“Such an action constitutes a significant violation of the legal order of the Republic of Poland and is the result of the arbitrariness of the President of IPiUS, acting in consultation with the Chairman of the Sejm, i.e. the Legislature,” said Aleksander Stępkowski, spokesperson for the During a press conference, the Supreme Court confirmed the position of Judge Prof. Małgorzata Manowska, first President of the Supreme Court.
“‘A significant violation of the legal order’
Aleksander Stępkowski read out the opinion in which the first President of the Supreme Court refers to the jurisdictional dispute between the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs and the Chamber of Labor and Social Security.
I am dismayed by the contempt by the President of the Chamber of Labor and Social Security, Piotr Prusinowski, of the order of the first President of the Supreme Court of January 4 this year, which settled the jurisdictional dispute between the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs and the Chamber of Labor and Social Security, which clearly states the jurisdiction of the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs in the case of the appeal of MP M. Kamiński against the decision of the Speaker of the Sejm to terminate his parliamentary mandate
– emphasized in the position.
Such action constitutes a significant violation of the legal order of the Republic of Poland and is the result of the arbitrariness of the President of IPiUS, acting in consultation with the Chairman of the Sejm, i.e. the body of the legislature.
– Stępkowski read more.
Unfortunately, these circumstances raise questions about the impartiality of the actions of the President of the Chamber of Labor and Social Security, as they may raise doubts among citizens about the apolitical nature of the Supreme Court.
– he pointed.
Not only do they constitute a violation of national law, but they also have no basis in the CJEU judgment of 21 December last year.
– he emphasized.
Unacceptable actions by Hołownia
Matters related to the right to vote, including the expiry of the parliamentary mandate, have not been transferred to EU bodies and are not governed by European law
– noted in the Supreme Court opinion.
Only the entity filing the procedural document may indicate to which court it is addressed. No legal provision provides for the power of the entity forwarding the appeal, in this case the President of the Sejm, to forward the letter to another addressee, including another chamber of the Supreme Court.
– emphasized in a statement read by the press spokesperson.
The Supreme Court is currently examining the legality of the Sejm Speaker’s decision ending the term of a deputy. It is therefore unacceptable that the Marshal himself, contrary to the clear intention of the complainant, decides where to direct his appeal.
– points to the first president of the Supreme Court.
“Questions may arise about his apolitical and impartial character.
Both appeals against the decisions of the Speaker of the Sejm upon the expiry of a Member of Parliament’s mandate were filed through the Applications Office to the Chamber for Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court on December 29, 2023. were registered there under reference numbers I NSW 1267/23 and I NSW 1268/23. In light of art. 369 § 3 in connection with joke. 13 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filing an appeal was effective, even if this was not done through the Chairman of the Sejm, as stated in art. 250 of the Electoral Act
– emphasizes the Supreme Court.
The Chamber of Extraordinary Scrutiny has repeatedly examined appeals submitted to it without the intervention of the competent authority, for example in the case of appeals against resolutions of the National Council of the Judiciary nominating the President of the Republic of Poland for the appointment of candidates for the positions of judges of the Supreme Court or the Supreme Administrative Court, or appeals against resolutions denying permission to continue judging to judges transferring to the state of rest. There has never been any question as to the effectiveness of filing an appeal in this manner
– he adds.
In reviewing Judge Prusinowski’s actions, the Supreme Court indicated that they had a “negative impact on the image of the Supreme Court as a judicial body independent of the legislative and executive branches.”
The Marshal of the Sejm, who was a politician, expressed his wishes to the Chairman of the Chamber of Labor and Social Security regarding the jury in the matter of appeal against its decisions, and President Piotr Prusinowski, acting in consultation with this politician, appointed two of the three judges on a discretionary basis in case II PUO 2/24, the diagnosis of which is scheduled for January 10 this year. This places the jury in this case in an extremely difficult situation, as in the situational context presented, questions may arise about its apolitical and impartial character.
– we read in the statement of the Supreme Court.
aja/TVP-info
Source: wPolityce