– I have very serious doubts whether the Constitutional Tribunal is a body that is supposed to handle individual cases – said Professor Andrzej Zoll in “Fakty po Faktach” about PiS’s application to the Constitutional Tribunal in connection with the intention to bring Adam Glapiński before the State Tribunal. The professor claims that the requirement of an absolute majority in the Sejm to bring the head of the NBP to a tribunal is “completely sufficient.” The former president of the Constitutional Tribunal also spoke about the possibilities of the new Sejm regarding the dismissal of understudies in this institution.
Bringing the president of the NBP, Adam Glapiński, before the State Tribunal was included in the “100 specifics for the first 100 days of government” of the Civic Coalition. As stated in the program, the head of the central bank would be held responsible for “destroying the independence of the National Bank of Poland and failure to implement the basic task of the NBP, which is to fight against high prices.”
Mateusz Morawiecki assessed that “even suggestions” to bring the president of the NBP before the State Tribunal are an attempt to exert unjustified pressure on the independence of the central bank. – According to the regulations, the President of the National Bank of Poland is subject to impeachment before the State Tribunal by a simple majority of votes, so it would be very easy for the coalition that forms the government to bring (Adam Glapiński – ed.) before the State Tribunal. Where would then be the constitutional provision on the independence of the president of the National Bank of Poland and the entire National Bank of Poland? How could the constitutional principle of independence of the Central Bank from the influence of politicians be implemented? – Morawiecki commented on this subject.
Zoll: I have serious doubts whether the Constitutional Tribunal is a body that is supposed to deal with individual cases
PiS submits a request to the Constitutional Tribunal to examine the constitutionality of the Act on the State Tribunal regarding holding the President of the NBP to constitutional responsibility.
– I have very serious doubts, if at all Constitutional Court is a body that is supposed to deal with individual matters. I don’t really know what constitutional basis such a request was based on. Because the fact that independence is threatened due to the need to obtain an absolute majority (to be brought before the State Tribunal – ed.) is too small an argument (…) This conclusion is based on political arguments – said the former president of the Constitutional Tribunal.
“Adoption by an absolute majority is completely sufficient”
According to Professor Zoll, PiS politicians have reservations about the requirement absolute majority are unjustified. PiS points out that this may lead to a situation in which each subsequent Sejm will be able to dismiss anyone it wants in this way.
– If there are arguments for recognizing that a constitutional provision has been violated by a public official, a motion prepared by an absolute majority is sufficient. The case is referred to the independent State Tribunal and it will decide whether there was a violation of the constitution or not. I believe that adoption here by an absolute majority is completely sufficient – said Prof. Zoll.
The guest of “Fakty po Faktach” also referred to another PiS objection, which concerns the suspension of the president of the National Bank of Poland. – The accused person is also suspended in the common judiciary. Very often an officer is suspended from his office. If not convicted, this will result in financial compensation for the suspension period. I do not see here (in the case of Glapiński being brought before the Constitutional Tribunal – ed.) a violation of the constitution due to such a regulation. If such allegations are made by an absolute parliamentary majority, it requires that such a person be removed from office while the case is being resolved, he claims.
“The Sejm may, by resolution, state that the constitution was violated in the previous term”
Professor Zoll also referred to the institution of the Constitutional Tribunal, saying that the Sejm could, by resolution, declare the appointment of understudies invalid. – I think that in relation to understudies, the resolution is sufficient here. (…) The current Sejm may, by resolution, state that the Sejm violated the constitution in the previous term. Of course, we are only talking about understudies, not judges of the Constitutional Tribunal. As for the remaining judges, this is a more complex matter (…) Cooperation with the president is needed here, because the Sejm can only do it by a parliamentary act – explained the guest of “Fakty po Faktach”.
– I believe that, as in the case of understudies, a resolution to revoke the mandate of fifteen people in the National Council of the Judiciary is also sufficient. This would lead to the freezing of the functioning of the National Council of the Judiciary. The justification would also be that these people were elected contrary to the constitution, by a resolution of the previous term – added the professor.
Main photo source: TVN24