There is already a written justification for the surprising June ruling that halted the case against Mariusz Kamiński and other former CBA leaders, who were convicted at first instance and later pardoned by the president. The motivation was published on Monday on the Supreme Court website. The Supreme Court states that the case can be sent back for reconsideration. The document suggests the court overlooked the Constitutional Court’s ruling issued on June 2 of this year and appears not to recognize the constitutional provision granting the president broad clemency powers, independent of the agency involved.
READ ALSO: WE REVEAL. They pardoned Sawicka and extended the statute of limitations on Przemyk’s case. The judges in the Kamiński case were also involved in the Wąsik matter.
READ ALSO: The Supreme Court ignores the Constitutional Tribunal ruling! The case of Mariusz Kamiński and other former CBA leaders is being reexamined.
According to wPolityce.pl, among the three Supreme Court judges reviewing this matter, two previously voted to acquit Beata Sawicka, overturned a sentence against a judge tied to criminal networks, and dismissed the Przemyk case as a murder inquiry. Those same judges have now undertaken a contentious legal move concerning PiS politicians.
The Court of First Instance found that the defendants acted beyond their authority, harmed public and private interests, and committed other prohibited acts. Yet the reviewing body did not substantively verify these conclusions in its assessment.
The Supreme Court noted in a written statement spanning more than thirty pages that such a review was not only legally required but also in the public interest.
The witnesses stressed that the matter carried significance well beyond the interests of the defendants and the victims.
On June 6, the Supreme Court’s Criminal Chamber, composed of Andrzej Stępka, Piotr Mirek, and Małgorzata Gierszon, reversed the 2016 decision to discontinue the case against the former CBA leaders by the District Court in Warsaw and referred the matter back for re-examination.
T.K. is Right
Four days earlier, the Constitutional Tribunal had issued its ruling in this matter. It held that clemency power belongs exclusively to the President, with final legal effect, and that the Supreme Court cannot control how the president exercises clemency.
What happened to the Supreme Court panel then? It concluded that the ruling had no legal effect.
Because of this ruling, the Supreme Court argued that the Constitutional Court’s decision on June 2, 2019 concerning jurisdiction did not produce legal consequences, according to the new justification issued on June 6.
The case has dragged on for nearly a decade.
In March 2015, the Warsaw-Śródmieście District Court sentenced the former CBA head Mariusz Kamiński and his deputy Maciej Wąsik, among others, to prison terms for exceeding authority and mismanaging the agency during the so‑called “country scandal” in 2007. Two other senior CBA officials received prison terms as well.
In November 2015, before the appeals court heard the case, President Andrzej Duda granted pardons to all four individuals. In March 2016, the Supreme Court overturned the district court’s verdict, noting the president’s clemency and legally discontinuing the case. Public prosecutors filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.
The matter then stalled for a long period at the Supreme Court, partly due to the jurisdictional dispute between the President and the Supreme Court submitted to the Constitutional Court by the Marshal of the Sejm. Earlier, before sending the dispute to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court issued a May 2017 resolution on the right to clemency.
At that time, seven Supreme Court judges answered a question from colleagues examining the cassation of the former CBA leaders: the presidential pardon should apply only to those who are legally convicted. The former CBA leaders had not been legally convicted. The resolution stated, in effect, that clemency does not have procedural effect before the date of a final judgment.
That resolution remains binding in the current case and led to the cassation proceeding and the quashing of the contested judgment.
The written justification also notes that, following the earlier May 2017 position, the Supreme Court’s panel handling cassation appeals against the former CBA heads decided that the case, as investigated, retained binding force. It also states that the earlier statements by Kamiński and Wąsik’s lawyers about withdrawing their appeal have not yet produced any procedural consequences and needed to be addressed on the merits.
The document adds that issues remain open for further proceedings regarding the exercise of parliamentary mandates by Kamiński and Wąsik, which became valid after the reversal of the appealed judgment.
The Supreme Court’s controversial stance toward the Constitutional Tribunal’s decisions and the president’s prerogative underscores a broader clash between the judiciary and the presidency in Poland. This development is interpreted by some as evidence of ongoing tensions between the separate branches of government.
Source: wPolityce