Legal takeover of public media

ireneuszlara.blogspot.com 1 year ago

It seems to me that erstwhile it comes to communicating with the public, we have returned to the time of Tusk's first government, erstwhile the government could not explain to the public the legitimacy of the solutions and reforms implemented. For instance, the case of the liquidation of parts of the OFE, refugees, the aesthetic...
The deficiency of appropriate communication present led to full information chaos. Chaos, which created by PiS, is already the fresh PiS election campaign.
The business of tv by Sienkiewicz, the case of Wąsik and Mariusz Kamiński...

The government and the Sejm should explain in depth to the public what is lawful and what is the intent and intent of the changes.

And that's how it'd get to people.
Without this, chaos will intensify and support for the fresh Coalition may fall regularly and PiSie will grow.

This could lead to a disaster of the return of Putinism in Poland, sometimes called duckism.

I told myself...

The problem is whether a message that is understandable to the public can be constructed.

Law-related matters are complicated, and lawyers with their airtight language misunderstood.
It is easier to adopt the slogans of the rights: "invasion on free media", "invasion of freedom of speech", "Colonel Sienkiewicz", "coalition of 13 December", "second WRON"

It's harder to realize “secondary unconstitutionality, “legal gap”, “special provisions” and “general provisions”.

Take the substance of establishing a supervisory board in TVP and PR by the Minister of Culture, Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz.

Professors of Law Aleksander Kappes and Tomasz Siemiatkowski explain why Minister Sienkiewicz did not break the law erstwhile casting fresh Supervisory Boards and Boards in TVP, PR and PAP - I posted an interview with them a fewer days ago - but for the wrong-doer there will be problem with understanding, and I no longer imagine Kowalski would want to go deeper after work.

I'll effort to describe how I understood that legal argument. Restricted to the supervisory board only Television Polska Spółka Akcyjna.

The manner in which the Supervisory Board of the Public limited-liability company, tv Polska, is appointed, determines the peculiar provisions of the Act of 29 December 1992 on Broadcasting and Television.
In general rules, the appointment of the supervisory board of public limited liability companies defines the Commercial Companies Code - KSH.
So we have 2 concepts of "general regulations" and "special provisions". More importantly, if there are no peculiar provisions for a public limited liability company, general rules apply.
Let's go back to the peculiar provisions,

We scope to ISAP / contains bibliographic descriptions and texts of legal acts published in authoritative publications: diary of Laws and Polish Monitors, published by the Prime Minister/.

Act of 29 December 1992 on Broadcasting and Television. (sejm.gov.pl)

The bill is in force.
A single text may be opened.

Article 28 /page 47 / of the Supervisory Board

To the article is mention 5 that Article 28 is unconstitutional.

One step at a time:

1. By 30 December 2015, the Supervisory Board established a constitutional body: National Broadcasting and tv Council - KRRiT.
In KRRIT, most had PO and PSL. Not until the end of the term.

On November 13, the government includes Beata Szydło, but for half of his word he will not gain power in the KRRiT, cast by the Constitution.
This was the foundation of the authors of the Constitution: the KRRiT was not to be the spoil of the ruling.

2. On December 30, 2015, the letter amends the tv and Broadcasting Act. Article 28 states that the Supervisory Board is appointed by the owner, the Minister of the Treasury.

Something beautiful.

In Article 28 on the peculiar appointment of the Supervisory Board by the KRRiT, the General Provisions of the Commercial Companies Code of KSH are entered: the Board is chosen by the owner or minister of the Treasury.

This amendment is commonly referred to as "a tiny media bill". The deliberations lasted from December 29 to 2 a.m.
On January 8, 2016, Jacek Kurski enters TVP.

3. The unconstitutionality of: a tiny media bill" was so obvious, and in KRRiT the majority were further members appointed by the PO, so the Law by 29 June 2016 established the National Council of National Media.

Of course, he guaranteed himself most of it forever.

The Law of 29 December 1992 on Broadcasting introduced Article 28:
‘State Treasury Minister’ is replaced by ‘National Media Council’.

He traded his uncle an axe for a stick.
I would add that they besides changed the owner from the Treasury Minister to the Minister of Culture, Gliński.

4. On 13 December 2016, the Constitutional Court issued a judgement in the case under the ref. of Act K 13/16.

He ruled that the exclusion of the participation of the National Broadcasting Board in the procedure for appointing and dismissing members of the supervisory boards of public broadcasting companies is incompatible with Article 213(1) in conjunction with Articles 14 and 54(1) of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court found Article 28 unconstitutional due to the fact that KRRIT is excluded from the appointment of the supervisory board of TVP and SA. Unconstitutional. To improve.

Not that you gotta go back to the erstwhile constitutional evidence that the KRRiT chooses the Supervisory Board.

5. The judgement of the Constitutional Tribunal concerns a tiny media law, so why does it besides concern a second amendment giving power to any National Media Council - RMG?

Here's another concept: "secondary constitution"
Actually, it's simple.

If the Constitutional Tribunal considers that an article excluding the participation of KRRIT in the selection of the supervisory board of TVP SA is unconstitutional, any change not taking into account its participation is unconstitutional.
If Article 28 is amended today, it must include the KRRiT.

What does all this mean?

Article 28 of the peculiar provisions on the appointment of the supervisory board is unconstitutional, does not work to remedy it.

There is besides no presumption in the law that then we return to the constitutional erstwhile the KRRiT was entered.

We request to fix Article 28 by bill by entering the KRRiT.

Why hasn't PiS fixed since 2017? due to the fact that they're dicks.

As shortly as they reached the constitutional road, the majority in the KRRiT was adequate to enter it in article 28 and Tusk with Sienkiewicz could kiss the PiS in...

So what was the state after Tusk took over the government.

There were no peculiar provisions on the appointment of the Supervisory Board tv Polska Spółka Akcyjna in the Broadcasting Act.

It was not legally traded in Article 28.

What if there's no peculiar regulations for a joint stock company?
General provisions on the appointment of the supervisory board of public limited liability companies shall apply.

So this is where the Commercial Companies Code applies.

What's in the code?
The Supervisory Board shall be chosen by the owner.

And who owns tv Polska Spółka Akcyjna?
Minister of Culture, Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz.

And he utilized it!

And now tell me how to explain this to individual who came home last night, tired from work, ate something and turned on the tv or the computer.

I've already lost my way...

Read Entire Article