I ask how the fan likes: what will happen sooner – the return of Polonia to the Extraclass or the repair of the Constitutional Court?
A superb way into a conversation, I'll admit I didn't anticipate specified a question. Let me say this: I want the oldest Warsaw football club the best, but of course much more important, besides for me, is whether constitutional public authorities execute their tasks properly. due to the importance of what we are to talk about, but besides due to the calendar of activities related to the functioning of these entities, I am convinced that the Constitutional Court will start to execute its function decently in a position importantly different from that concerning at least league games.
So I take it you have an appointment with a notary?
If I am placed in a situation where I gotta curse to a justice of the Constitutional Court in a form another than the 1 traditionally accepted, I am ready for that due to the fact that it is my duty. The Constitutional Tribunal in its judgments K 34/15 and K 35/15 issued in December 2015 explicitly indicated that the justice elected by the Sejm should be able to take his oath immediately after the election and that anticipation should so be created immediately by the President. The Court stressed that it was the President's work to take a vow from a recently elected justice of the Court of Justice, but besides recalled that the refusal to take a vow by a justice meant an effect in the form of resignation and so critically assessed the solutions which would prolong the waiting for the justice to take a vow. I am approaching this contractual limit of the waiting period for a pledge, and I am aware of that.
Of course, it would be much better if the president wanted to return to what was a good customized and a good tradition that judges made a vow at the time appointed by him and at the place where he is physically present.
But we have, as the editor knows, 4 judges of the Court who have not obtained this opportunity, and the statements of the President's Chancellery on my case seem to propose that I should be treated similarly. Artificial legal arguments are formulated, and everything in practice is meant to lead to judges elected by the current parliamentary majority simply not being able to execute their functions in the Court because, as can be understood, the interests of those who are already in this Court.
And you let a situation in which your vows will take place in the Sejm? In the case of the four, there was a charge that this place had further politicized the full act.
If the president does not want to host specified a ceremony, then the talker of the Sejm, the second individual in the state as an organizer – I emphasize: the organizer and individual who makes space available – seems to be most appropriate. For the purposes of political confusion, it was constructed that the vows of the 4 judges were held “against the Marshal of the Sejm”. That's not true. These judges spoke very clearly that they were making a vow “to the President” and delivered a rota of this vow with a signature notary certified to the President's Chancellery.
Perhaps the seat of the National Judicial Council would be more neutral? It has late held alternate to those organised by Bogdan Święczkowski for the 40th anniversary of the Constitutional Tribunal.
I don't prejudge anything, I don't regulation anything out. Any space in which this is to take place must have the qualities of a place suitable for this celebration.
Have you probed whether chairs in the Court's vestibule are comfortable? due to the fact that you'll most likely take five.
I would like to assure the editor and readers of “Rzeczpospolita” that no of the judges of the Court are planning to sit in this vestibule for long, and we will do everything possible to guarantee that the situation we are witnessing is over. I realize the slight provocation in your question, although it should not truly be addressed to those who effort to do everything possible so that this period of not allowing judges to execute their duties will be terminated.
Do everything, like what? Which, in a brutal way, you're better than the another four, due to the fact that in various public statements, there's a communicative that says here Berek is coming, and he's yet going to get it right.
And I emphasize in all speech that I do not have a magic wand, and we together, judges of the Constitutional Court, who were elected by the Sejm in this word – already 8 with me after taking a vow – have a substance that is thoughtful and prepared, as in applying the existing rules, including those passed in the erstwhile word by the current opposition, to bring the Constitutional Court into operation.
But if Bogdan Święczkowski does not want to let you in the Court, he will not let even 8 judges in, but collected somewhere outside the seat of the Constitutional Tribunal and without the formal initiative of the president of the Constitutional Tribunal will not formulate the General Assembly of the Judges of the Court, essential to take any another corrective steps.
I will repeat, eight, and possibly a larger group of judges are able to lead the Constitutional Court to start functioning and return to the tracks, from which it was derailed by actions primarily leading his work by justice Święczkowski. For apparent reasons, however, it would not be wise for me to talk about the details of this legal structure, which is thoughtful and prepared.
I take it from the wording "directing the work of the Court" that you do not consider Bogdan Święczkowski to be the legal president of the Court?
It's not a question of my mind, it's the ability to read with understanding. We have a erstwhile year's ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union, which has put forward legal allegations that have already been made against the procedure for appointing the president of the Constitutional Court and for the participation of persons who were not entitled to service as justice in the Court. This is simply a defect that is irreparable. The ruling was literal for justice Julia Przyłębska, but the legal disadvantages are identical in the case of the procedure for appointing the candidacy of justice Świętczkowski.
Calling a thing by name is about doubles. And justice Bartholomew Sochanski is the legal vice president of TK? I'm asking due to the fact that in the absence of a chairman, he could call a convention.
The editor would like me to find all the elements in our conversation, but delight besides bear in head that, as judges of the Constitutional Court, we may gotta bend over these issues already within the ruling compositions, so our public statements must be measured. However, I will point out again: those who thought they had prepared laws that were concrete for various institutions were not as masters of legal art as they thought they were.
All these provisions are carefully analysed and will be applied according to what they show, but for apparent reasons I cannot present the details of this structure to you.
Not including the Constitutional Court's expenditure plan in the draft state budget is part of the plan or malice from the finance minister? We hear that the reason is not to accept this plan by the General Assembly of Judges of the Constitutional Tribunal. We have checked – in the past specified situations have already taken place, and erstwhile the Tribunal Assembly adopted the applicable resolution after the Council of Ministers adopted the draft budget.
The Minister of Finance, erstwhile designing the draft state budget, for entities enjoying the alleged budgetary autonomy, is based on materials presented by the heads of these institutions. In average circumstances, it does not verify whether the procedures provided for in separate laws have been observed, e.g. whether the College of NIK has previously spoken in the case of the ultimate Audit Board. The Minister assumes that in a well-functioning state of law, the public authorities observe this right.
But this year the situation was peculiar due to the fact that we had publically available information that the assembly had not taken place, so it did not adopt the required resolution. Moreover, we had a announcement from any judges of the Constitutional Court that they were prevented from attending this assembly. And at this point, it's a presumption on which the Minister of Finance is usually based, it's out due to the fact that he couldn't say: I didn't know.
And since he knows that there has been an infringement, he knows that this document, which he has received, has not been accepted by a qualified entity and so cannot be regarded as satisfying the conditions of the Public Finance Act. Thus, the budget failure of the TK's gross and expenditure plan was, in fact, the legal work of the Minister of Finance.
On September 21st, you sent a letter to the President, requesting or appealing an immediate invitation to the vows. Did you get a formal answer?
Nope.
And erstwhile will you run out of patience? You mentioned that a vow should be arranged immediately. How do you anticipate this to go “without delay” from the date of your choice, which is September 4th?
No, I've been counting it since my tenure should start. According to the data for which the Sejm is responsible, as the Sejm elects the judges of the Court, the word of office should begin on 16 September.
As possible, it was not until 18 September that the word of office of Justyna Piskorski ended, after which you took the seat in the grandstand. The word of office cannot begin while the erstwhile word is inactive in progress.
In the case of justice Piskorski, it is hard to talk of the word of office, due to the fact that it was a individual elected to the position previously occupied...
That's double again.
Yeah. So we should alternatively indicate that there has been a kind of cadency interval, without talking about the termination of the erstwhile term, unfortunately. The difference in dates results from the fact that the Sejm has always counted the word of office of judges of the Constitutional Court from the date of election, if this is simply a choice for a place already vacant, or from the date indicated in the resolution of the Sejm, if this choice takes place in a place which is released in a certain time. At any point, however, the Court seems to have begun to make a fiction where the appointment of a justice depends on whether the head of the Court's work will open the door and say: here I am letting you in. Then there began to appear a difference in dates, and on the TK page – an alternate calendar to the 1 leading the Sejm.
What do you live on right now?
I was elected September 4, so my situation is truly good. What cannot be said about the 4 judges who made their vows in April and have not yet been allowed to rule. 3 are academic teachers, but 1 has no another employment since April. This is an unacceptable and alarming situation. These people become in any sense hostages of this dysfunction, which we inactive experience in the country. We're talking about salary, but besides insurance issues.
And if this continues, do you think that any another state authorities should take care of paying the judges?
There is specified a thing as the work of the State Treasury for the actions of its organs, so in utmost cases this kind of way may be involved, but I keep going back to—I don't even want to call it hope—just a legitimate anticipation that the current situation should be over soon. And regardless of the pretexts that we search to prevent the judges being decently elected by the Sejm, the problem of deficiency of pay will disappear, due to the fact that all elected judges will usually work and receive pay.
In your case, this pretext, as you put it, is doubtful whether you meet the requirements of a candidate to be a justice of the Constitutional Tribunal, i.e. he has a 10-year internship as a lawyer. You presented the documents, the president believes they are insufficient. There we go, limbo.
Here we contact on a fewer issues. Let us remember that both I and the remaining 4 judges of the Court have been subject to variable stories on what is the basis of expressed doubts or reservations. In the case of 4 judges, they were procedural allegations first, then there was a claim about the examination of the resumes of these judges, and the president's last message indicated that, as I recall, he considered that these persons were not sufficiently qualified to be legal, as he judged.
In my case, first we had to deal with the allegation of overpoliticity of my candidacy, then it was about non-compliance with the standard set out in the Act, which did not enter into force due to the fact that it was not accepted by president Duda, and then there was a thread connected with the fulfilment of this formal requirement. And now there are 2 more points. First, I am most likely the individual most curious in explaining and closing the problem. Only that the President's Office, demanding additional evidence, consciously invites a justice elected by the Sejm to enter a procedure that does not follow the laws. The body that has the right to examine whether I fulfil the constitutional request of outstanding legal cognition is the Sejm. And the Sejm examined it. Can you imagine the situation in which the president says: I do not accept the election of an ombudsman due to the fact that I question his legal qualifications?
In the case of an RPO, this request is rough, in the case of a candidate for a justice of the TK is clear. And you either have a ten-year internship or you don't.
I'll get right to that. Let me just add a erstwhile thought: the president is not a body that controls the activities of the Sejm in matters related to the creation of a public authority body. It's not the same as vetting the bill. In the procedure of selecting the various bodies, the president has no authority to state: I think they were wrong, I'll check it out.
But now the last point. Even if we assumed that specified a way is, what would I do beyond what I have already done and what has already been explained? Mr Włodzimierz Chróścik, president of the National Council of Legal Advisors, and erstwhile head of local government Maciej Bobrowicz, have already spoken about my internship. They both stressed that in the light of the law on legal advisers, the only way to show the internship is to enter on the list of professional advisers. And I presented specified certificates from the territory Chamber of Legal Counsels, it is available in the public domain.
I am glad that you have carefully read the interviews with Chróściek and Bobrowicz, published in “Rzeczpospolita”. But we both know you can be listed, but you can do another things, like run the Government Legislative Center or be a minister. Let us scope out to Q&A posted on the OIRP Warsaw website, your chamber, I believe. There we have the tab “Legal Councilor in Non-Advisory Position” in which I read: “A individual who has the right to prosecute the profession of legal counsel, who is employed in an organisational unit in an authoritative position “Non-Advisive Office”, including a manager, even if he carries out any legal services for the employer, does not execute the profession of legal counsel in this relationship”. I think that fits your situation.
But it does not contradict what we are talking about. due to the fact that you can stay in the employment relation in a non-radical position and at the same time execute the profession of legal advisor outside that position, but for employment. And that's my case. There are positions that exclude the simultaneous conduct of business activities specified as their own law firm. But it does not exclude the profession of counsel, of course with all ethical standards, competition rules, etc. Apart from the deficiency of specified a procedure of "research", it is my anticipation that I will be able to account for my circumstantial activities as a legal adviser, besides due to the fact that it was never expected of another people who relied on their counsel in a akin situation – what was to be examined? Number of contracts concluded, number of clients, or possibly the value of contracts concluded within the law firm? This road would lead nowhere.
Every lawyer understands that. And many of them tell me today: you've fallen into Kafkovsky climates. due to the fact that you gotta explain something that is perfectly natural in our world. And I have no uncertainty that all of this is an excuse, an extortion, created by a certain political environment, and undertaken by representatives of the President. If it wasn't for that, something else would have been created.
You mentioned the first allegation that you are a political candidate. Just how do you describe individual who comes consecutive from government? It's an infrequent practice and surely an evil one.
I do not agree with the assessment that the choice of erstwhile MP and Senator Teresa Liszcz or erstwhile Senator Leon Kiees was an example of bad practice. There were more names of people who, after a political stage, were able to service as a justice of the Constitutional Tribunal independently. Only then did we endure a trauma related to whom Law and Justice had indicated to the Court and how they clearly showed inability to comply with the required standards. Let me prove with my attitude that I will fulfill this request of independency and independence. due to the fact that I have no uncertainty about it.
It's not gonna be easy unless you shut yourself out of all another case. As a minister overseeing the implementation of government policy, you were active in most of the government passed.
The rules governing the exclusion of a justice from the court are developed and have been in force for years. And I, of course, will always shut down erstwhile necessary. But it is not that, for example, in 2027 we will deal with matters concerning laws passed in 2025. We presently have constitutional complaints from citizens filed in the Constitutional Tribunal even 10 years ago. That's the thing.
Not all this is waiting, e.g. PiS requests for safety are settled very quickly.
Thank you very much for saying this, due to the fact that yes, the constitutional complaints of citizens lie 10 years, and the cases of the Law and Justice people have been dealt with in any unusual way, sometimes within a fewer twelve hours. Therefore, any justice who enters the Court should devote a large part of his activity to considering the backlog of constitutional complaints, and there truly my time in government structures will be completely meaningless.
Before you tell me that justice TK's seat is the dream of any lawyer, can you answer the question honestly: did you come up with the thought to run, or did Prime Minister Donald Tusk tell you to?
Being a justice of the Constitutional Court is, of course, a large culmination of his work for the lawyer, but let us be honest, present is definitely a immense challenge. Everyone is dramatically tired of this state of inactivity of the Court. In addition, there are statements from politicians liable for this state who have lost power and are terrified that the current majority will apply the same rules that the PiS camp was expected to warrant impact on the TK, so now they are shouting: let's do a TK reset. I know the political planet has its rules, but even there should be limits to hypocrisy...
...only I inactive can't hear the answer to my question about whose thought your candidacy was.
I was notified by the parliamentary club, while the thought of my moving to the Constitutional Court appeared in my direct conversation with Prime Minister Donald Tuski. This conversation was private, so I can't, and I don't want to tell you any more about it.
Do you have any sense that Donald Tusk marked you with a kiss of death? Prof. Ewa Łętowska considered this to be how the Prime Minister advertised your candidacy for the TK.
Prime Minister Tusk is simply a individual who devotes an tremendous amount of energy to getting you back on your feet after years of collapse, including systemic collapse. He works with people who believe he can do it. On the another hand, I will not be persuaded to measure what the Prime Minister said about me.
Then possibly I can persuade you to measure the thought of a TK reset, an thought that's not from politicians. This plan was presented late by the Batory Foundation and outlined by Dr. Tomasz Zalasinski.
I respect Dr. Zalasinski very much, we know each another well, I know his work. On the another hand, if we are referring to the initiative of a non-governmental organisation's environment, we must always ask whether the plan is realistic. It is not just the slogan that any political groups are willing to take, pretending to heal anything. It is good to have a good report, but I want its authors the strength to conduct talks about its implementation. Real steps are crucial in the TK case.
We look forward to the ruling of the ECHR and the position of the Venice Commission on taking vows from the judges elected by the Sejm. Could these be real steps that will decision us forward in resolving the dispute around the Court?
I believe that yes, although I have no illusions that there will be no shortage of people for whom it will always be besides little.
You must be referring to those who have a safety issued by the Court of Strasbourg in May ordering the 4 recently elected judges of the Constitutional Tribunal to rule.
Well, I heard a message from justice Święczkowski dismissively speaking about the security, due to the fact that it was issued “on the basis of the ETPC's Rules of Procedure specifying officials' outfits and the number of chairs in the hall”. He truly said it. The Rules of Procedure of the ECHR are the acts on the basis of which the Court is acting and deciding. I can't believe justice TK doesn't know that. And if he does, and he says these things, it's truly dangerous, and you gotta defy it. due to the fact that Poland has not spoken the convention, it is simply a associate of the Council of Europe, our citizens complain to the ECHR, erstwhile they win, erstwhile they lose, and it is the work of all state authority to respect these decisions. In conclusion, I think that these statements by both the Venice Commission and the ECHR will be applicable in this discourse, but only to those who respect the law.
And the script with this another form of vows we discussed at the beginning will only be implemented after the Commission and the ECHR have taken their position, or will you not wait?
Given the social emotions that are intentionally aroused by any environments, it would be irresponsible for me to say anything that would indicate a timetable for planned actions.
Well, at least tell me what happened to the strong variant of bouncing TK, which they respect.
Madam editor, this is simply a beautiful rhetorical procedure. any people have an extraordinary ability to usage words against their meaning. The force variant in the Court is now taking place due to the fact that the judges elected by the Sejm are not allowed to justice and are restricted to admission to the Constitutional Tribunal. erstwhile a justice enters the Constitutional Court building, there is no force solution. If a justice is prevented from entering the building in which he is established, specified actions are of a criminal nature and the authorities of the State are obliged to intervene and to guarantee the judge's safety, to defend him from possible aggression.
This is my appeal: let us reconstruct the concepts to actual meaning. The entry of judges into the Court is not an assassination. The attack is to prevent judges from entering the Court building.
I think justice Święczkowski truly decided to defend himself due to the fact that he just hired the erstwhile head of the CBA as a safety expert.
I truly don't care who Mr. Święczkowski hires.
Are you tired of proceeding about “fun in Berka” or “game in Berka”?
I am prepared to endure this with dignity, if this will contribute to law and justice, written in tiny letters.
