Did Julia Przyłębska ask the Council of Ministers for an opinion on the cost of the Constitutional Tribunal’s rulings for the budget? Such public information was requested by lawyer Krzysztof Izdebski. The Government Information Center, after just over two weeks, replied that there had been no such requests since January 2018. On the same day, he corrected his own answer, admitting that “there had been a mistake.”
At the beginning of this month, another message was released from the mailbox of the head of the Chancellery of the Prime Minister Michał Dworczykfrom which it follows that Dworczyk was to consult with the head of the Constitutional Tribunal, Julia Przyłębska, the actions of the Tribunal. “Mateusz, today (shortly after your conversation) I visited Mrs. Julia P. I discussed 3 topics with the President” – the head of the Chancellery of the Prime Minister was to write to the Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki. The “Three Topics” was to concern judgments pending in the Constitutional Tribunal. All cases had budgetary costs with amounts in parentheses next to each case.
If the ruling of the Tribunal may have effects on financial outlays not provided for in the Budget Act or the Act on Provisional Budget, the President of the Constitutional Tribunal may request the Council of Ministers to present an opinion on the matter. He has two months to do so.
1. If the judgment may have effects related to financial outlays not provided for in the Budget Act or the Provisional Budget Act, the President of the Tribunal shall request the Council of Ministers to present, within 2 months, an opinion on the matter. (…)
Did Przyłębska turn to the Council of Ministers?
About whether or not Julia Przyłębska took advantage of this possibility, asked the Government Information Center – in the application of 6 July – Krzysztof Izdebski, a lawyer from the Open Spending EU Coalition foundation.
CIR: No withdrawal received during the indicated period
On Tuesday, Izdebski said he had received an answer. As we can read in the screenshot attached, Agnieszka Kowalska from the CIR stated in it that “in the period specified in the application to the Prime Minister’s office, the President of the Constitutional Tribunal did not receive an application to the Council of Ministers for an opinion pursuant to Article 65 (1) (… .) “.
In his application, Izdebski asked about the period between January 2018 and July 6, 2022.
CIR: There was a mistake
A little over three hours after publishing the content of the reply from the Center, Izdebski received a second message in which the CIR admitted that “there was a mistake” on their part.
“We have not verified the case in all departments of the Chancellery of the Prime Minister and therefore you have received incorrect information. You will receive a correct answer, including a list of correspondence, as soon as possible. Please be advised that such correspondence was conducted” – it was written.
The CIR published a similar statement on Twitter.
Przyłębska: letters were formally sent, in one case this issue was taken into account
On July 7, Przyłębska in an interview with the pro-government television wPolsce.pl was asked if she remembered the conversation with Michał Dworczyk about the future rulings of the Constitutional Tribunal. – No, I do not remember such a conversation, but the questions of what is happening in the case happen among the participants of the proceedings. As far as the proceedings before the Constitutional Tribunal are concerned, this is a specific provision of the act which says about it – she replied, referring to article 65 of the act on the organization and procedure of proceedings before the Constitutional Tribunal.
– Then the Tribunal turns to the appropriate minister, here, first of all, to the prime minister, who forwards it to the minister, and asks the question. It was similar in these cases, letters were formally sent by the chairmen of the warehouses – said Przyłębska. – And this is taken into account, in one case this issue was taken into account and the entry into force of the judgments of the Tribunal was postponed for six months, in the other (case) not – she added.
Main photo source: Shutterstock