Both Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki and the first president of the Constitutional Tribunal, Julia Przyłębska, could have had a direct impact on the election of the acting president of one of the new chambers of the Supreme Court. However, the president’s chancellery did not answer the questions as to whether there had actually been talks on this matter. He claims that questions concerning the course of the interviews “as a rule” cannot be considered in the mode and on the principles of access to public information.
According to the correspondence that appeared on Wednesday on the website publishing e-mails that are to come from the mailbox of Michał Dworczyk, the head of the Prime Minister’s office, both Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki and the President of the Constitutional Tribunal Julia Przyłębska could have had a direct impact on the election of the acting president of one of the new chambers of the Supreme Court.
In the allegedly published correspondence of Michał Dworczyk and Mateusz Morawiecki, the head of the Chancellery of the Prime Minister informs, inter alia, that the president asks for the preparation of a list of people who are critically assessed by the prime minister and “does not see the possibility of countersigning to the position of head of the new chamber of the Supreme Court”. According to the correspondence, the president would choose a person for this position only from among the candidates who were not negatively assessed by the prime minister.
President’s Chancellery: As a rule, these questions cannot be considered
The tvn24.pl portal asked the president’s chancellery on this matter.
Among other things, whether the then presidential minister Paweł Mucha talked to Dworczyk about the candidates, or whether Prime Minister Morawiecki – in line with Dworczyk’s suggestion – indicated the names of “negatively assessed” candidates and whether President Duda took into account the prime minister’s opinions when making decisions.
The law firm replied that “the demands contained in the application do not apply to public information and as such are outside the scope of the provisions” of the Act on Access to Public Information.
She added that “the position that public information is certain information concerning facts is well-established in the judicature of the courts.” “Meanwhile, the questions contained in the application contain requests to respond to media reports, and not to specific actions of the addressee of the application or existing official documents. Moreover, the definition of public information includes information held by the entity obliged to disclose it, existing in a fixed (materialized) form, ie information recorded on a carrier and relating to the sphere of facts “- was handed over.
“As a rule, questions concerning the course of the talks cannot be considered in the manner and on the basis of access to public information,” the president’s office concluded.
The e-mail scandal
Since June, e-mails, which are to be official correspondence of members of the government, conducted via private e-mail boxes, have been published on instant messaging and specially created websites. To this day, no one has questioned their credibility. In July, during a press conference, Michał Dworczyk stated that the government would not “refer to single materials, because this is one of the attacker’s goals: to introduce discussion word against word; to translate what is true, what is manipulated, which is completely false.”
We also asked the Constitutional Tribunal about the correspondence regarding the casting at the Supreme Court.
The Government Information Center replied briefly that “it does not comment on the content of the materials used for the disinformation action carried out from the territory of the Russian Federation”.
Main photo source: TVN24