16.8 C
London
Monday, September 27, 2021

Lex TVN. Dr hab. Ryszard Piotrowski on the decision to reassume. Marshal Elżbieta Witek was to rely on his opinion

Must read

- Advertisement -


Constitutionalist professor Ryszard Piotrowski commented in “Yes,” on TVN24 on Tuesday, Marshal Elżbieta Witek’s decision to reassume Wednesday’s vote on the adjournment of the meeting. The marshal stated that she referred to the opinion of five lawyers, all of whom came from 2018, one of them was written by Ryszard Piotrowski. “A big surprise,” said the constitutional.

Last Wednesday, during the session of the Sejm, which adopted, inter alia, the anti-TVN law, there was controversial reassumption of the vote concerning the motion to adjourn the meeting. First, the Sejm accepted this motion, but after the break extended several times, the Sejm Marshal Elżbieta Witek from Law and Justice ordered a reassumption of the vote, which was supported by 229 deputies, with one vote against and one abstention. In another vote, the Sejm rejected the motion to adjourn the session.

WATCH TVN24 ON THE INTERNET ON TVN24 GO

Marshal Witek, explaining then her decision on the reassumption, said that during the break she “consulted five lawyers” on the subject. On Monday, the Sejm Information Center published these opinions. Earlier, Witek showed them live on government television. All five opinions comes from April 2018.

Read more on Konkret24: Constitutionalists on the opinions of 2018 presented by Elżbieta Witek

- Advertisement -

Marshal Witek: there will be a reassumption of the vote (video from August 11)

Piotrowski: All this is a sign of bad faith in this matter

One of the opinions published by the CIS was written by the constitutionalist professor Ryszard Piotrowski. On Tuesday, in the program “Tak jest” on TVV24, he said that it “came as a surprise” when he learned that, based on his opinion from 2018, Marshal Witek made her decision. “I even called on some radio station to reveal the names of these five lawyers,” he added.

– A big surprise, because also on 11 (August – ed.) In your station, some time before the announcement by the marshal that this reassumption is planned, I said that if it did happen, it would be another act of destroying the state, destroying parliament, the next stage of the democratic crisis. So I would also say the Marshal if she called me, but it did not happen – he said.

He noted that the Speaker of the Sejm said that “I consulted five lawyers”. – It is true that she did not mention any of them, so perhaps it was not about me, but this statement shows that there was at least a conversation. If not a meeting, then a conversation in some form with the marshal, with her representative, and that they confirmed that something that was impossible was possible, because it was impossible to say that it was not known what was voted on, because the postponement was voted on, Mrs. Marshal clearly indicated the subject of voting – explained Ryszard Piotrowski.

– In a word, all this is a sign of bad faith in this matter – summed up the TVN24 guest.

Patyra: Far-reaching Abuse

Earlier on Tuesday, the Sejm Marshal commented on the behavior constitutionalist Sławomir Patyra, the author of one of the legal opinions from 2018 to which Elżbieta Witek referred. He pointed out that “legal opinions are only an expert position on a given, specific issue”. – They are always situated in a specific context of events. It is absolutely inappropriate to refer to the opinion from three years ago in order to make a decision in the new factual and legal situation. In my opinion, this is a far-reaching abuse, he said.

Patyra on the behavior of the Marshal of the Sejm: far-reaching abuseTVN24

The constitutionalist was asked if a legal opinion from a few years ago could be used in the new situation, if the cases were identical. – In my opinion, no, because legal opinions are not binding in any way. These are not court judgments that can be treated in some way as a precedent or as a certain element of the jurisprudence for subsequent judgments – he added.

He judged that “the Marshal of the Sejm deliberately misled not only the deputies participating in the session, but also all the spectators and listeners of the session”. – It is a very unpleasant experience for me, also as a citizen – he pointed out. – I feel like someone whose name and authority (…) has been used as an alibi for actions that I would never have signed up to, so in this sense I feel used – he added.

Patyra on his 2018 legal opinion: it was about a completely different matterTVN24

Main photo source: Mateusz Włodarczyk / Forum



Source link

More articles

- Advertisement -

Latest article