Last week, the Constitutional Tribunal ruled that some provisions of the Treaty on European Union are incompatible with the Polish constitution. Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki submitted a motion to the Constitutional Tribunal on this matter. According to judge Wojciech Hermeliński, the head of the government’s question “was pointless or unjustified, because it was breaking through an open door”.
Last Thursday, the Constitutional Tribunal, after examining the application of Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, ruled that European regulations in the scope in which the bodies of the European Union operate outside the limits of powers conferred by Poland are inconsistent with the Polish constitution. The Constitutional Tribunal also found unconstitutional the European provision authorizing national courts to bypass the provisions of the constitution or adjudicating on the basis of repealed norms, as well as the provisions of the EU Treaty entitling national courts to review the legality of the appointment of a judge by the president and resolutions of the National Council of the Judiciary on the appointment of judges.
Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal. Judge Wojciech Hermeliński comments
Wojciech Hermeliński, retired judge of the Constitutional Tribunal, referred to the case in an interview with TVN24. In his opinion, the question of Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki to the Constitutional Tribunal “was pointless or unjustified, because it is breaking open doors”. – If in this application the prime minister asks whether the constitution is more important than EU law, the Tribunal has answered this question many times – he explained.
– Luxembourg Court [Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej – red.] in its judgments on Polish matters (…) there is no question of criticizing the constitution, because there is no such right. In all these judgments, the CJEU found that Polish statutes are inconsistent with EU law, he pointed out. As he noted, “presenting this problem that it is a conflict between the constitution and EU law is not true, because there is no conflict and it is not about the constitution at all”.
– The issue of the constitution has nothing to do with it. (…) This is a kind of appearance, because the point is not to assess what the Prime Minister wrote in the application, but to criticize the jurisprudence of the Luxembourg tribunal and this basically emerges from this judgment of the Tribunal, because the Tribunal in the first point of the ruling says: that because the Union has risen to the next stage, this judicial activism causes it to operate beyond its powers, which means that Poland cannot be a democratic and sovereign state – he said.
According to the judge, “if a country cannot be, in the light of what the Tribunal says, a sovereign and democratic state in a certain organization, then it must leave this organization.” “This is a clear signal that there will be polexit at some point,” he added.
Wojciech Hermeliński on the list of retired CT judges
Judge Hermeliński also spoke on the list of retired judges of the Constitutional Tribunal, concerning the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal. – We believe that this decision is unfounded. It is unfounded for formal reasons as well. It was issued by a panel consisting of three people elected to the places already occupied, and in addition, there were two people who should turn off – former parliamentarians who clearly and ostentatiously showed their dislike of the European Union in their statements he said.
Hermeliński explained that former PiS parliamentarians, currently judges of the Constitutional Tribunal, Krystyna Pawłowicz and Stanisław Piotrowicz, “have expressed their opinions about the European Union in an unequivocal manner for years.” – If someone in this particular case has previously expressed his opinion, it does not matter whether it is positive or negative (…), it already disqualifies him. The point is for people who are listening to watch the trial so that they do not become suspicious that this judge is biased, he explained.
– We wrote this letter in such a way that as many people as possible could read it, so that they would not only have one-sided transmission of the party-government media, but that they could benefit from our assessment of this ruling – he added.