In connection with the information received on how the Sejm acted on the selection of judges of the Constitutional Court, acting on behalf of the president of the Republic of Poland, I sent a letter to the Marshal of the Sejm indicating that the examination of the vocation process raises very serious doubts as to the conformity of the procedure not only with the requirements of the Rules of Procedure of the Sejm, but besides with the constitutional standards the appropriate procedure for filling the positions of judges of the Constitutional Court.
In particular, the reservations concern:
– first of all, infringements of Article 194(1) of the Constitution under Article 30(3)(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Sejm by failure to comply with the deadline for the submission of applications;
– secondly, breaches of procedural integrity standards by not presenting 1 of the candidates to Members.
Each of these shortcomings requires an urgent, full and unambiguous explanation.
Given the importance of the case and its importance to the standards of the appropriate functioning of constitutional bodies, I asked the Marshal of the Sejm to explain to the president about specified conduct by the Sejm and to answer circumstantial questions.
1. erstwhile precisely were the candidatures submitted for the individual vacant positions of Constitutional Court judges?
2. For what reasons has the rule of individual word of office of judges of the Constitutional Court as set out in Article 194(1) of the Constitution been waived?
3. For what reasons was the deadline laid down in regulation 30(3)(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Sejm not met?
4. What was the justification for withdrawing from the regulation resulting from regulation 30(3)(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Sejm, since the Government and the parliamentary majority, for more than 1 year and 3 months after the first vacancy, did not lead to the election of judges of the Constitutional Court, even though there were no obstacles to this? Mr president finds no answer another than the government's paralyzing and coalition's ruling activities of the Constitutional Court and the deliberate demolition of this constitutional body. If there are also motives justifying specified a course of action, I asked to be presented.
5. Why, despite the rapporteur's not presenting all the candidatures, did the Marshal of the Sejm order a vote?
Depending on the explanation of these key issues, the president will take further action on this matter.
