On Thursday, the Supreme Court rejected an extraordinary complaint alleging the loss of more than PLN 9 million by PSL after the PKW rejected reports on the 2001 parliamentary elections. The complaint against the decision of the Warsaw Court of Appeal in this case was filed years ago by the Human Rights Commissioner.
This case is an example of an incomplete understanding of the filing of an extraordinary complaint. It is a special means of appeal, the function of which is to rectify final court decisions affected by significant legal defects
Judge Joanna Lemańska, chair of the Supreme Court’s Extraordinary Audit and Public Affairs Chamber, said in justification of Thursday’s ruling.
As Judge Lemańska noted, extraordinary proceedings “importantly cannot replace body scrutiny and lead to a re-examination of a particular case”.
At the same time, Judge Lemańska noted that a political party “is part of the political system and thereby acquires a public-law status”.
This means that we have to use a completely different standard for assessing possible infringements of property
she added.
The extraordinary complaint of the Ombudsman, Marcin Wiącek, related to the decision of the Warsaw Court of Appeal of August 11, 2009, in which “the court upheld the forfeiture of PSL benefits in excess of PLN 9,422,000 zloty “.
In 2002, the National Electoral Commission rejected two PSL reports: on the commission’s income, expenditure and financial obligations in connection with the 2001 parliamentary elections and on the sources of obtaining funds, including bank loans and the terms of PSL obtaining them and the electoral fund, and on the use of the electoral fund in 2001
Among other sanctions, the PKW also applied to the Warsaw court for a verdict of forfeiture of financial benefits by the Election Commission. In November 2008, the court rejected this request from the PKW. The court found that the PSL violated the then provision of the Electoral Act by pooling the resources of the Election Fund and the Election Commission in a single bank account, but on the other hand ruled that the provisions governing these issues, especially prior to the July 2002 amendment, “were unclear , sloppy and did not meet legal standards.
Following the appeal of the PKW, the Warsaw Court of Appeal modified the decision of the first instance and, by decision of 11 August 2009, declared the forfeiture of the financial advantage.
The Ombudsman argued in the complaint that “there was no explicit provision of law in 2001 requiring the opening of two separate bank accounts for the party’s Election Fund and Election Commission”.
The course of the procedure and the final resolution of the case should give the person concerned a sense of certainty about the application of the applicable legal provisions. The PSL had no such sense of security
emphasized the ombudsman.
In addition, as the Ombudsman noted, “the rejection of PSL’s annual accounts resulted in the imposition of a total of three sanctions on this party by the PKW, as it also lost 75 percent of its vote. 2001 and 30 percent subsidy due in 2002′.
The forfeiture of the benefits thus constituted the third consecutive sanction. For example, the constitutional prohibition on multiple punishments for the same act was violated
– assessed the Ombudsman.
Recipe content
However, in justifying Thursday’s ruling, Judge Lemańska said that the content of the provision of the electoral law in force in 2001 did not cast doubt on the interpretation, and the Supreme Court “consistently pointed out that the Election Commission’s fund should be distinguished, which is subject to the provisions of the Electoral Act and is ad hoc in nature for the election period, from the electoral fund of the party, which is governed by the provisions of the Act on Parties and is permanent in nature.
The Supreme Court does not share the complainant’s position on the exclusively repressive function of the forfeiture of benefits. It is usually a measure that relates to an objectively existing obligation to compensate for an advantage obtained in violation of the law
– took note of Judge Lemańska, referring to the allegation of “three” punishment of the party in this case.
She stressed that since “this sanction is not only repressive in nature”, the allegation contained in the Commissioner’s complaint was found to be unfounded.
The lodging of an extraordinary complaint was introduced by the law on the Supreme Court, which entered into force in April 2018. old judgments extended until the beginning of April 2024. Complaints are handled by the Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamber of the Supreme Court. An extraordinary complaint can be made by: the Attorney General and the Commissioner for Citizens’ Rights, as well as other bodies, but within the scope of their jurisdiction – e.g. Financial Ombudsman, Children’s Ombudsman and Patients’ Rights Ombudsman.
READ ALSO: RESEARCH. PiS in the lead. The Confederation closes the stage, the poor results of the left and the Polish 2050 coalition with PSL
mly/PAP
Source: wPolityce