Last week, the Sejm adopted changes to the Code of Civil Procedure, which, according to the opposition, are tailored to Jarosław Kaczyński. They set the maximum fine for failing to publish a court-ordered apology. Meanwhile, as it turns out, in December last year, the first president of the Supreme Court, Małgorzata Manowska, filed a motion with the Constitutional Tribunal to declare the unconstitutionality of two provisions of the act concerning the payment by the debtor to the creditor of a compulsory sum of money.
Parliament passed it last week amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure. The changes concern, among others, cases of infringement of personal rights. Section 1050 added paragraph 4:
“§ 4. If in cases of infringement of personal rights the debtor fails to submit a statement with the appropriate content and form, despite setting a deadline for its submission and threatening him with a fine, the court will impose a fine on the debtor of up to fifteen thousand zlotys and order it to be published in Monitor Sądowy i Gospodarczy at the expense of the debtor’s announcement corresponding to the content of the required declaration and in the form appropriate for it. The provisions of Article 1052 and Article 1053 shall not apply. an enforcement title.”;
According to the opposition, the regulations are tailored to the PiS president Jarosław Kaczyńskifrom which last year the court granted non-finally in favor of Radoslaw Sikorski over PLN 700,000 to cover the costs of publishing the apology. If the law came into force, the PiS president would have to pay a maximum of PLN 15,000.
READ: MPs comment on changes in the Code of Civil Procedure: made under Kaczyński
Lex Kaczynski. How the work on the project wentTVN24
The new regulations will also apply to old and unfinished cases. The amendment will go to the Senate for work.
PiS spokesman Rafał Bochenek said in an interview with PAP on Monday that “connecting the private case of President Jarosław Kaczyński with the change in the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure is unjustified.” – It has nothing to do with it. To put an end to any speculation in the Senate, our Senators will table an amendment that will specify that these provisions will apply to proceedings that will not commence until sometime in the future. Let the politicians of the Civic Platform do not measure us with their yardstick, he added.
The Sejm passed an amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure. Can Jarosław Kaczyński benefit from it?TVN24
Judge Wróbel: it turns out that another institution also rushed to help
Professor Włodzimierz Wróbel, a judge of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, assessed on Sunday in a social media entry that “passing a law just so that a prominent politician does not have to pay court costs or execute a judgment that concerns him privately is already a manifestation of complete degradation public authority”.
“It turns out that, just in case, another institution also hurried to help: below, an application for declaring the unconstitutionality of the same inconvenient for a politician provisions regarding the obligation to comply with a court judgment, signed by Prof. M. Manowska and registered under the reference number K 5/23. ” – added.
The first president of the Supreme Court Małgorzata Manowska filed an application to the Constitutional Tribunal dated December 2022 regarding two articles of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the payment by the debtor to the creditor of a compulsory sum of money.
As we read in the published application, Małgorzata Manowska requested that “Article 1050 1 and Article 1051 1 of the Act of November 17, 1964 – Code of Civil Procedure (consolidated text, Journal of Laws of 2021, item 1,805, as amended), to the extent that they do not specify the maximum amount of money and the total amount of money in the same case, and do not provide for a reduction of the amount of money according to the circumstances of the case, are inconsistent with Article 2 and Article 32 section 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland”.
§ 1. In the situation referred to in Art. 1050 § 1, the court, at the request of the creditor, may, instead of threatening a fine, after hearing the parties, threaten the debtor with an order to pay the creditor a specific sum of money for each day of delay in performing the activities, regardless of the creditor’s claims under general rules. The provision of art. 1050 § 2 shall apply accordingly. § 2. After the expiry of the deadline for the debtor to perform the steps, the Court, at the request of the creditor, orders the debtor to pay the creditor a sum of money. The court will do the same in the event of a further request by the creditor. A final court decision is an enforceable title for the creditor without the need for an enforcement clause. The court may also, at the request of the creditor, increase the amount of money due to him from the debtor. § 3. In the event of performance by the debtor after the expiry of the time limit set by the court, the creditor may submit an application to order the debtor to pay a sum of money to him within one month from the date of the action. § 4. When determining the amount of the sum of money referred to in § 1, the court will take into account the interests of the parties to such an extent as to ensure the enforceability of the obligation specified in the title of execution and the debtor not to charge beyond the need.
§ 1. In the situation referred to in Art. 1051 § 1, the court, at the request of the creditor, after hearing the parties and finding that the debtor has acted contrary to the obligation, may, instead of imposing a fine, order the debtor to pay the creditor a specific sum of money for the breach made and threaten to order the payment of a specific sum of money for each subsequent breach of the obligation , in accordance with its content, regardless of the claims to which the creditor is entitled under general rules. § 2. After finding that the debtor continued to act against the obligation, the Court, at the request of the creditor, after hearing the parties, orders the debtor to pay the creditor a sum of money. The court will do the same in the event of a further request by the creditor. § 3. The provisions of art. 10501 § 2, third and fourth sentences, art. 10501 § 4 and art. 1051 § 2 and 3 shall apply accordingly.
As TVN24 reporter Katarzyna Gozdawa-Litwińska reported from the Sejm on Monday, the lawyers who dealt with Sikorski’s case told her that they had won the case regarding money for the execution of the judgment under Article 1049 of the Code of Civil Procedure, while Manowska in her application points to the possibility of the unconstitutionality of two other articles.
– Radosław Sikorski’s patrons also say that if Law and Justice assumed that these provisions regarding the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure would not pass the Sejm and the Senate, perhaps what Małgorzata Manowska sent is some ground for relieving Jarosław Kaczyński, because both she can extend this request, add another one, and Constitutional Court could extend this proposal with further provisions to examine it more fully. Then we would have a situation where Małgorzata Manowska’s application would be a gate to resolve this case in the Constitutional Tribunal, said the reporter.
– I believe that in the Senate there may be an amendment proposed by the opposition to make these provisions disappear, I believe that they may even pass through the Sejm and these amendments will not be included in the KPC. But I don’t trust the Constitutional Court, I don’t trust the Supreme Court, because I realize that these institutions, largely politicized, can do anything to make Kaczyński, despite his guilt, innocent in the end – commented Krzysztof Gawkowski, the chairman of the Left Club, in an interview with TVN24 .
The Sikorski-Kaczynski case
PO MEP Radosław Sikorski demanded that Jarosław Kaczyński publish an apology for the words spoken in 2016, when the PiS president suggested that Sikorski had committed “diplomatic treason”. According to the former head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, this statement violated his good name, honor and dignity. The politician also wanted 30,000 zlotys of compensation from the PiS president for the benefit of the Foundation for Poland. The defendant moved to dismiss the lawsuit.
In July 2020, the Court of Appeal in Warsaw ruled with a final judgment that Kaczyński violated Sikorski’s personal rights and obliged him to publish the following apology: “In connection with the interviews I gave to www.onet.pl and the Polish Press Agency, I apologize to Mr. Radosław Sikorski for providing untrue information that, acting as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, he withdrew the diplomatic note regarding the recognition of the Smolensk crash site as extraterritorial and committed diplomatic betrayal. With my statement, I violated the personal rights of Mr. Radosław Sikorski in the form of good name and honor. Jarosław Kaczyński”.
Sikorski said that Kaczyński did not carry out the sentence. At the beginning of December last year, the law firm Dubois & Partners announced that “the District Court for Warsaw-Mokotów awarded Radosław Sikorski from Jarosław Kaczyński the amount of PLN 708,480 to cover the costs of publishing the apology on Onet.
In an interview for “Gazeta Polska”, President Jarosław Kaczyński explained that he did not have such money. “I will be forced to sell the house, I don’t even know if it will be enough because I own a third of the house I live in,” he said.
Radosław Sikorski in the photo from 2018Tytus Żmijewski/PAP
What Kaczynski said about Sikorski
In an interview in October 2016, Jarosław Kaczyński said: “No Smolensk investigation is against anyone yet. Anyway, my knowledge does not come from investigations. I know more, for example, about how the commission worked [Jerzego – przyp. red.] Miller – which was partly shown by the subcommittee of experts Antoni Macierewicz, publishing recordings showing that the previous government acted under the dictation of the Russians. There were more such incredible activities. Vice Ambassador in Moscow, Piotr Marciniak, submitted a note on the extraterritoriality of the crash site. He was then ordered to withdraw it. This was a move ordered by Radosław Sikorski, but without Tusk’s knowledge? There is already a very serious provision of the Penal Code here – diplomatic betrayal – claimed the PiS president.