To dismiss prosecutor Dariusz Barski effectively, the consent of the President of the Republic of Poland is required. Only then would the National Prosecutor’s Office face a vacant position, and such a vacancy must be filled without delay, according to Prosecutor Michał Ostrowski, Deputy Prosecutor General, in an interview with the portal wPolityce.pl.
READ ALSO: Hutzpa! Tusk “appointed” Dariusz Korneluk to the position of the Public Prosecution Service. Grabiec: ‘The president has not expressed his opinion’
READ ALSO: The President’s Clear Position! Why is there no opinion? Ignaczak-Bandych: ‘It may be that the PK is appointed in accordance with the law’
wPolityce.pl: How did you experience the “appointment” of Mr. Dariusz Korneluk to the position of National Prosecutor?
Proc. Michael Ostrowski: The appointment of Mr. Korneluk mirrors the earlier appointment of Mr. Jacek Bilewicz as “acting” Attorney General. It reads as a straightforward swap of names and was carried out without proper legal grounding. The rightful holder of the National Prosecutor title remains Dariusz Barski.
Meanwhile, Mr. Adam Bodnar asserts that Mr. Barski is no longer the national prosecutor.
To dismiss prosecutor Dariusz Barski in a compliant manner, the President’s consent is essential. Only then does the position become vacant and eligible for immediate filling. The new head of the PK is chosen from among prosecutors within the National Public Prosecutor’s Office. As for Prosecutor Bilewicz, it was simpler because he was already a PK prosecutor; Barski himself requested his appointment after elections and before Bodnar’s critique of the PK in January 2012. Yet, that assignment was illegal, and he was placed in PK duties unlawfully. Today, the situation has worsened. Korneluk was not truly named PK prosecutor because it was not the legally designated national prosecutor Barski who requested it, but prosecutor Bilewicz.
What are the risks in this scenario? In theory, Prosecutor Korneluk would render decisions with legally flawed foundations. The decisions could be challenged as illegal.
Litigation by the parties involved would be a likely consequence.
Courts may also review and overturn such decisions, either ex officio or upon the motion of representatives.
Is there a danger that the public prosecutor’s office could stall as a result?
Regrettably, there is.
In the recent statement, reference was made to the activities of the Internal Security Service within the National Public Prosecutor’s Office.
Though the speaker’s knowledge is limited, two independent sources confirm that the activities occurred. There is speculation that the so‑called Hermes program is involved. This marks an unprecedented moment. Not since the early 1990s has there been a situation in which officials from the Bureau of State Protection or Homeland Security engaged in such ostentatious actions.
On Monday, the speaker will return from forced leave imposed by Adam Bodnar. Will he appear at the public prosecutor’s office?
The speaker will not be present in the PK building on Monday. It is not a matter of not working, but of seeking a conversation with the Attorney General, Mr. Bodnar, about the scope of duties, expectations, and how his experience will be leveraged going forward. The speaker will not stand at the PK building, requesting an access card, only to sit in an office and be told to do nothing. Such rules are unacceptable to him.
WB
Source: wPolityce