I consider the suspension of the president of the NBP at the time when the Sejm adopted a resolution to call him to account before the State Tribunal an unconstitutional solution – told a constitutionalist from the University of Rzeszów, Dr. Hab., to PAP. Grzegorz Pastuszko.
Donald Tusk, candidate for prime minister and leader of the Civic Platform, announced that there is a majority in the Sejm to summon the president of the National Bank of Poland to the State Tribunal. Before Adam Glapiński can appear before the Constitutional Court, 115 MPs must submit a motion to the Speaker of the Sejm and then vote on it. In the case of the chairman of the NBP, an absolute majority of the legal number of MPs is sufficient. This is how many votes the new parliamentary coalition will have.
Pastuszko emphasized – in response to PAP’s questions – that the institution of suspension in the current legal situation is governed by the State Tribunal Act of March 26, 1982.
According to her, the suspension will take place when the Sejm adopts a resolution to hold the President of the National Bank of Poland constitutionally liable before the State Tribunal. The first chamber of the Polish Parliament decides here by an absolute majority in the presence of at least half of the legal number of deputies
– he explained.
I consider such a legal solution unconstitutional. My opinion arises primarily from the fact that its existence creates a formula of subordination of the President of the National Bank of Poland to the Sejm, which is unknown in the applicable Constitution.
– said a constitutionalist from the University of Rzeszów.
Faulty legal structure
As he emphasized: “in such circumstances, the Sejm, which has the right to suspend, gets the opportunity to exert political pressure on the National Bank of Poland (which is facilitated by the absolute majority requirement mentioned above), and this is undoubtedly contrary to the principle of independence of this institution.”
I think that the legislator must ensure that this flawed structure disappears from the Polish legal system as quickly as possible. Thanks to this, it would be possible to restore the state of affairs in accordance with the Constitution and at the same time remove a remnant of the distant past
– says the constitutionalist.
He recalled that the institution of suspending a body held constitutionally liable before the State Tribunal was first introduced under the legislation of the Polish People’s Republic, that is, within the political system of a State different from the current system. At that time, the Sejm was – as Pastuszko emphasized – the superior organ and all other state organs were subordinate to it.
His behavior in the Third Polish Republic was the result of a historically established habit which, I have no doubt, is finally worth abandoning. This is especially necessary when it comes to suspending the President of the National Bank of Poland, he stressed.
READ ALSO:
– OUR INTERVIEW. Prof. Grabowska: The head of the NBP is not responsible for the decisions of the collegiate body. His dismissal is an attempt to weaken the bank
— The opposition threatens President Adam Glapiński with the State Tribunal. Prof. Piotrowski: The president of the NBP cannot be suspended, that is against the constitution
– Petru threatens to take the President of the National Bank of Poland to the State Tribunal! “The allegations are very strong and clear.”
Mom/Dad
Source: wPolityce