PiS spokesman: we hope that the Constitutional Tribunal will confirm the compliance of the law on the Supreme Court with the constitution

President Andrzej Duda informed on Friday evening that he had decided to refer the amendment to the law on the Supreme Court – under preventive control – to the Constitutional Tribunal. – This means that the law will not be in force until the Tribunal has ruled on its compliance with the constitution – he explained.

PiS spokesman Rafał Bochenek – referring to the president’s statement – emphasized that Andrzej Duda’s decision results from the constitutional powers of the head of state.

“We hope that the Constitutional Tribunal, examining the presidential application as part of preventive control, will confirm the compliance of the act in question with the constitution, because in our opinion there is no contradiction” – he noted.

Government spokesman Piotr Mueller admitted on Twitter that “decisions regarding the signing of laws are the sole prerogative of the President.”

“The Sejm adopted a law to mobilize funds from the National Reconstruction Plan as soon as possible. In connection with the President’s decision, we will await the decision of the Constitutional Tribunal” – he pointed out.

The Minister of EU Affairs, Szymon Szynkowski vel Sęk, also referred to the matter. – I accept the president’s decision with full respect, it is a constitutional prerogative of the president. We will await the decision of the Constitutional Tribunal, hoping that it will be taken soon, he stressed.

As pointed out by Szynkowski vel Sęk, “the element of preventive review of the constitutionality of a statute is a normal, constitutional element legislative process“.

– A task entrusted to me by the Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki was to break the impasse in talks with the European Commission on KPO, to reach an agreement and to present to the parliament a compromise proposal within the limits of the constitution and the treaties – he stated.

– This difficult task has been accomplished. I am convinced that the European institutions will, so far, await the final conclusion of the legislative process on this matter – he added.

“The President of the Republic of Poland, Andrzej Duda, made the decision out of concern for Polish sovereignty and the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. Solidarna Polska called for the veto of the law on the Supreme Court, but referring it to the Constitutional Tribunal is also a step in the right direction. It gives a chance for equal treatment of Poland in the European Unioninstead of a blackmail policy,” the National Board of Solidarna Polska assessed in a statement.

“The policy of concessions to Brussels was initiated in 2017 with the president’s veto, blocking the reform of the Supreme Court, prepared by Minister Zbigniew Ziobro,” it was emphasized. This resulted in a growing process of destabilization of the Polish judiciary and weakening of Polish sovereignty.

According to Solidarna Polska politicians, “yielding to European Union pressure has always resulted in an escalation of demands, humiliation of Poland and the head of state.” “We are dealing with the third law on the Supreme Court, forced by Brussels’ blackmail. The first two were prepared by the president. They were a compromise, but still did not meet EU expectations. We are glad that the president drew the right conclusions from it,” the statement emphasized.

“Solidary Poland has always opposed concessions to unlawful interference by the European Union. Recent years have shown that we were right. We will always be faithful to the idea of ​​a sovereign, developing and secure Poland. We will never agree to submit to foreign governments and limit the sovereignty of the homeland” – concluded.

Pursuant to the amendment in the version adopted in the Sejm and the one that will ultimately be submitted to the president, disciplinary and immunity cases of judges are to be resolved by The Supreme Administrative Courtand not – as at present – the Chamber of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Administrative Court will adjudicate disciplinary cases of Supreme Court judges in the first instance in a panel of 3 persons, and in the second instance in a panel of 5 persons. In turn, in the case of judges of common and military courts, the Supreme Administrative Court will be a disciplinary court in some cases in the first instance and in all cases in the second instance. The Supreme Administrative Court is also to take over the competence to settle the so-called immunity cases of judges of all courts.

The amendment also provides for changes regarding the so-called test of independence and impartiality of the judge. This is a relatively new institution, which was introduced by the presidential amendment to the law on the Supreme Court in the summer of last year. It is intended to allow for examining the judge’s compliance with the requirements of independence and impartiality, taking into account the circumstances surrounding his appointment and his conduct after the appointment, if in the circumstances of a given case they may lead to a violation of the independence or impartiality standard, affecting the outcome of the case.

The possibility of such tests is provided for all judges, and in accordance with the applicable regulations, a request for such a test may be submitted by a party to the proceedings conducted by a given judge.

According to the changes, the judge’s impartiality test may be initiated not only by the party to the proceedings, but also “ex officio” by the court itself. The amendment also supplements the possibility of examining the requirements of independence and impartiality during the “test” with the premise of establishing a court “on the basis of a statute”.

The amendment also provides for the exclusion of the disciplinary responsibility of judges for examining, as part of all procedures, the fulfillment by another judge of the requirements of independence, impartiality and his appointment on the basis of a statute. This means that judges will not bear disciplinary responsibility for determining or assessing the legality of the correctness of the appointment of a judge or the ensuing authority to adjudicate.