"The Święczkowski Days in the Constitutional Court are counted. He hears charges, loses immunity, and he can't hold office. If he doesn't leave the building, he'll be escorted out by police officers. The Prime Minister is determined to bring the changes to an end," said “Rzeczpospolita” in fresh days 1 of the ministers in the government of Donald Tusk. Have you packed?
I won't be intimidated. The script that the editor cites is completely unrealistic and illegal. The chant of specified stories is an effort to exert force and a form of blackmail against me as president and the judges of the Constitutional Court. It serves to provoke conflicts and their escalation. If specified words are utilized by a typical of the government, it exposes the intentions of the ruling majority to break the regulation of law alternatively than reconstruct it, as is hypocritically presented. 1 might say that the masks are falling again.
Do you number on forceful solutions in the Constitutional Court?
That would mean they'd let go of all the brakes. And that, in the absence of another arguments, the power is resorting to the argument of force. I cannot imagine an assassination of a constitutional body, the Constitutional Court, in a democratic state of law. The question is, are we inactive specified a country?
The Court pays employees and staff?
The budget is, but has been drastically reduced – last year by over PLN 10 million, including over PLN 9 million. Paying wages for employees is simply a priority. They get it without delay. Thanks to extremist savings in another areas, we besides cover the costs of the current business and pay the fees due to the retired judges. I consider depriving the Court of all the means to operate in the government's draft budget next year as another component of political pressure. That would be illegal. It would give emergence to the legal and constitutional work of those liable for specified a decision.
Do you have any thought how to safe the Court's budget without a resolution of the General Assembly of Judges? due to the fact that someway it can't work.
I gave the Minister of Finance the draft gross and expenditure of the Court for 2027 in accordance with the Regulation on the detailed manner, procedure and timing of the improvement of materials for the draft budget law, as well as the Court's 30-year practice. In the past, the General Assembly of Judges of the Constitutional Tribunal adopted a resolution approving the budget just after the Minister of Finance included the draft budget law of the State of gross and Expenditure of the Court in the form presented by its President. This inclusion, according to the Public Finance Act, is strictly technical. It doesn't depend on the good or bad will of the minister. If he doesn't, he's breaking the bill.
On the another hand, the General Assembly precludes the adoption of the Court's gross and expenditure plan by 2 recently elected judges. They did not sign the attendance list the first time, which prevented the beginning of the meeting. The second time, they broke up, leaving the gym. They now request an urgent convening of another sitting, while justice Bentkowska has requested leave at the same time, and you, justice Szostek, are absent for another justified reason. Therefore, they know that by at least mid-October there will be no adequate number of judges who have taken a vow to the president of the Republic to conduct the assembly and to adopt the resolution.
Moreover, I late met with judges Bentkowska, Szostki and Patyra to scope any compromise and explain whether they intend to attend the next meeting. In any case, the answer was negative. Their public calls for urgent convocation of the assembly therefore, most delicately speaking, as a media spectacle.
Money may not be the most crucial thing, but the Court is not just judges. Is there any way to safe the budget of the CCC without a resolution of the assembly?
The provision of funds to the Constitutional Court is based on the provisions of the Constitution. The rule of the division of authorities requires respect for the Court's separateness and independence, and this independency requires that the Court be provided with the means to function, alternatively than its "starve", as has been stated in the past by the politicians of the ruling coalition. I besides believe in the reasonableness and reassurance of the recently elected judges, who, despite their solemn declarations, have been sabotaging the General Assembly of the Constitutional Tribunal.
The Sejm late elected a fresh justice of the Court – Maciej Berk. Will he be able to rule, get a pass? He's a very good lawyer, a legislator.
Not only will I give him a pass, but I will besides make the best conditions for him to execute his duties. In order for this to happen, however, respective conditions request to be met. After being elected by the Sejm, he must take a vow to the president (in his presence). He must then appear at the Court and make a declaration of property.
According to the Court's ruling, the president has any discretion here and it is he who decides whether and erstwhile specified a individual elected by the Sejm will invitation him to take his oath. On the another hand, it would be a crime for me to let a individual who has not taken a vow to the president to regulation and execute the duties of a justice of the Court. In this respect, the provisions of the Act of 30.11.2016 on the position of judges of the Constitutional Court (i.e. OJ of 2018 item 1422; hereinafter: the PCI) are unambiguous. Article 4 of the Court of First Instance provides that the individual elected as a justice of the Court shall take a vow to the president and Article 5 of the Court of First Instance shall be that the service relation of the justice of the Constitutional Court shall be established upon specified oath.
W The Courts of Justice shall consider any of the requests affecting them as a priority. They frequently end up with security. And another things are waiting. Is there a peculiar judicial system?
It is the compositional chair and the rapporteur who decides the order in which they recognise matters, not me. The law governing the procedure before the Court entitles the ruling associate to issue provisional and protective provisions depending on the applicant. The Court shall exercise that power only on application and in justified cases. It primarily applies to constitutional complaints at the request of the complainant. I urge that critics review the files of proceedings before the CCC in a reliable and thorough manner, alternatively than repeat accusations which have nothing to do with reality.
The D.A. will handle your predecessor's manipulation. The announcement was submitted by the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights. Are the charges justifiable? Was there any manipulation of the folds?
Pursuant to the Act on the organisation and procedure of proceedings before the Constitutional Tribunal, it is the president who directs his work and has the power to designate the ruling compositions. The provision is clear in this respect. I don't see any signs of criminal activity here.
You're changing the ruling? And if so, why?
Since December 2024, since I was president of the Constitutional Court, respective word of office of judges ended, there have besides been various random events involving judges, so for apparent reasons I had to appoint another judges.
Did you invitation all the judges of the Constitutional Tribunal to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Constitutional Tribunal at remainder and erstwhile Presidents?
Of course I do. I respect their technological achievements and their contribution to the judicial activity of the Constitutional Tribunal. In my speech I thanked everyone who built the Constitutional Court.
Did the invitation besides receive 4 judges elected by the Sejm who are inactive sitting in the Court's corridor today?
They are persons elected as judges by the Sejm who have not taken their vows to the President. I invited the recently elected judges who made specified a vow and consequently took up duties at the Court. However, 4 of them always have an open introduction to the Court.
Judge Jakub Stelina came for an alternate grand jury celebration organized in the National Judiciary Council. possibly he wants to go to the another side. And that will change the situation at the Court. Do you think about that?
Judge Stelina celebrated with us the 40th anniversary of the Court and then, I say in consequence to the invitation, appeared at the seat of the National Judicial Council. I personally have a very good relation with justice Stelina. On the another hand, I don't know who's on whose side. I presume that as judges of the Court we are 1 and the same. The most crucial is the constitution and its respect. Our service is to defend constitutional freedoms and human rights and citizens, not to enter into any deal.
I want that the Constitutional Court would be seen in this way. Escalating the situation won't help.
