Excessive powers of the first president of the Supreme Federal Court
The process, led by the attorney of the National Prosecutor’s Office, began on August 14.
The investigation into the abuse of power by the first President of the Supreme Court – in the period from September 2021 to July 2022 in Warsaw – by “holding votes of members of the Supreme Court Collegium by circulation” is ongoing. During these votes, it was considered that the judges who declared that they would refrain from participating in the work of the STF Collegiate until the complete cessation of the activities of the then Disciplinary Chamber cast “abstention votes”, which were counted towards the quorum required by law.
The prosecution estimates that Manowska may have violated art. 231 para. 1 of the Penal Code, which states that a public official who, exceeding his powers or failing to fulfill his duties, acts to the detriment of the public or private interest, will be punished with a prison sentence of up to three years.
The notification was filed by 10 Supreme Court judges
“In this case, ten Supreme Court judges submitted a notification to the KP’s Internal Affairs Department in June this year. The notifiers stressed that the Supreme Court Collegium adopted resolutions despite their abstention from participating in the work of this body, and therefore, despite the lack of the quorum required by law, a declaration of abstention from participating in the collegium’s work was treated as a vote to abstain from voting,” Prosecutor Nowak said.
“The start of an investigation allows for a complete evidentiary process to be carried out,” the prosecutor emphasized.
Information about the start of the preparatory process regarding Manowska was published on Friday by the OKO.press portal, which had previously reported on the verification process in this case in mid-June this year. Aleksander Stępkowski, spokesman for the Supreme Court, commented on the allegations to PAP.
The Supreme Court spokesperson said that when Manowska conducted circulating votes during the epidemic restrictions, the Supreme Court Collegium was guided by the practice developed in this regard by the previous first president, Małgorzata Gersdorf. “This practice included the rule that the fact that a member of the collegium did not take a clear position on the issue to be voted on was considered an abstention,” Stępkowski said.
In addition to the proceedings concerning the abuse of power by the First President of the Federal Supreme Court in the work of the College of the Federal Supreme Court, in June the Public Prosecutor’s Office also reported on the verification proceedings concerning the failure to convene meetings of the State Court, of which Manowska is the president. The judges of the State Court then sent a notification to the National Public Prosecutor’s Office about the suspicion that Manowska had committed a crime of failure to perform her duties by failing to convene the sessions of the State Court within the legal time limit.
The judges of the Court of Justice propose that the rules of procedure include the appointment of juries (at first and second instances) instead of their appointment by the President of the Court of Justice. They also want the meetings of the juries of the Court of Justice to be appointed by the President of a given bench and they also demand that the plenary sessions of the Court of Justice be open – in particular by allowing the public to observe the sessions and by allowing the media to broadcast the proceedings.
Following the letter from the Court of Justice judges on this matter, among others: to the President and the Prime Minister, in which they accused Manowska of deliberately obstructing the functioning of the Court, the President of the Court announced that the composition of the Court would be appointed by lot. Previously, Manowska refused to allow the Court of Justice judges to convene a meeting of the Court to amend the rules.
“The ruling was issued because a group of members of the State Court, who vehemently demanded the introduction of regulations in the Rules of the Court of Justice that would provide for the formation of collegiate bodies, were unable to submit a draft of such an amendment that would meet the requirements of the applicable principles of legislative technique,” stated the statement then published on the Supreme Court website. (PAP)
no/mok/
