Minister of Justice and Attorney General Adam Bodnar has decided to withdraw the request to the Supreme Court regarding the gender recognition procedure. However, the Supreme Court found such action unacceptable and will hear the case tomorrow.
The right of a transgender person to function in accordance with his or her gender identity is part of the constitutional right to respect for private and family life. However, it is the duty of the state to shape gender determination procedures in such a way that respect for the rights and dignity of these people is guaranteed. Tomorrow, the full Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court will consider the request of former Attorney General Z. Ziobro to resolve a legal issue regarding the group of people participating in the gender recognition procedure.
– wrote on the X platform Adam Bodnar.
Unlike my predecessor, I am of the opinion that there are no factual or legal grounds for the Supreme Court to rule in this case. That is why I have decided to withdraw the application. I encourage you to read the full announcement regarding the content of my position
– Added Bodnar. However, he did not state that the Supreme Court found his actions unacceptable. That is why he will rule tomorrow in the case that the former attorney general requested to be dealt with.
Statement from the neo-national prosecutor’s office
The statement on the website of the neo-National Public Prosecution Service was issued following the information about the planned meeting of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court on Wednesday in the Supreme Court on a legal issue regarding the group of people participating in the gender change procedure . According to Supreme Court records, a closed hearing on the matter was scheduled at High Court 13 at 12 noon on Wednesday.
This legal issue has a long history. The question was submitted to the Supreme Court in September 2022 by the previous PG, Zbigniew Ziobro. Ziobro’s motion was intended to decide whether if a person seeking to change gender has a spouse or children, he or she must file a lawsuit for gender reassignment.
In January this year, current PG Adam Bodnar ruled that Ziobro’s request was intended to complicate the entire procedure regarding gender change cases. Therefore, on January 29 this year, the Attorney General withdrew the request to resolve the legal issue submitted.
Expanding the circle of entities participating in the proceeding could place an undue emotional burden on the transsexual person, but also on other participants, including especially the plaintiff’s children.
– noted the PG spokeswoman.
However, the Supreme Court announced a few months ago that “during a closed session on June 7, 2024, the composition of the full Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court declared the withdrawal of the request inadmissible.”
The hearing to resolve the legal issue will take place in November 2024.
– was then reported.
That meeting was attended by 19 of the 30 judges of the Civil Chamber listed on the court’s website at the time. Judges from this chamber who had been appointed to the Supreme Court by the National Council for the Judiciary before the changes to the provisions on the National Council for the Judiciary adopted in December 2017 did not participate in the meeting.
The court did not provide reasons for its decision
– said prosecutor Adamiak on Tuesday.
As the body that initiates the relevant procedure, the Attorney General has the right to withdraw a previously submitted request. In this situation, the failure of the Supreme Court to take into account the PG’s withdrawal of the request to initiate proceedings must be regarded as an action without legal basis. Continuing the procedure at the Supreme Court and possibly issuing a ruling will be accompanied by a legal defect
– emphasized prosecutor Adamiak.
She recalled that Bodnar had also requested in August to be excluded from the jury of Supreme Court judges appointed after 2017 at the request of the National Council for the Judiciary.
The request was initiated by sending it to the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court. To date, the application has not been recognized
– said the PG spokeswoman.
It is generally accepted that in cases involving the determination or change of legal gender, the claimant’s parents, or – if they are no longer living – the court-appointed guardian, have legal standing. The right of the parents to participate in such cases arises from the fact that they are included in the plaintiff’s birth certificate, and the decision of the court constitutes the basis for disclosing the gender change in this declaration.
However, in 2022, Ziobro asked a question on this matter, and it was subsequently signed by PG’s deputy Robert Hernand. The reasoning for this question states that in such a case the spouse or children must also appear.
As, among others, The Deputy PG pointed out that the legal nature of the marriage entered into by a transsexual and the essence of the bond between non-divorced spouses require not only the necessity of the participation of the transsexual spouse in the lawsuit, but also the inadmissibility of an action to change the registered gender.
The deputy PG added in the reasons for the question that if a different interpretation were to be adopted, “if such a suit were accepted on the day after the date on which the judgment becomes final, it would result in a legally impermissible punishment of the marriage of two persons of the same sex.”
This issue was discussed on January 19 this year. was heard by a panel of seven judges of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court. It was subsequently decided that the matter would be heard by the full Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court. Shortly thereafter, Bodnar withdrew the motion to resolve the legal issue, and in June of this year. The Supreme Court deemed this withdrawal inadmissible.
As you can see, the brazen daring of the ‘Bodnarists’ is increasing. This time, Adam Bodnar wanted to deprive the Supreme Court of the opportunity to consider an important legal issue, believing that he knew better how to resolve the case.
tkwl/X/PAP
Source: wPolityce
Emma Matthew is a political analyst for “Social Bites”. With a keen understanding of the inner workings of government and a passion for politics, she provides insightful and informative coverage of the latest political developments.