ONLY HERE. Is there a lawyer for Marshal Szymon Hołownia? – statement by Judge Krystyna Pawłowicz at the Constitutional Tribunal

WE PRESENT YOU THE FULL STATEMENT OF JUDGE KRYSTYNA PAWŁOWICZ, SENT TO OUR EDITORIAL:

READ ALSO: The Constitutional Tribunal expects an apology from the Marshal of Hołownia: he deliberately misled public opinion and damaged the good name of Prof. Pawłowicz

In addition to the statement sent to the media by the press service of the Constitutional Tribunal, it is worth noting Mr. Marshal Sz. Hołownia provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, which he clearly does not know:

1. In accordance with the provisions of Art. 105 section 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, a Member of Parliament is protected by immunity only in the context of his/her activities “falling within the scope of the exercise of a parliamentary mandate”. However, the above does not protect the Member from the imposition of a disciplinary penalty. The participation of a representative of the Sejm in proceedings before the Constitutional Tribunal does not result from the Act on the exercise of the mandate of a deputy and senator, but from the Act of 30 November 2016 on the organisation and procedure of proceedings before the Constitutional Tribunal. Constitutional Tribunal. A Member of Parliament participating in proceedings before the Tribunal does not fulfil a parliamentary mandate, but is a representative of a participant in the proceedings (the Sejm), for which he/she receives a separate, high remuneration.

2. Mr. Marshal Sz. Hołownia apparently does not distinguish between ticket procedures and disciplinary punishments. A disciplinary punishment is not part of criminal liability. An example is the Rules of Procedure of the Sejm, which form the basis for imposing disciplinary punishments on MPs. In particular – in accordance with Art. 23 section 1 point 2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Sejm – the Presidium of the Sejm may adopt a resolution on reducing the salary or parliamentary allowance of a Member. Parliamentary immunity does not provide protection against the imposition of this punishment.

The question arises: how “better” are regulatory (order) punishments imposed on deputies by the Presidium of the Sejm, represented by Marshal Hołownia, than disciplinary punishments imposed by the Constitutional Tribunal on a representative of a participant in the proceedings (i.e. the Sejm) before the Tribunal?

3. It is also worth reminding Mr Marshal Hołownia that disciplinary sanctions have already been imposed in the past on someone who used parliamentary immunity. In January 2021, the President of the Supreme Audit Chamber fined MP Elżbieta Witek, then Speaker of the Sejm, for failing to appear in the proceedings. At that time, Marshal E. Witek did not file a complaint with the Public Prosecutor’s Office about the “commission of a crime” by the President of the Supreme Audit Chamber.

4. According to the positions currently put forward by Mr. Marshal Hołownia, he should inform the Prosecutor’s Office about the possibility of crimes committed by the presidiums of all special Sejm committees currently operating in the Sejm and their chairmen, who imposed financial penalties on deputies summoned to the Sejm committees, which were also covered by parliamentary immunity – for failure to appear.

It is worth reminding Mr. Marshal Sz. Hołownia that, in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, the judgments, that is, decisions and decrees, of the Constitutional Tribunal have universally binding force and are final. There is no appeal, complaint or other legal remedy against them. The revenge of the Speaker of the Sejm Sz. Hołownia against a judge of the Constitutional Tribunal for imposing a disciplinary penalty on a paid representative of the Sejm (also a member of parliament) proves the lack of legal culture and legal knowledge of the Marshal and his legal environment.

Krystyna Pawłowicz,

Judge of the Constitutional Court