.
1 of the concepts that warped the first sense is the notion of immunity. For the sake of order, I will quote the definition available all the time in online dictionaries and wikipedias, so it would seem that the definition is valid. Formal immunity besides called individual immunity: ‘Restricts the legal liability (in peculiar criminal liability) of a individual due to his or her function for the time being. At the same time, however, the rules enable the limits of liability to be removed after certain additional conditions (the alleged waiver of immunity in a circumstantial case) have been met.’
This definition does not rise any doubt. The aim is to limit liability due to its function. Immunity is intended to defend the individual serving (e.g. a associate or Senator) from accusations that could impede or even prevent the performance of the duties entrusted. Especially false accusations, which are part of an unclean, violent political game. It is, of course, a byproduct of specified an immunity that it is possible for those who have actually committed illegal acts to avoid responsibility. Formal (personal) immunity may so be waived in circumstantial individual cases.
This is the case with the Marshal of the legislature Tomasz Grodzki. He was elected as Senator and obtained immunity from it. Already while serving as a senator, he was charged with taking bribes. It doesn't substance that the prosecution active an earlier period erstwhile he wasn't a senator yet. It is crucial that the prosecution appeared during the word of office, which makes Grodzki full entitled to exercise immunity in order to avoid the initiation of formal prosecutorial and judicial proceedings during the word of office. I do not justice here the moral side of the issue, the reliability of the accusations, or whether Grodzki should not quit immunity in order to reconstruct the damaged assurance in his individual and the political formation he represents. He might have given up, but he didn't have to.
The protection described above for individual immunity does not apply in any way to Roman Giertych and Włodzimierz Karpiński. Roman Gierty, at the time of the charges against the removal and misappropriation of approx. PLN 92 million from the stock-owned improvement company Polnord, was a well-known attorney, but he did not have any immunity. Moreover, Roman Gierty, having large legal cognition allowing him to effectively defend himself against false accusations, alternatively of defending himself, fled abroad. The case of Vladimir Karpiński is similar. At the time of the charge of committing a corruption crime involving accepting a bribe of nearly PLN 5 million, Karpiński was a secretary at the office of the capital city of Warsaw and he did not have any immunity. Karpiński did not flee abroad, was detained and imprisoned. According to the prosecutor’s office, “The reason for the request for a preventive measurement in the form of a temporary arrest is the real fear of the mattage previously referred to by the Court of Appeal in Katowice, extending the temporary arrest and explicitly indicating that the fear of procedural mattage on the part of Vladimir K. is highly strong, as he has already taken actions that have the effect of obstructing the investigation."
Both Roman Giertych and Włodzimierz Karpiński obtained the mandates of Members – Giertych to the Sejm and Karpiński to the European Parliament – long after they were charged. Moreover, they obtained these tickets while, in the case of Karpiński, in prison and in the case of Gierty, abroad, where he hid from the Polish judiciary. How the immunity they receive is intended to limit liability due to its function? In what way does the immunity received release the work for alleged acts committed during the past period? Lex retro non agit - After all, The law doesn't work backwards!
The issue of immunity of Vladimir Karpiński is curiosal in many respects. Karpiński, sitting in prison, did not run for the European Parliament. He ran in 2019, but was not elected, took rather a distant place. Krzysztof Hetman was then a associate of the European Coalition list. Hetman was elected in the last election as an MP of the Polish Sejm and renounced the EP's mandate. His seat may have been placed on the 2019 election list by Joanna Mucha, but she refused to accept the mandate. Another individual on the list was Riad Haidar, who died in May this year. And the next in order from the 2019 electoral list turned out to be Vladimir Karpiński, who, as his defender reported, sat in a prison cell and agreed to take the mandate of the Euro MP. As a substance of urgency, the fresh Marshal of the Sejm, Simon Holovnia, issued a resolution on Karpiński's appointment to the EP. The National Prosecutor's Office subsequently issued a message stating that "in view of the order issued by the talker of the Sejm stating that Vladimir Karpiński was to presume the mandate of a associate of the European Parliament, the prosecutor was forced to revoke the provisional arrest applied to himIt’s okay. ” The right to immunity obtained by Karpiński in November 2023 was applied to waive work for alleged crimes committed respective years ago. Lex retro non agit - After all, The law doesn't work backwards! By whom, then, “The prosecutor was forced” to make specified a ridiculous decision?
It is not hard to imagine the following situation. A dangerous criminal, multiple murderer, is sentenced to life imprisonment and jailed in advanced security. After a fewer years, he is listed on the electoral list in any insignificant position. It receives small support from respective votes, but as a consequence of the refusal of a mandate by persons with higher support on the list, it becomes an MP and agrees (apparently) to adopt a mandate. And he stays in the majesty of ridiculously understood laws released from prison. So understood freedom was chosen by voters throwing cards into the urn on October 15, 2023. We've got Poland under wraps. And this is just the beginning.
Mr Bogdan
