‘The Act does not definitely prejudge the position of judges of the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs and is to operate for a short period of time" - says Prof. Ryszard Piotrowski in an interview with the portal at Polityka.pl. The constitutionalist emphasises that the fragmentation of the rules adopted by the Sejm violates the rule of legal consistency. It besides breaks the rule of "preservation of the adjustment period". "This is not in line with the Constitution. We have a clear manifestation of the primacy of politics over the law" - emphasised Prof. Piotrowski.
The Sejm passed the alleged "accidental Act" of the thought of Marshal Szymon Holownia (Poland 2050). According to her, the validity of the President's election in 2025 is to be ruled by 15 judges with the oldest seniority in the ultimate Court alternatively than – as yet – the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the SN.
Whether it will find 15 or 20 judges, it is not in accordance with the Constitution. After all, there is simply a rule that crucial changes in electoral law should be made no later than 6 months before the election. The Electoral Code is so amended in breach of the rule of the adjustment period. This rule is part of the rules established by the Constitutional Court as part of the rule of a democratic regulation of law. This case law line of the Constitutional Tribunal has developed for many years and results from 2 decisions marked with the signatures K 31/06 and K 9/11
Prof. Ryszard Piotrowski.
‘Expressive manifestation of policy primacy over the law"
The appointment of a peculiar composition of SN judges to examine the validity of the presidential elections only for the duration of these elections is simply a limitation of the temporal and this jurisdiction of the home of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs. In another words, we are so faced with a clear limitation of the timeliness of this Chamber and a regulation on the President's elections
“The lawyer and the scientist emphasize.
The episodic nature of this law involves an effort to temporarily refuse designation of the position of judges of the home of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs in relation to a certain degree of their jurisdiction. All of this takes place without regulation of the properties of the full Extraordinary Control Chamber. But it is besides appropriate for many another matters of public law. In part, the position of judges of this Chamber may not be deprived of by means of incidental regulation. This should be regulated in a bill which besides sets out the effectiveness of the decisions of the Chamber itself. Meanwhile, we have a fragmented regulation, which violates the rule of legal consistency
— assesses the constitutionalist.
This is an expressive manifestation of the primacy of politics over the law. The overall problem of the position of these judges is not regulated. A fundamental systemic issue and so the position of judges should not be governed by the Act of Episodes. Meanwhile, we have a clear expression of the primacy of the policy over the law, which implies the presumption of a refusal of trust in all judges appointed by the KRS since 2018. This presumption is based on the claim that the independency of these judges should be called into question, which would undermine their credibility. However, specified an presumption would require regulation by a separate act
“The interlocutor notes that there is simply a very crucial aspect of the ‘accidental law’. On the basis of the indescribable law of the claim of infidelity, the position of certain SN judges is challenged and they are not allowed to appeal that assessment.
In its opinion, the Venice Commission states that the very fact that these judges were appointed after that date cannot prejudge their status. The Act of incidental besides does not definitely prejudge this position and is to operate for a short period of time. Except... in so far as they have no jurisdiction over a certain category of cases on the basis of that presumption of deficiency of credibility. At the same time, it does not supply for any appeal to show that exclusion of a peculiar justice may rise doubts
“ prof. Ryszard Piotrowski concludes.
