18.3 C
London
Thursday, July 18, 2024

Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik lost their parliamentary seats. Kamiński’s case in the unrecognized Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs – announcement of the Supreme Court

Must read

- Advertisement -


“The appeal filed, as a matter of public law, (…) falls within the jurisdiction of the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs,” reads the announcement posted on the website of the Supreme Court. A day earlier, the Supreme Court decided that the decision on Mariusz Kamiński’s appeal against the expiry of his mandate would be considered by this chamber, which is not recognized by the CJEU as an independent and impartial court.

The President of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, Zbigniew Kapiński, replacing the First President of the Supreme Court, decided that the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs was competent to consider the appeal. Mariusz Kamiński since the expiry of his mandate – the Supreme Court press team reported on Thursday. Earlier in the day, the unrecognized Chamber of Extraordinary Control annulled the decision regarding the expiry of the mandate Maciej Wąsik.

Read more: Kamiński’s appeal is to be considered by the unrecognized Chamber of Extraordinary Control. Supreme Court decision

Supreme Court on the “competence dispute between chambers”

- Advertisement -

As stated in the announcement published on Friday on the website of the Supreme Court, “by order of the First President of the Supreme Court of January 4 this year, the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs was designated as competent to hear the case of Mariusz Kamiński’s appeal against the decision of the Speaker of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland of December 21, 2023 regarding the declaration of expiry of the mandate of a Member of Parliament.

“The power of the First President of the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the chambers of the Supreme Court regarding the examination of a specific case results from § 4 point 7 of the Rules of Procedure of the Supreme Court. In the case in question, the order resolving the dispute was issued by the deputy First President of the Supreme Court on January 2-7 this year. The President of the Supreme Court, in charge of the work. Criminal Chamber, Supreme Court judge Zbigniew Kapiński,” we read.

According to the statement, a “dispute over the competences of the chambers” has arisen in the Supreme Court. “The request of the President of the Supreme Court directing the work of the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs to the First President of the Supreme Court to resolve the dispute over the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Chamber is the result of the registration of the same appeal by the same person on December 29, 2023 in the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs under the reference number I NSW 1267/23 and on January 3, 2024 in the Chamber of Labor and Social Insurance under reference number II PUO 2/24 (in the latter case, without registering the receipt in the Registration Office). This situation gave rise to a dispute over the competences of the mentioned chambers of the Court. the Supreme Court, which was resolved by appointing the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs to handle the case,” it was written.

“Consequently, the files of the above case registered at the Chamber of Labor and Social Insurance shall be immediately transferred to the appropriate chamber of the Supreme Court, i.e. the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs,” it was added.

“The order of the First President of the Supreme Court was extensively justified”

“It should be noted that in the parallel proceedings regarding the appeal of Maciej Wąsik (which were similarly registered in both chambers under reference numbers I NSW 1268/23 and II PUO 1/24, respectively) there was no dispute over jurisdiction, because on January 4 this year in the Chamber of Labor and Social Insurance, a decision was issued to transfer the case to the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs, in accordance with the jurisdiction resulting from the Act on the Supreme Court,” we read.

Kamiński’s dismissal in an unrecognized chamber. Statement of the Supreme CourtElżbieta Krzysztof/Shutterstock

As stated, “the order of the First President of the Supreme Court was extensively justified.” “As emphasized, the statutory definition of the jurisdiction of individual chambers of the Supreme Court, and the obligation to act on the basis and within the limits of the law (Article 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland) do not leave the President of the Supreme Court the possibility of independently deciding to transfer a given case to the jurisdiction of another chamber of the Supreme Court, other than that resulting from the provisions of the Act. about the Supreme Court,” reads the text of the announcement.

“The appeal filed, as a matter of public law, in accordance with Article 26 § 1 point 11 of the said Act, falls within the jurisdiction of the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs (these matters do not fall within the jurisdiction of any of the chambers of the Supreme Court referred to in Article 23 -25 and Article 27a)” – added.

Art. 26. Competence of the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court § 1. The competence of the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs includes the examination of: 1) extraordinary complaints; 2) electoral protests and protests against the validity of the national referendum and the constitutional referendum, as well as confirming the validity of the elections and referendum, as well as cases in which appeals against the resolutions of the National Electoral Commission have been filed; 3) appeals against resolutions of the National Council of the Judiciary in cases provided for in specific provisions; 4) matters related to public procurement; 5) registration matters, excluding matters relating to the registration of entrepreneurs and the registration of pledges; 6) matters related to competition and consumer protection and practices unfairly using contractual advantage; 7) matters related to the regulation of energy, telecommunications and post, railway transport and the regulation of the water and sewage market; 8) cases in which an appeal was filed against the decision of the Chairman of the National Broadcasting Council; 8a) cases in which an appeal was filed against the decision of the State Commission for counteracting sexual abuse of minors under 15 years of age; 8b) cases in which an appeal was filed against the administrative decision of the State Commission for the examination of Russian influence on the internal security of the Republic of Poland in the years 2007–2022, referred to in Art. 36 the content of decisions issued by the Commission, point 1 of the Act of April 14, 2023 on the State Commission for the examination of Russian influence on the internal security of the Republic of Poland in the years 2007–2022 (Journal of Laws, items 1030 and 1532); 9) matters relating to the retirement of a Supreme Court judge; 10) complaints regarding the length of proceedings before common and military courts and the Supreme Court; 11) other matters in the field of public law not reserved for the jurisdiction of other chambers of the Supreme Court.

“The legal status determined by the above provisions is not influenced by the judgment of the CJEU”

The announcement also referred to the CJEU judgment stating that the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court is not “a body having the status of an independent and impartial court previously established under statute, as required by EU law.” “The legal status determined by the above provisions is not affected by the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of December 21, 2023 (reference number C-718/21), because the case initiated by an appeal pursuant to Article 250 § 1 of the Electoral Code is not related to application of EU law, nor is it related to the court’s power to refer questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, which limitation, among other important reservations, was indicated by the Court itself in the cited judgment,” we read.

Read more: The CJEU refuses to hear the question of the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs: the adjudicating panel is not an independent and impartial court

“In addition, the case law of the CJEU clearly indicates that doubts as to the independence and impartiality of a judge should always be considered in relation to the specific circumstances of his appointment, and cannot be limited only to indicating the formal aspects of the appointment procedure or the legal basis for the functioning of the body participating in this procedure. European jurisprudence therefore does not provide grounds for automatically and unequivocally questioning the status of judges of the Supreme Court or one of the chambers of this Court, and thus refusing to apply statutory regulations defining the jurisdiction of the chambers of the Supreme Court,” the statement concluded.

See also: “We have a lawless community.” The case of Kamiński and Wąsik step by step

The case of Wąsik and Kamiński

On December 20, 2023, the District Court in Warsaw validly sentenced Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik to two years of imprisonment. They are also banned from holding administrative positions for five years. Former heads of the Central Anticorruption Bureau were found guilty in connection with operational activities during the so-called land scandal.

In connection with the final judgment regarding politicians On December 21, the Marshal of the Sejm, Szymon Hołownia, signed the resolutions declaring the expiry of their parliamentary mandates.. On Wednesday, January 3, Appeals submitted by Hołownia were submitted to the Chamber of Labor and Social Insurance of the Supreme Court Maciej Wąsik and Mariusz Kamiński from the Marshal’s decision to terminate their mandates.

In the meantime, the unrecognized Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court – as to which one Court of Justice of the European Union previously stated that it “is not an independent and impartial court” – repealed the decision of the Speaker of the Sejm regarding the expiry of Maciej Wąsik’s parliamentary mandate. There is also an appeal in the Supreme Court against the decision regarding Mariusz Kamiński’s mandate.

Although politicians had the right to appeal against the decisions, lawyers emphasize that their mandates expired when the final judgment was announced. Both PiS politicians were legally convicted in December. Now it is up to the District Court for Warsaw Śródmieście to enforce the conviction PiS MPs. According to TVN24 information, this will happen next week.

Main photo source: tvn24



Source link

More articles

- Advertisement -

Latest article