Holding the president of the NBP liable by the Court of Justice on the basis of art. 227 section 4 of the Constitution would come close to an action aimed at enforcing political responsibility – as stated in the legal opinion of Dr. Hab., which was published by the central bank on Wednesday. Grzegorz Pastuszko.
Lately, there have been numerous media announcements that the current NBP president will be constitutionally accountable to the State Tribunal. Their authors, politicians from the group currently governing Poland, accuse Adam Glapiński of violating a number of provisions of the Constitution and laws, including, among others: 227 Section 4 of the Constitution, which states that the President of the NBP may not carry out any activities undertakings that are incompatible with the dignity of the office
– we read in the legal advice of Dr. Hab, published on Wednesday by the National Bank of Poland. Grzegorz Pastuszko.
It stated that the authors of the allegations against the NBP emphasize that “the actions of the head of the central bank violated the standards set out in this regulation, although they have not yet provided specific details.” According to Grzegorz Pastuszko, such a situation encourages reflection on the normative content of art. 227 section 4 of the Constitution” and that “it is worthwhile to make the public aware of what the prohibition contained therein actually means.”
To determine this question, we must refer to the rulings of the doctrine of constitutional law. She has been arguing for some time that art. 227 Section 4 of the Constitution is characterized by a confusing and unclear style, and the vague concepts used therein, such as +public activity+ and +dignity of office+, are difficult to interpret.
– stated in an opinion published by the central bank.
Dr. Pastuszko pointed out that “it is said that the provision in question should be understood as a prohibition on taking broadly understood public actions that could undermine confidence in the independence of the President of the NBP, including casting doubt on his party and political interests.” neutrality.” He ruled that “such an interpretation does not follow from its literal wording.”
When we accept such explanations, we should be aware that they remove virtually no interpretive doubt. In particular, they do not explain how exactly the political activities of the NBP President can be distinguished between those that could be considered unlawful (i.e. undignified) and those that fall within the ambit of his constitutional and statutory powers.
— mentioned in the legal advice.
This dilemma becomes clearly visible if we take into account the fact that the President of the NBP heads an institution authorized to implement a specific state policy (monetary policy) and has a functionally separate scope from the executive has power.
– added.
According to Grzegorz Pastuszko, with such a position, the President of the NBP remains “necessarily (…) entangled in the current political processes of the country” and, moreover, his activity “for substantive reasons (the question of the choice of monetarism or statism), and for legal reasons (the issue of implementing the legal obligation to represent the National Bank of Poland – Article 11(2) of the Law on the NBP’ and also because of the cooperation ‘with the relevant state authorities in shaping and implementing of the economic policy of the state – Article 21 of the Law on NBP)” can be seen as an expression of support for any of the parties, including the ruling party.
All this must raise the question whether a regulation characterized by such a low level of detail and which in fact makes it impossible for its addressee to consciously anticipate what conduct can be accused of violating the Constitution and what remains free from such threats, is suitable for use in political practice. It can probably be assumed that from the point of view of the desirability of establishing a mechanism for constitutional liability, which is essentially legal liability, it is simply useless and at the same time dangerous.
— mentioned in the advice.
Let us be aware that creating art. 227 section 4, the basis for accountability before the State Tribunal would be an action aimed at enforcing political accountability, i.e. subjecting the activities of this body to assessment and stigmatization at the political level.
– added.
According to the author of the opinion, “such behavior would be absolutely contrary to the principle of independence of the National Bank of Poland and contrary to the nature of the legal ties connecting this institution with Parliament.”
In my opinion, the situation described could be changed by a more precise definition of the elements of the prohibition laid down in art. 227 section 4 of the Constitution under the Act on the National Bank of Poland. If such a provision is adopted, it would develop and improve constitutional regulations, while creating a transparent legal situation for the President of the National Bank of Poland in the context of the threats arising from the activation of the constitutional liability mechanism. However, this is a proposal for the future that can be submitted as a demand for amendment of the existing law
– reviewed Dr. Hab. Grzegorz Pastuszko.
READ ALSO: Is this what Tusk’s coalition is aiming for? Petru: “political task – dissolution of PiS.” What about promises? ‘It must be divided into years’
mly/PAP
Source: wPolityce