Work on the preliminary application to bring the head of the National Bank of Poland, Adam Glapiński, before the State Tribunal is set to begin in September. This step is part of broader parliamentary oversight over the central bank and its leadership, and it follows months of political debate about constitutional responsibilities and central bank independence.
The Sejm Committee on Constitutional Responsibility (ODK) is tasked with examining the draft request to summon Glapiński to the State Tribunal. While it has not committed to a precise timeline, the head of the committee cautioned that such processes can extend over a considerable period. He noted that a strict constitutional termination principle does not apply to this case, allowing for a longer progression if needed. He suggested that, in the scenario focused on the ODK’s workload, the review might stretch to about a year, though he stressed this is not a final forecast and depends on how the proceedings unfold.
Following the committee’s work, the Sejm will determine the next course of action. The timing and outcome will, in essence, be shaped by the committee’s findings and the political debate that accompanies them.
A preliminary motion to refer Glapiński to the Court of Justice had already been filed by a substantial group of MPs from the ruling coalition, with 191 signatures. The accusations against Glapiński center on allegations that touch on constitutional and legal boundaries, including claims related to financing budget deficits through asset purchases during 2020-2021, executing such purchases without explicit permission from the Monetary Policy Council, and failing to adhere to the apolitical mandate of the NBP President. Some members of the central bank’s board of directors view the proposal as an attempt to undermine the independence of the Polish central bank.
The formal submission of the preliminary application to the State Tribunal was presented for consideration to the ODK by the Speaker of the Sejm at the end of May, signaling a structured parliamentary path toward addressing the matter within the constitutional framework.
Motion by PiS MPs
Earlier in the year, a group of MPs from the ruling party filed a separate motion with the Constitutional Court challenging four provisions of the law on the State Tribunal and one provision of the Sejm Rules of Procedure. The central argument was that the responsibility for pursuing the indictment of the NBP President should rest with the Court of Justice, with the Sejm playing a constitutional role as the political body that initiates such proceedings. The essence of the argument is framed as a question of constitutional responsibility and the proper distribution of powers among state institutions. The Constitutional Court is scheduled to hear the case on a forthcoming Tuesday at 10:00.
The committee chair emphasized that he would refrain from commenting on potential rulings by the Constitutional Tribunal regarding the commission’s work. He affirmed that, regardless of the Court’s decision, all actions would be conducted in full accordance with the law and the established procedures.
Earlier this year, the Sejm passed a resolution addressing the consequences of the constitutional crisis spanning 2015 to 2023, noting that decisions by the Constitutional Tribunal made in violation of the law could be seen as breaches of legal principles by state bodies. Subsequently, the Sejm approved two laws aimed at reforming the tribunal, with amendments subsequently accepted by the Senate and currently awaiting Sejm consideration. These events frame the ongoing debate about constitutional oversight and the balance of power among branches of government, in the context of Poland’s evolving legal landscape.
In related discussions, commentary has reflected on the political dynamics surrounding the State Tribunal and the central bank, with observers asking questions about the timing, procedures, and potential implications for central bank independence. The coordination between Sejm committees, the presidency of the country, and the courts remains a focal point of constitutional discourse as events unfold.
This situation continues to draw attention from party forums and political commentators who weigh the implications for governance, constitutional legality, and the autonomy of public institutions. Analysts point to the ongoing reforms and the procedural complexity that accompanies major constitutional questions, underscoring that the path ahead will be shaped by legal decisions, parliamentary votes, and the interpretation of constitutional duties by the relevant institutions.