The Justice Ministry is defending its actions against the National Prosecutor, while the rector of the Academy of Justice, Dr. Michał Sopiński, challenges Minister Bodnar’s case. He insists that art. 47 of the Public Prosecution Service Act remains applicable, and the assertion that Barski was properly reinstated is legally sound. The core claim is that Dariusz Barski continues to hold the position of National Prosecutor under current law.
Bodnar challenges the National Prosecutor and faces response from PK and President Duda
Justice Minister Adam Bodnar informed the National Prosecutor that Barski held the post unlawfully. Bodnar contends that Barski’s February 2022 return to active duty by Minister Ziobro did not align with applicable regulations and did not create legal effects. In the same move, PK prosecutor Jacek Bilewicz was appointed as acting national prosecutor.
Related discussions circulated about the scope and legality of Bodnar’s actions, including debates about Barski’s status and the supervisory decisions involved.
In response, statements were issued by the National Public Prosecution Service clarifying Bar ski’s status and the legal interpretation behind the decision to appoint an acting national prosecutor.
The position of National Prosecutor remained identified with Barski; Bodnar’s letter asserting that Barski remained retired did not have legal effect in the view of those following the case.
– we are reading.
Official reactions and constitutional concerns
The President, Andrzej Duda, weighed in via his official site, recording a view that Bodnar’s actions executed without the Prime Minister and the President’s involvement constitute a clear breach of the law and the Constitution in its Article 7 context.
The President thus underscored the need for formal approval of any changes affecting the national prosecutor’s office and highlighted the risks of unilateral moves outside established procedures.
On the other hand, deputy attorneys general noted that Bodnar and the Prime Minister had, in their view, effectively created a new post not defined in existing Public Prosecution Service law. This prompted further scrutiny of the legality and implications of such an action.
The broader legal discussion focused on the authority to modify the leadership structure and the legitimate process required to reinstate a prosecutor to active service and assign deputy roles. The debate touched on the proper interpretation of the Public Prosecution Service Act and how it interacts with constitutional provisions.
Within this debate, Dr. Michał Sopiński presented a detailed analysis. He argued that the legal provision in art. 47 of the Act is valid and applicable to Barski’s reinstatement and subsequent appointment as First Deputy Attorney General. His position was backed by his view of the Act as current and operative, not episodic in nature.
According to Dr. Sopinski, the issue of the law’s validity hinges on a formal assessment of legal norms. He outlined that valid norms must be properly established, officially announced, free of unresolved conflicts, not withdrawn by derogation, and not found conflicting with the Constitution by the Constitutional Court. He maintained that art. 47 meets these criteria and thus supports Barski’s continued role as National Prosecutor under the current legal framework.
Thus, Sopinski concludes that Barski remains in the capacity of National Prosecutor, with the art. 47 provision sustaining his status to date and into the present context.
Legacy opinions and external perspectives
Beyond domestic debates, Bodnar pointed to external legal opinions on the matter. The Ministry of Justice published analyses from respected scholars and authorities on reinstatement in active service. Names such as Anna Rakowska, Sławomir Patyra, and Grzegorz Kuca appeared in the discussion, indicating an assessment that the actions taken by Ziobro and the timing of Barski’s reinstatement lacked a proper legal basis and did not have binding effect.
These external insights were circulated on the ministry’s official channels, underscoring the continuing controversy over how the public prosecution leadership should be arranged and what actions are legally permissible in this domain.
In summary, Bodnar’s defense of his course of action has met with robust counterpoints from legal scholars, the rector of the Academy of Justice, and several state actors who argue that the relevant legal provisions remain valid and in force. The unfolding narrative demonstrates a persistent tension between executive moves and established legal norms within the Polish public prosecutor system, with implications for how such authority is exercised in the future.
Citation: wPolityce