Senate Amendments to the Supreme Court Law
A prominent PiS member, Marek Ast, the chair of the parliamentary committee on Justice and Human Rights, argued in a media interview that the changes proposed by the Senate are unacceptable both in committee and on the floor of parliament. He insisted that the amendments would be rejected and stressed that consistency is essential across all judges. The topic centers on how the law governing the Supreme Court should be amended and whether the Senate’s proposals align with a compromise reached with the European Commission.
The discussion highlights how Poland reached a settlement with its European partners. The government claimed that the agreed provisions were workable and should not be altered during the proceedings in the Sejm. The assurance cited by supporters referenced the potential release of funds tied to the Polish National Recovery Plan, commonly referred to as KPO, as part of the broader financial mechanism under negotiation with the European Union.
The Senate’s plan includes several key changes. It proposes to abolish the Chamber of Professional Responsibility and to shift disciplinary proceedings to the Supreme Court’s Criminal Chamber. It also calls for disciplinary cases to be decided by judges with seven years of seniority. Critics argue that these changes create a different status for individual judges and undermine the president’s authority to appoint judges on an equal footing. The result, according to the critics, would be a mismatch where one judge could effectively be judged under a different standard than another. This divergence, they say, is unacceptable both within the committee and during parliamentary votes, and the fixes are rejected by the coalition’s leadership.
- the PiS member insisted in a public statement.
What Will President Duda Do?
When pressed about President Andrzej Duda’s potential course of action, Marek Ast indicated that the president would weigh all arguments carefully before deciding. He suggested that if doubt remains after the bill is signed, the president might refer the measure to the Constitutional Tribunal for review. If there is no doubt, he would likely proceed to sign the law, particularly given the European Commission’s statements about releasing funds from the KPO program and the potential impact on Polish citizens.
Ast also framed the decision as a test of the European Commission’s credibility, underscoring the political stakes involved in balancing national prerogatives with EU expectations. The discussion touches on broader considerations about how Poland should respond to EU conditions while pursuing domestic policy goals.
Related commentary included remarks from Prime Minister Morawiecki about the timeline for the Supreme Court bill. He suggested that there is a chance the law could pass within the next week, while also noting ongoing concerns about what amendments from the Senate might mean for the judiciary. Other voices in government and EU circles have urged caution, urging careful consideration of the vote’s timing and the potential implications for EU relations and the KPO disbursement schedule.
In this climate, analysts emphasize that the outcome will depend on how President Duda interprets the merit of the Senate’s changes and how he balances constitutional safeguards with commitments made to EU partners. The situation remains dynamic, with public statements, parliamentary debates, and procedural steps all contributing to the ultimate fate of the Supreme Court reform package.
Source: wPolityce