The president’s position on changes in the judiciary is clear. There must be respect for the provisions of the constitution, respect for the stability of the Polish judiciary. Does the project in progress fulfill this? I am forced to evade the answer – said Paweł Szrot, head of the president’s office, on TVN24.
On Wednesday, the first reading of the draft amendments to the judiciary took place in the Sejm PIS. It went to the committee, which recommended its adoption. According to the authors, the proposed changes are to complete a key “milestone” for the European Commission to unlock funds from the National Recovery Plan.
The project was criticized by the president from the beginning Andrzej Duda. In mid-December, two days after the draft was submitted, the president stated that he had neither participated in its preparation nor had he been consulted. He announced that he would not agree to solutions that undermine the constitutional system and would not allow any legal act to be introduced into the Polish legal system that would undermine judicial appointments or allow anyone to verify them.
Szrot: The position of the president is clear
On Thursday, the guest of “Piasecki’s Conversation” was the head of the president’s office, Paweł Szrot. He argued that the president’s relations with the government and the ruling party are “stable, calm and balanced.” – There’s no issues. The president has been observing what has been going on in the parliament since yesterday, he said.
The host asked him if the president, following the parliamentary work, was planning to veto this law. He replied: – And who directly announced such a veto? Did the president talk about it?
– The president spoke both publicly and during consultations with the government camp with his participation. The position is clear. Respect for the provisions of the constitution, respect for the stability of the Polish judiciary. The president has explicitly announced that the next decision-making step will be when this bill is signed by him, he stressed.
Asked whether the project in its current form remains in “respect for the constitution and the stability of the judiciary”, he replied that “he, as a simple law graduate, is forced to avoid answering”. “It will be the subject of a series of analyses,” he stressed.