It is difficult to list all the mistakes and embarrassments of the new attorney general. Adam Bodnar goes far in his mission, but knowledge of regulations does not appear to be his strong point. This flaw was exposed by Prof. Mariusz Muszyński, Judge of the Constitutional Court. Today, Bodnar attacked the Constitutional Tribunal, which issued an interim decision on the actions of the Attorney General at the National Prosecutor’s Office. The new Minister of Justice was not happy with the ruling of judge Prof. Krystyna Pawłowicz, who, while still a member of parliament, voted for changes that were currently of interest to the Constitutional Court. The problem is that she did not hold any position as an organ of state, but was merely a member of parliament.
READ ALSO: There is an investigation into abuse of power by Minister Bodnar! This is an attempt to illegally fire Prosecutor Barski
I never considered Adam Bodnar a legal genius. I have also often criticized him, perhaps even exceeding the bounds of elegance in this criticism. And after reading his position regarding the interim decision of the Constitutional Court in the Dariusz Barski case as “non-existent”, I was convinced of my inelegance. I am really sorry. Our attorney general is simply dissatisfied. Intellectually unhappy. He can no longer be criticized. We should feel sorry for him, since – apart from other absurdities – I understand from the letter he signed that the interim decision is flawed because: judge “Krystyna Pawłowicz, as a member of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland, participated in the process of adoption of the law that would be subject to constitutional review (…) and the Member of Parliament, Krystyna Pawłowicz, voted in favor of the adoption of the act. “
– we read in the analysis of Prof. Muszyński
Pursuant to art. 39 section 1 point 1 of the law of 19 December 2016 on the organization and procedure of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court “A judge of the Tribunal is excluded from participating in the hearing of a case if he has issued a normative act which has the object constitutes an application, a legal question or a constitutional complaint.**
– Judge Muszyński lists Bodnar’s “accusations” against Krystyna Pawłowicz.
Muszyński concludes that “this series of arguments shows that Judge Pawłowicz, according to Prosecutor Bodnar, as a Member of Parliament, promulgated the Law of December 19, 2016 on the organization and procedure of proceedings before the Constitutional Court. I think I underestimated my friend.’
But seriously now. In art. 39 Section 1(1) covers a situation where a judge of the Constitutional Court was previously a Prime Minister, Minister or other sole-person body issuing such acts (e.g. regulations, local laws). Serving as a body is not the same as being a member of the body. However, laws are passed by the Sejm, not by parliamentarians. During his studies, Prosecutor Bodnar had to miss this lecture. Isn’t it the joke of history that the attorney general, who protects the rule of law, tears the justice system to shreds?
– asks judge Mariusz Muszyński in his analysis.
Apparently Adam Bodnar makes no distinction between the mandate of an MP and the state body that passes laws. With such ignorance, it is difficult to expect him to be an efficient attorney general.
WB
Source: wPolityce