic of Poland and the Supreme Court, submitted to the Constitutional Court by the Marshal of the Sejm. Earlier, however – before submitting the jurisdictional dispute to the Constitutional Court – the Supreme Court issued a resolution in May 2017 regarding the issue of the right to a pardon.
At that time, seven Supreme Court judges – in response to a question from the Supreme Court judges investigating the cassation of the former heads of the CBA – decided that the presidential pardon should only be applied to legally convicted persons. The former heads of the CBA have not been legally convicted. “The application of leniency before the date on which the judgment becomes final has no procedural effect,” the Supreme Court resolution said.
Judge Mirek pointed out in the grounds of the verdict on Tuesday that the decision in that resolution determined that the court’s decision was incorrect. “The submitted resolution of the Supreme Court is binding on the court that judges in this case, even if it had a different opinion or did not fully share this opinion, and the consequence is that the judgment is withdrawn and the case is referred back to the court.” review,” the judge said.
Last Friday, the Constitutional Tribunal ruled on this case and the power dispute. The Tribunal ruled that the leniency law is the exclusive and unverifiable competence of the President of the Republic of Poland, which has final legal effect, and that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to exercise control over the President’s exercise of the leniency right. This ruling was published on Monday in Monitor Polski.
However, as Judge Mirek said in the grounds of Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling, Friday’s Constitutional Tribunal ruling – according to the Supreme Court – has no legal effect, and the lack of such effects stems from the “determination method”. by the Constitutional Tribunal.
The Supreme Court ruled that the operative part of the Constitutional Tribunal’s decision did not interpret the Constitution’s provision on the right to a pardon in a way that could affect Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling. According to Judge Mirek, the decision of the Constitutional Court “in fact made no distinction between the powers of constitutional bodies”. “The Constitutional Tribunal has not resolved any dispute over jurisdiction,” the Supreme Court judge said.
“In fact, the Tribunal ruled on the basis of its own perception of the powers of the Supreme Court, which is not part of the normative content of the constitutional provisions examined,” added Judge Mirek.
READ ALSO:
— WE REVEAL. They pardoned Sawicka and decided to extend the statute of limitations on Przemyk’s case. These judges decided on the case of Wąsik and Kamiński
— KPRP responds to Supreme Court ruling: It’s amazing; was completely against the law
— Prime Minister Morawiecki direct: “The Supreme Court decision is a bizarre attempt to install a judiciary in Poland”
olk/PAP
Source: wPolityce