“That’s the thing now [postawienia prezesa NBP przed Trybunałem Stanu – przyp. red.]is closed. There has to be a change in the regulations. This is an obligation because the Constitutional Court concluded today that the contested act is inconsistent with the Constitution,” Julia Przyłębska, president of the Constitutional Court, said in an interview with TV Republika.
The President of the Constitutional Court, Julia Przyłębska, was questioned on the “Dzisiaj” program, among others: for a decision to bring the chairman of the NBP, Adam Glapiński, to the State Court. What was the reasoning of the Constitutional Court for declaring the provisions unconstitutional?
The provisions on the basis of which the Sejm committee decided to initiate the procedure for filing a petition to bring the chairman of the NBP to the State Court are unconstitutional. This is because it does not provide for any other body other than the Court of Justice that would be authorized to proceed in this matter, i.e. it does not provide for the so-called pre-trial procedure.
– Przyłębska pointed out.
These are overly broad provisions and are provisions from 1982. The State Court Act is a law regulating matters relating to proceedings dating back to the times of the Constitution of the Polish People’s Republic. A body such as the Sejm cannot usurp the right to control or interfere in the competences of other bodies. Therefore, the Constitutional Court declared that it was overly broad and therefore unconstitutional.
– she added.
The consequence of this is the need to amend the regulations, and only after amending the regulations so that they are consistent with the constitution will it be possible to proceed with this case. We have one more sentence that is not being implemented all the time. I have not heard of any issues related to the vote on this motion. Therefore, the Sejm has the task of amending the applicable provisions, including amending the Sejm’s internal regulations, and simply proceeding in accordance with the constitution. The Constitution simply does not provide for the role that the Sejm would like to play in the State Court case.
– emphasized the president of the Constitutional Court.
READ ALSO:
-The Constitutional Court ruled: The proceedings against the Chairman of the NBP before the Sejm Commission on Constitutional Responsibility are unconstitutional
-The Coalition places itself above the Constitutional Court! Kropiwnicki: “The verdict can be considered non est.” Rosati: “The judgments have no meaning”
Przyłębska: RCL cannot fall within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court
The conversation also addressed the publication of Constitutional Court rulings by the RCL.
The situation is clear and transparent. It is the duty of the Government Legislation Centre to publish our decision, and it is not the only one. The RCL, led by Ms Joanna Knapińska, violates the applicable law, violates the Constitution, because once again we have a situation in which an executive branch, without any legitimacy or legal basis, decides to usurp the powers of the Constitutional Court. It wants to be the watchdog of constitutional provisions, amending them in such a way that, as an executive branch, it can regulate and implement them, which is also incompatible with the Constitution. These provisions are so clear that they do not even require interpretation, because the provision clearly states that the RCL simply publishes a decision that is final and of general application.
– said Julia Przyłębska.
So why aren’t they published?
Partly probably because, in my opinion, they are not aligned with those in power. And yet Prof. Safjan said in 2016 that the executive branch cannot question the arguments of the Constitutional Court.
– she replied.
On the other hand, in Poland there is already a certain “tradition” that teachers change their minds depending on the political situation. This is a kind of impoverishment of the doctrine, because if we teach students, we talk about the presumption of constitutionality of the provisions, we cannot change, and when we don’t like something, we change the doctrine and change our view. If these teachers participated in the process of drafting the Law on the Constitutional Court, they became part of this project.
– said Przyłębska.
The Constitution does not provide for the possibility of challenging the decisions of the Constitutional Court, the status of judges, etc., and the entire Constitutional Court Act revolves around this.
– said the president of the Constitutional Court.
READ ALSO: OUR NEWS. The President of the Constitutional Court calls on the head of the Government Legislation Center to immediately publish the Constitutional Court’s judgments!
The NBP President’s case is closed
How did the Court decide on the case of the President of the National Bank of Poland? Julia Przyłębska answered this question:
We took into account, first of all, the very placement of an institution, a body like the President of the NBP, in the Constitution. And we referred to constitutional regulations.
The question of politics, pressure, etc., are additional elements. Here, however, it is enough to read the Constitution and act in accordance with it. To investigate whether the provisions whose constitutionality is questioned are consistent with the Constitution. The Court concluded that it was not.
– she added.
Asked whether the case was archived, the president of the Constitutional Court responded:
The case is now closed. There has to be a change in the regulations. This is a must because the Constitutional Court ruled today that the contested act is incompatible with the Constitution. Instead of holding press conferences, questioning and undermining the Constitutional Court, one could easily prepare a draft of a new law.
Extracorporeal combinations and mechanisms cannot govern the activities of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland. It is necessary to put aside sympathies, antipathies, the desire to seize power and be able to find one’s way in a democratic system.
– she pointed.
If we say that we are democrats and that we live in a state governed by the rule of law, we have to be able to find our way and act according to those rules. Because the rule of law does not mean that we consider something lawful because it suits us, and if it does not suit us, it is illegal. The rule of law means that we have to objectify it and find our way. And follow those rules.
– added Przyłębska.
This false media narrative that the Constitutional Court does nothing, that there is no Court, that it is rotten and that it no longer exists… It exists, that it judges, and not only in matters that are treated as political – and making such accusations completely absurd and beyond all political culture – that it also judges matters of ordinary citizens, for example, in pension matters. This attitude comes from thinking that the Constitutional Court should be the party that legitimizes the government and sanctions the government’s activities. This is a mistaken idea.
– she assessed.
Why can’t the Constitutional Court’s decisions be questioned?
The decision of the Constitutional Court is final, universally binding and we must recognise it in accordance with the Constitution in force in Poland. This also applies to judges of ordinary courts. Their questioning of the status of their fellow judges, talking about so-called new judges, etc., is also inconsistent with the law in force in Poland. Judges who act in this way should read the Constitution and consider for themselves when they became judges. Because it is a presidential prerogative. The head of state appoints a judge and at that moment I begin to work as a judge. This is to determine and terminate the process. They should adapt to this. There are no provisions giving the right to question the status of judges of the Constitutional Court and the judgments of the Constitutional Court. It cannot happen that we change the judgments of the Constitutional Court by statute. The Sejm does not have such powers.
– emphasized the President of the Court.
If the decisions of the current Constitutional Court are invalid, why do headlines like “The Constitutional Court saved Glapiński” or “The law on assistance to Ukrainian citizens has been blown up” appear in the media?
This is the so-called mixed narrative, characteristic of modern times – not the truth, not the law, but simply the narrative that prevails and governs. This is somewhat confusing for people, because through this narrative a second reality is created, a false reality, and subsequent steps and actions are then built on this reality. The Court has not yet “exploded” this act, nor will it “explode” it, but this is characteristic, something is taken out of context and provides information that should encourage the recipient and lead him down a false trail. On the one hand, “there is no Court”, but on the other hand, we are afraid of this Court. Disrespecting institutions that operate under the rule of law also means disrespecting citizens.
– she concluded.
act/TV Republic
