– In this case, Prime Minister Donald Tusk absolutely had a legal basis to revoke the countersignature – this is how Justice Minister and Prosecutor General Adam Bodnar said about the head of government's move in “Kropka nad i” on TVN24. He pointed out that it was “the only moment when it can be done”.
Prime minister Donald Tusk announced on social media that “based on the complaint of the judges of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, he decided to annul the countersignature”. This refers to the countersignature of the Prime Minister, criticized by some legal circles, among others, under the president's decision, pursuant to which judge Krzysztof Wesołowski, appointed to the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court in March 2022 (appointed to the Supreme Court by the National Council of the Judiciary in a procedure changed during the government of PIS) – was appointed chairman of the Supreme Court Civil Chamber. At the end of August, Prime Minister Tusk stated that the countersignature under this act was a mistake.
On Tuesday, September 10, a meeting of judges of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court is scheduled, during which candidates for president will be selected, who will then be presented to the president.
Even before the Prime Minister's decision was announced on Monday, two judges of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court appealed against Tusk's countersignature to the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw.
Bodnar: now it was possible to make this correction
The Minister of Justice and the Prosecutor General spoke about the Prime Minister's decision in “Kropka nad i” on TVN24 Adam Bodnar. He referred, among other things, to the accusations raised by some lawyers that the prime minister could not have taken such actions.
Bodnar pointed out on TVN24 that the key to the case was the filing of a complaint by two Supreme Court judges to the administrative court. – If these complaints concern the content of the administrative act, in this case the countersignature that was submitted by the Prime Minister, then until this countersignature materializes – i.e. the process of electing the president of the Civil Chamber (SN – ed.) has not (been) launched – a correction can be made – indicated the minister.
– And as I understand it, the Prime Minister made such a decision in accordance with Article 54 of the Law on proceedings before administrative courts – he added.
§ 3 The body whose action, inaction or excessive length of proceedings has been appealed may, within its jurisdiction, uphold the complaint in its entirety within thirty days of its receipt. In the case of a complaint against a decision, upholding the complaint in its entirety, the body shall quash the appealed decision and issue a new decision. When upholding the complaint, the body shall at the same time state whether the action, inaction or excessive length of proceedings took place without a legal basis or in gross violation of the law. The provisions of § 2 shall apply accordingly.
Bodnar: the Prime Minister had a legal basis to make such a decision
Asked why the prime minister did not wait for the court's decision on the complaint, Bodnar replied that “the only moment when it can be done (repeal the countersignature – ed.) is before the countersignature materializes”. – It will materialize when the process of electing the president of the chamber (in the Supreme Court – ed.) takes place – he added.
– I believe that in this case the Prime Minister absolutely had a legal basis to make such a decision and protect the fact that the election of the president of the Civil Chamber will take place in the next few days – he added.
According to Bodnar, “if the chamber's meeting is held without the Prime Minister's countersignature, it will be flawed in law and it will be difficult to say that the new person elected to this position will be the legally elected president of the Civil Chamber.”
Main image source: Radek Pietruszka/PAP