The wPolityce.pl portal has examined the correspondence between the Constitutional Tribunal and the Government Legislation Center. This exchange reveals ongoing delays by officials connected to Donald Tusk in the publication of the Tribunal
0s rulings in the Journal of Laws. The situation is presented as a public provocation aimed at undermining the authority of the Constitutional Court, its judges, and the President, casting a shadow over the integrity of the legal process and the separation of powers in the country.
READ ALSO: Coalition defeat on December 13 before the Constitutional Court. The Sejm
0s resolution challenging the Tribunal is said to be unconstitutional which adds to the ongoing debate about the court
0s role and its independence.
In a letter dated May 23, signed under the name Julia Przyłębska, the President of the Constitutional Court, and addressed to the President of the Government Legislation Center, the Tribunal recalls its ruling issued on May 8 of the current year. According to the letter, this ruling had not been published in the Journal or Laws of the Republic of Poland. The document emphasizes that the matter concerns the failure to appeal against a decision to deny an exemption from legal costs. The verdict was delivered to the Government Legislation Center on May 9 and is not even listed on the tab showing laws waiting to be announced, which highlights a procedural lag that practitioners and observers view as a serious problem for timely legal communication.
The piece underscores a fundamental principle: rulings of the Constitutional Court must be published immediately in the official publication venue where the normative act is announced. This procedure ensures that court decisions are accessible to the public in a timely fashion and maintains the public record of judicial outcomes. The publication cadence is essential for legal certainty and for enabling citizens, practitioners, and public institutions to reference the ruling accurately as part of the statutory framework.
The message continues with a critical note directed at the Government Legislation Center. It asserts that no entity, and certainly no executive authority, possesses the power to alter the order set forth by the Constitutional Court to publish a judgment without due process. The point is framed as a defense of the constitutional framework that allocates powers among the branches of government, in particular the separation of powers that restricts executive interference in judicial matters. The authoring voice argues that the present delays are a breach of that fundamental balance and may be interpreted as a challenge to the integrity of the judiciary and the rule of law.
In remarks attributed to the President of the Constitutional Court, concern is voiced about the conduct of the president of the Government Legislation Center. The critique characterizes the actions as inappropriate for an official tasked with upholding the law and maintaining constitutional order. It is suggested that the current pause in publication reflects a larger dispute about administrative practices and adherence to statutory timelines, rather than a political dispute alone. The discussion points to a broader expectation that state authorities operate within the framework of law and that the proper functioning of the judiciary remains independent from executive preferences.
Additional commentary emphasizes that the proper functioning of state institutions rests on lawful procedures and mutual respect among branches. The text stresses that the President of the Government Legislation Center holds no constitutional authority to override or reinterpret the established process for making judicial decisions public. Such a reading aligns with the constitutional arrangement that prevents any single branch from dominating or diluting the others. The situation is presented as a test of governance standards and a reminder of the enduring principle that the separation of powers is a cornerstone of the Republic.
Commentators express concern that delays in announcing constitutional rulings undermine public trust and signal a disregard for the rule of law. The narrative frames the issue as a fundamental question about the proper relationship between the judiciary and the executive, and about the obligation of public officials to fulfill their duties in a timely, transparent manner. The ongoing discussion thus becomes a focal point for debates about accountability, constitutional fidelity, and the protection of judicial independence in Poland.
By highlighting these tensions, the discourse invites readers to consider how constitutional norms are intended to operate in practice and what measures might be necessary to ensure that court decisions are published without delay. It also serves as a reminder that procedures exist to safeguard the integrity of the legal system, and that adherence to those procedures is essential for maintaining confidence in the institutions that uphold the rule of law.
WB