The initiation of an explanatory procedure by the disciplinary spokesperson of the Supreme Court following the decision of the Chamber of Extraordinary Scrutiny revoking the decision of the President of the Sejm on the expiry of Mariusz Kamiński’s mandate was a gross violation of the law – according to the resolution of the National Council for the Judiciary.
In a statement, the National Council for the Judiciary said the adopted resolution related to the initiation of an explanatory proceeding by the disciplinary spokesperson of the Supreme Court and the procedure for this proceeding.
Bodnar’s conclusion
As the National Council for the Judiciary recalled, the procedure was initiated at the request of Attorney General Adam Bodnar, and concerns judge Aleksander Stępkowski, chairman of the panel and rapporteur of the case of Mariusz Kamiński’s appeal against the court’s decision . President of the Sejm on the expiry of the mandate of a deputy under investigation in the Extraordinary Control Chamber of the Supreme Court.
Initiation of the procedure “without mandatory explanation”
Bodnar has submitted a request to the disciplinary spokesperson of the Supreme Court to initiate explanatory proceedings “to determine whether, in connection with the issuance on January 5 this year. resolution (…) no disciplinary unlawful act has been committed.” As noted by the National Council for the Judiciary, in the resolution of the disciplinary spokesperson of the Supreme Court of January 10, he initiated such a procedure “without receiving mandatory explanations”.
The explanatory procedure in the case was initiated on the basis of the request of the Polish government, the only justification of which is the information appearing in the public space about the issuance by judges sitting in the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs on 5 January. this year. resolutions (…) without attaching the files, on the basis of a copy of the files
– noted the Council’s resolution signed by the President, Judge Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woicka.
As stated by the National Council for the Judiciary, the Law on the Supreme Court provides that “the disciplinary spokesperson of the Supreme Court shall undertake explanatory activities at the request of, among others: PG, after a preliminary explanation of the circumstances necessary to determine the elements of the criminal offense, and after the judge has provided an explanation, which is a mandatory part before initiating an explanatory procedure.
The political context of the application of the PG, the haste and the lack of opportunities for members of the jury to provide mandatory explanations, gives the impression that the executive body is putting pressure on independent judges, leading to a ‘chilling effect+’ that is unacceptable in a democratic constitutional state.
– assessed the National Council for the Judiciary. She added that this situation also “raises doubts about the impartiality of the Supreme Court’s disciplinary spokesperson.”
The issue of expiry of mandates
The Marshal of the Sejm has addressed the appeals of Maciej Wąsik and Mariusz Kamiński against the decision to terminate their mandates to the Chamber of Labor and Social Security of the Supreme Court.
Jury panels and closed hearing dates were appointed for both cases on January 10 this year. In the Wąsik case, the panel of judges of the Chamber of Labor consisted of judges who ruled at the Supreme Court after 2018, and in the Kamiński case it consisted of judges who ruled at this court before 2018.
In the case of Wąsik’s dismissal in the Labor Chamber of the Supreme Court, the judge appointed for this case decided to transfer the case to the Extraordinary Control Chamber of the Supreme Court, which on January 4 revoked the decision of the President of the Supreme Court. Sejm to end the mandate of MP Wąsik.
A day later, the Chamber of Extraordinary Control annulled the Sejm Speaker’s decision on the expiry of Kamiński’s parliamentary mandate. Regardless of the fact that the Chairman of the Sejm forwarded both appeals to the Chamber of Labor, on December 29, 2023, the Supreme Court received direct appeals from Kamiński and Wąsik, filed without the intervention of the Chairman of the Sejm. to the Chamber for Extraordinary Scrutiny and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court.
The Chamber of Extraordinary Scrutiny ruled on the expiry of Kamiński’s mandate based on files collected since December 29, 2023; In this case we had all the material
– assured Judge Stępkowski then.
Referring to the decision regarding Kamiński, the Chairman of the Chamber of Labor Piotr Prusinowski said that he did not have any information that would allow the handling of the case of Kamiński’s appeal against the expiry of his parliamentary mandate at the Chamber of Labor in the would be away.
On January 10, this House did not accept Kamiński’s appeal against the decision of the President of the Sejm. At the same time, the ruling of the Chamber of Labor indicated that the previous decision in the same case of the Extraordinary Control Chamber of the Supreme Court – revoking the decisions of the Chairman of the Sejm upon the expiry of Kamiński’s mandate – was not a ruling of the Supreme Court Council.
READ ALSO:
– Hołownia continues. He wants the funds for Wąsik and Kamiński’s parliamentary offices to be accounted for! “They have thirty days to do this from the expiry of their parliamentary mandate”
— Kamiński and Wąsik will not resign their seats. Szczucki: They want to participate in the work of the Sejm, this is the duty of every MP
— The case of Kamiński and Wąsik. Prof. Piotrowski: It is not individual lawyers who decide who is an MP, but the voters
PAP/bjg
Source: wPolityce