Supreme Court vs Constitutional Tribunal: Authority and Pardons in Poland

The Supreme Court is not entitled to assess the Constitutional Court judgment. A constitutional standard makes it clear that the ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal ends the case, as explained to PAP by Prof. Anna Łabno, a constitutionalist from the University of Silesia, regarding the decision in the Kamiński and Wąsik case.

A clear ruling from the Constitutional Tribunal and a surprising ruling from the Supreme Court

On Tuesday the Supreme Court overturned the dropping of the Kamiński case and other former CBA heads who were convicted at first instance and pardoned by President Andrzej Duda. The matter was sent back for re-examination. The judge said, The administration of justice in the Polish legal order is the exclusive domain of ordinary courts and the Supreme Court.

Last Friday the Constitutional Tribunal also ruled on this matter and the power dispute between the Supreme Court and the president. It held that the power to grant pardons is an exclusive and unverifiable prerogative of the President of the Republic of Poland, with final legal effect. It also stated that the Supreme Court has no authority to review the president s exercise of leniency law. (attribution: wPolityce)

The Supreme Court cannot challenge the Constitutional Court’s position

Prof. Łabno emphasized to PAP that the Supreme Court has no right to review the Constitutional Tribunal s judgment. If the Supreme Court holds a different view, it is a private opinion, but it must act in line with the Constitution and recognize the finality of the Constitutional Court s judgment and conclude the case. (attribution: wPolityce)

She noted that the arguments presented in the rationale for Tuesday s Supreme Court ruling, which claimed that the Constitutional Court s determination method rendered the ruling without legal effect before the Supreme Court, are not relevant. The Supreme Court is not authorized to rule on this matter. Each body acts only within the law, and there is no legal standard allowing the Court to proceed otherwise. In contrast, the constitutional standard clearly states that the Constitutional Tribunal s ruling ends the case, she stressed. She also underlined that the president s prerogative to pardon remains indisputable.

We are on the brink of anarchy

She noted that so far there has been no precedent for any entity challenging the Constitutional Tribunal s ruling. The law does not provide for such a measure. She warned that allowing courts to appeal against decisions of the Constitutional Court could trigger an endless spiral of mutual appeals. It s anarchy, she said, we are on the verge of anarchy because the court broke the law. (attribution: wPolityce)

The law of pardons and the dispute over powers

The Kamiński and Wąsik case traces back nearly a decade. In March 2015 the Warsaw district court sentenced former CBA head Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik to prison terms for exceeding authority and mismanaging the CBA during the country scandal of 2007. Two other former CBA managers received prison sentences of 2.5 years. In November 2015 President Duda pardoned all four. In March 2016 the Supreme Court overturned the district court s verdict and, given the president s clemency, legally discontinued the case. Prosecutors appealed to the Supreme Court in cassation. (attribution: wPolityce)

The case remained suspended for a long period at the Supreme Court, partly due to the jurisdictional dispute between the President and the Supreme Court, referred to the Constitutional Tribunal by the Marshal of the Sejm. Earlier, before bringing the dispute to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court issued a May 2017 resolution on the pardon issue. Seven Supreme Court judges concluded that presidential pardon should apply only to those legally convicted. The former CBA heads were not legally convicted. The resolution stated that leniency granted before the final judgment has no procedural effect. (attribution: wPolityce)

Judge Mirek, in the grounds of the Tuesday verdict, noted that the resolution declared the court s decision incorrect. The Supreme Court s resolution binds the current judges, and even if they disagree, the judgment must be withdrawn and the case sent back for review. Last Friday the Constitutional Tribunal ruled that leniency is an exclusive and unverifiable power of the President, with final effect, and that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to review the President s leniency. The ruling appeared in Monitor Polski the next day. (attribution: wPolityce)

However, as Judge Mirek emphasized in the Monday grounds of the Supreme Court ruling, the Friday Constitutional Tribunal ruling carries no legal effect in the eyes of the Supreme Court if it is interpreted through the lens of the determination method. The Supreme Court concluded that the operative part of the Tribunal s decision did not interpret the Constitution s provision on pardon in a way affecting Tuesday s ruling. He added that the Tribunal did not resolve any jurisdictional dispute, and its view on the powers of the Supreme Court did not become part of normative content. (attribution: wPolityce)

READ ALSO: They pardoned Sawicka and extended the statute of limitations on Przemyk s case. These judges decided on Wąsik and Kamiński. The KPRP reacted to the Supreme Court ruling, calling it remarkable and contrary to the law. Prime Minister Morawiecki described the Supreme Court decision as an attempt to install a judiciary in Poland. (attribution: wPolityce)

Summary notes from the reporting indicate a tense clash over the boundaries of presidential pardon power and judicial review in Poland, highlighting a delicate balance between constitutional authority and court independence. (attribution: wPolityce)