European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 352

“To powrót do metod z lat 2005-2007, ale także z czasów rządu Jana Olszewskiego, czyli też naszych, bo to był też rząd Porozumienia Centrum. To się powtarza. Ten nawyk donoszenia na Polskę zagranicę. W Polsce jest taka fatalna tradycja zdrady narodowej. I to jest właśnie nawiązywanie do tego. To jest w genach niektórych ludzi, tego najgorszego sortu Polaków. Ten najgorszy sort właśnie w tej chwili jest niesłychanie aktywny, bo czuje się zagrożony.

Wojna, później komunizm, później transformacja przeprowadzona tak, jak ją przeprowadzono właśnie ten typ ludzi promowała, dawała mu wielkie szanse. On dziś boi się, że te czasy się zmienią, że przyjdzie czas, że tak jak to być powinno - inny typ ludzi, mających motywacje wyższe, patriotyczne będzie wysunięty na czoło i to będzie dotyczyło wszystkich dziedzin życia społecznego, także ze strony gospodarczej. Tu jest ten wielki strach o to, jaki rodzaj Polaków będzie miał te największe szanse. Czy ci, dla których wszelkie sprawy związane z czymś szerszym, niż własny interes, narodem, godnością narodową są ważne. Czy ci, dla których to nie ma żadnego znaczenia, a cała filozofia sprowadza się do takiego powiedzenia "nie ma takich grabi, które by od siebie grabiły"

At the end of the previous term of the parliament, in June, the ruling coalition (PO+PSL) passed an act that allowed them to nominate in advance five new judges of the Tribunal as a replacement of those whose terms would expire in 2015. Three of them would expire during the previous term of the parliament whereas two of them - during the current term (at that time all 15 judges had been nominated by PO+PSL). At the very end of the previous term, the parliament passed a resolution (well, five separate resolutions, to be precise) that nominated those five new judges in advance.

The current ruling coalition (PiS + two smaller center-right parties, but let's stick to PiS for simplicity's sake) protested this decision and asked the Constitutional Tribunal to review the constitutionality of the act from June 2015 (edit: PiS actually protested already in June 2015; the Tribunal took its sweet time and assembled only in late November/early December, IIRC, hoping that by then the President, put under pressure, would have sworn the new judges in). The president (affiliated with PiS) refused to swear them in. At the same time, the coalition passed a resolution that rendered the resolution passed by PO+PSL invalid, claiming it was illegal to nominate them in advance. Hence, with five nominations pending, PiS passed resolutions nominating five new judges, whom the president swore in.

Meanwhile, the Constitutional Tribunal declared that the act passed in June was constitutional with regard to the three nominations which meant to replace judges whose terms expired during the previous term of the parliament, but was unconstitutional with regard to the remaining two nominations. The verdict cited a specific article of the Constitution as the reason. However, there are several problems with this verdict:

(1) According to the Constitution, the Constitutional Tribunal can only judge the constitutionality of passed acts of law, not their execution (including parliamentary resolutions). I am not sure whose responsibility is the latter. Perhaps the Supreme Court.

(2) Three of the judges of the Tribunal helped in creation of the June 2015 act that was later on deemed partially unconstitutional, including the very president of the Constitutional Tribunal.

(3) The president of the Constitutional Tribunal made an official decision that in such a complicated matter it is necessary for the Tribunal to convene as a full court (nine+ members). When PiS pointed out that three judges had worked on the act in question - and considering the fact that the terms of five judges expired by then - he changed his mind. As a result, only five (?) judges assembled, making the verdict null...

(4) The article of the Constitution the Tribunal cited seems like an arbitrary reason. It goes as follows "Trybunał Konstytucyjny składa się z 15 sędziów, wybieranych indywidualnie przez Sejm na 9 lat spośród osób wyróżniających się wiedzą prawniczą. Ponowny wybór do składu Trybunału jest niedopuszczalny.". It basically says that there can only be 15 judges of the Tribunal, nominated individually for nine years, who cannot be renominated. In other words, it says nothing about nominating them in advance nor that the term of the parliament makes any difference.

Hence the verdict of the Tribunal has no constitutional backing... It all depends on the interpretation of when one becomes member of the Tribunal. Is it after passing the resolution nominating them? Once the term specified in the resolution begins? Or perhaps after being sworn in (which is when they gain their practical competences, privileges, etc. as members of the Tribunal)? If it's the former, then the nominations were unconstitutional because there were still 15 members of the Tribunal at the time the resolutions were passed. If it's the latter, then the President's decision not to swear them in rendered PO-PSL nominations ineffectual.

Only if the second interpretation is correct, the nominations passed by PO+PSL were legal. But then we get to yet another problem:

(5) In Polish law there exists a rule of presumed constitutionality, i.e. an act passed by the parliament is deemed constitutional unless judged otherwise by the Tribunal. That means that resolutions of both PO+PSL and PiS were legal, but so was the resolution invalidating the PO+PSL nominations...

"Article 188

The Constitutional Tribunal shall adjudicate regarding the following matters:

1. the conformity of statutes and international agreements to the Constitution;
2. the conformity of a statute to ratified international agreements whose ratification required prior consent granted by statute;
3. the conformity of legal provisions issued by central State organs to the Constitution, ratified international agreements and statutes;
4. the conformity to the Constitution of the purposes or activities of political parties;
5. complaints concerning constitutional infringements, as specified in Article 79, para. 1."

"Article 79

1. In accordance with principles specified by statute, everyone whose constitutional freedoms or rights have been infringed, shall have the right to appeal to the Constitutional Tribunal for its judgment on the conformity to the Constitution of a statute or another normative act upon which basis a court or organ of public administration has made a final decision on his freedoms or rights or on his obligations specified in the Constitution.

2. The provisions of para. 1 above shall not relate to the rights specified in Article 56."