A journalist questioned a Supreme Court spokesperson, Judge Aleksander Stępkowski, about whether politics influenced the court’s handling of the case involving ministers Maciej Wąsik and Mariusz Kamiński. The spokesperson delivered a firm response that carried clear implications about the court’s independence and process.
The situation presented a puzzling sequence: one ruling in a case involving two ministers who received two year sentences for abuse of power, a final decision, an appeal, and indications of two distinct outcomes from separate chambers. The journalist pressed, asking what this signals about the Supreme Court. In response, statements were shared about the tension between different chamber opinions and about who controls what part of the court system. The exchange also touched on how personnel connections can appear to intersect with official procedures, raising questions about propriety.
The reporter then noted a scenario in which the President of the Chamber of Labor allegedly collaborated with the head of the Speaker of the Sejm’s office to secretly submit documents to the Supreme Court. Such revelations suggested not just minor friction but a profound alignment with political interests, which, in the speaker’s view, was unacceptable. Judge Stępkowski answered by referencing Judge Prusinowski’s meetings with the head of the office associated with Szymon Hołownia, indicating concerns about direct political interference in legal matters.
Ruling by the Chamber for Extraordinary Scrutiny and Public Affairs on the Wąsik and Kamiński mandates
The Chamber for Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court ruled on the expiry of Mariusz Kamiński’s mandate based on materials gathered since December 29, 2023, according to the Supreme Court’s spokesperson. The chamber annulled a Sejm Speaker’s decision regarding the expiry of Kamiński’s mandate, signaling a pivotal step in how such mandates are adjudicated.
The spokesperson, who also serves as chair of the panel deciding Kamiński’s case, stressed that the Supreme Court Act assigns to the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs the authority over public affairs, and that this matter constitutes an appeal against the Sejm chairman’s decision. It was recalled that jurisdictional questions in this matter had previously been settled in favor of the Chamber of Extraordinary Scrutiny.
The judge also accused the Sejm chairman of violating procedural rules by directly submitting Kamiński’s appeal to the Chamber of Labor rather than routing it through the Supreme Court’s archives office. The law allows the appellant to determine the forum for filing the appeal, but the case management rules govern where cases are ultimately heard, which matters raised questions about proper channels and processes.
If the archive office is bypassed, the case—in formal terms—would not reach the Supreme Court.
The judge added that an immediate appeal could be brought to the Appellate Body, and stated that the Supreme Court’s Chamber for Extraordinary Scrutiny and Public Affairs possessed the complete material needed for the decision, describing the file as plentiful and thorough.
Furthermore, it was noted that the complainant’s representative submitted the original Sejm chairman’s decision to terminate Kamiński’s mandate as evidence, along with a certified copy of the Chamber of Labor files attached to the case file. The court contended that the material had been collected by the chamber in connection with the case registration on December 29, 2023.
The statement underscored that the ruling rested on the chamber’s own records and the documents assembled during the court’s proceedings, rather than externally sourced material outside the chamber’s established file system.
Legal basis for the Chamber of Labor to hear the Kamiński and Wąsik case
The judge was asked about the January 10 meeting of the Labor Chamber of the Supreme Court, which was to hear Kamiński’s appeal against the Sejm president’s decision terminating his mandate. The question focused on what legal provision would authorize the Labor Chamber to exercise jurisdiction in this matter.
Stępkowski stated that if the Labor and Social Insurance Chamber acts, it would do so without a valid legal basis. The remarks stressed that the Republic of Poland operates as a democratic state ruled by law, where jurisdiction is determined by applicable law rather than political declarations about which court should hear a case.
Thus, the legal framework remains the guiding factor in determining which chamber is empowered to hear a given appeal, ensuring that jurisdiction is anchored in statute rather than political preference.
In closing, the discussion highlighted ongoing concerns about how jurisdiction is assigned and how such assignments interact with political dynamics and the integrity of judicial processes.