Constitutional tribunal tensions and constitutional provisions
Online coverage from Gazeta Wyborcza described tensions between the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, presenting a translated view of an expanded panel’s ruling. The translation suggested that judgments shaped with the participation of two parties do not carry universal binding force and are not final. Kamila Gasiuk-Pihowicz also shared her perspective through social media. In response, a former justice minister and a Supreme Court judge offered their reactions from different viewpoints.
Constitutional Tribunal and the Constitution in focus
The expanded panel of the Criminal Chamber within the Supreme Court issued a decision on December 13, 2023. It stated that if Constitutional Court judgments involved bipartisanship, they would lack universal binding force and would not be final. The body formed by people who had previously held seats is not described in the Constitution as the Constitutional Court, according to Gazeta Wyborcza, which cited the Supreme Court’s rationale. It argued that Article 190, declaring Constitutional Court rulings final and universally binding, is not currently in force.
The seven-member panel of the Criminal Chamber, chaired by former President Michał Laskowski with Judge Tomasz Artymiuk serving as rapporteur, issued the decision. The case originated when Ombudsman Marcin Wiącek asked the Supreme Court about the legal consequences of the Constitutional Court’s December 2022 ruling. Gazeta Wyborcza provided this context to readers.
Gasiuk-Pihowicz on the landmark ruling
Kamila Gasiuk-Pihowicz, a member of parliament from KO and a participant in the National Council for the Judiciary, commented on the decision via social media, calling it groundbreaking. She asserted that the expanded panel found bipartisan involvement in Constitutional Tribunal rulings does not confer universal binding force and is not final. Her statements signal a strong stance on the implications of the ruling.
Kaleta and Zaradkiewicz respond
Former Justice Minister Sebastian Kaleta and Supreme Court Judge Kamil Zaradkiewicz weighed in on the MP’s public stance from the Tusk-led coalition. Kaleta argued that no constitutional provision gives the Supreme Court authority to review the Constitutional Court’s decisions. Judges of the Criminal Chamber have been described as shaping legislation and the justice system since 2015, challenging elements of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Act on the Common Courts, and the National Court Register. The current case is seen by some as another example of this trend, raising questions about constitutional authority and jurisdiction. A member of the Sovereign Poland party labeled the trend as anarchic.
The discussion reminded readers that the Constitution does not explicitly grant the Supreme Court power to review the Constitutional Court. Some reports suggested that the Constitutional Court could have intervened before the Supreme Court. Provisions referencing articles 189 and 190 were cited to clarify the limits on judging the Constitutional Court’s rulings. Another former Deputy Minister of Justice offered his comments on these points.
Judge Kamil Zaradkiewicz later noted that Gasiuk-Pihowicz’s interpretation could mislead the public, emphasizing that this represented a jurist’s view rather than a binding legal ruling. He described the matter as entering the realm of public jurisprudence rather than the court’s formal competence. He added that the Supreme Court has, in its own practice, ruled on the composition of constitutional bodies and issued resolutions deemed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, illustrating ongoing tension between these institutions.
Zaradkiewicz framed the exchange as a demonstration of how much is still debated within Poland’s legal system and urged careful consideration of statements by public officials. There is also a note that the Supreme Court, when addressing the composition and actions of the Constitutional Tribunal, has sometimes ruled on its own cases while they were under review by constitutional bodies. This recurring dynamic underscores questions about jurisdiction and authority across the courts. He added reflections on the broader implications for constitutional governance and the relationship between court bodies, highlighting the high level of public attention and the substantial stakes involved.
End of excerpt. A related set of discussions and interviews followed in coverage, including debates about independence, media messaging, and the proper functioning of constitutional oversight. The discourse highlighted ongoing concerns about how law is interpreted and applied in Poland’s highest courts.
Source materials were drawn from multiple outlets and later consolidated for this overview to illustrate the range of views surrounding the decision and its potential impact on constitutional jurisprudence.