“The behavior of the Supreme Court is outrageous. Or someone deliberately wants to introduce anarchy in the country, because he feels a commitment to the PO, or did not read the Constitution,” – said about the resolution of the Supreme Court guest Counterintelligence RMF FM, Deputy Minister of Justice Patrick What. The Supreme Court announced the respect of unpublished judgments of the Constitutional Court. “What happened yesterday, this situation is unprecedented. It is scandalous emphasis on the independence of judges linear” – says the minister. In his opinion, “this is a rebellion against the legal government of the living room, against ordinary people.” “Salon Legal rebelled against the government, because we want to change the justice system and the judiciary. They do not like the fact that we want to disclose their wealth to introduce new disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the rebel” – What adds Patrick. The politician asked about the statement of the spokesman of the club PiS, which concluded that the Supreme Court judges are “team guys”, he replies: “It is a word that is a simplification, but it’s a question of a wider”. According to guest RMF FM Supreme Court decision is a violation of art.190, 194 and 197 of the Constitution. “The judges recognize that part of their constitution in force, and some do not. Is it the rule of law?” – Asks the minister. “The question is, on what legal basis the Supreme Court judges want to spend their binding interpretation to the line judges” – he says How. He adds that this type of action is provided for a legal question and a cassation complaint, not a resolution.
Konrad Piasecki: Is the Deputy Minister of justice, idealist politician dreaming on the rule of law does not hurt, does not hurt, does not hurt to call the judges of the Supreme Court “team guys”?
Patryk What: This is the word that is – I understand – some simplification, but comes to realize wider.
No, it is a word that knajacko-dialect, if we talk about the word “dudes”.
well and what was the “Mr. Zbyszek” in the mouth of the President of the Constitutional Court?
familiarity, przyjacielskością.
I see that you passed the training of semantics. Congratulations. While no longer let us say that the other side has a clean conscience. But of course we should consider whether the language is appropriate. While certainly want to say that the gravity of the case and the behavior yesterday, the Supreme Court – because I understand that this gentleman refers – is outrageous.
But I understand that when a spokeswoman for Law and Justice said the meeting of judges of the Court Supreme that gathered “team guys” and defends the status quo of the previous government, you heard it feels a certain disgust.
But what happened yesterday? Because we have to …
… well, what happened? A spokeswoman for the group of the ruling, with the most serious body of a court in this country has expressed itself in a strong disdain – you accept.
But I also tell you that the Supreme Court gives a lot of excuses, so to preserve and tell you why: among others, because what happened yesterday, these are the only two possibilities. That is, either someone deliberately wants to introduce anarchy in the country, because even if he feels a commitment to the PO or to Bronislaw Komorowski ….
But who feels an obligation Minister?
… Who, for example, chose the president of the Supreme Court and feels this commitment and wants to deliberately introduce anarchy in the country, to help the PO. Or there is another possibility – Mr Editor, if you will – I have not read the Constitution, because I want to tell you that Article 190 of the Constitution says what? It is said that the ruling of the Constitutional Court shall enter into force upon publication.
You think I have not read the Constitution, because there is a written “notice”.
Classifieds, well, it’s Let’s not fight. In any case, I want to say, in Article 194. Constitution we read in turn, that TK counts how many? 15 judges. And at the moment we have 12. In the article 197 of the Constitution we read that the operating mode is determined TK parliament. And I want to tell you that all these rules were broken. And the judges of the Supreme Court recognize that part of their constitution in force, and some do not. These paragraphs, which I mentioned do not apply. Is it the rule of law?
It’s now about gratitude PO – who established where the Supreme Court, today the head of the team guys – if it’s your friend said club? Who appointed Mrs. Margaret Gersdorf in the Supreme Court justices?
There are special institutions …
Who? Which president?
Well, President Kaczynski.
So what you’re saying, that she feels gratitude to the PO and Komorowski?
But this is a unique, well. I want to tell you that Mrs. President of the Supreme Court is in this role, the unique role – is a difference, however, at the head of this body, and being only in the body, and speaking in a political way. This is the fundamental difference.
Minister, is now ad 2. You say: The Constitutional Court consists of 15 judges. Indeed it is written in the constitution. Does this mean that everyone, eg. A president who is delaying the swearing-in of one of the judges of the Constitutional Tribunal, breaks the law?
But I want to tell you that this is the interpretation which is applied Civic Platform …
But no, I’m talking in general. Many presidents sworn in judges delayed CT and it was not a violation of the constitution.
Literally I want to tell you that the new parliament elected five judges of the Constitutional Court, and the term of office of judges of the Constitutional Tribunal ended precisely at the time of the new government.
Minister or the Ministry of Justice, the government will release some counter-recommendation and recommends judges would not recognize verdicts of the Constitutional Court?
I want to say one thing – we have, however, become a matter of law. That’s what happened yesterday, it is absolutely unprecedented situation, because I want to tell you that this is scandalous emphasis on the independence of judges line. You know why?
However, this may be an attempt to stabilize the situation? Indications judges, you have to listen, because otherwise it will be legal dualism?
In this case we are talking about the fundamental, namely such that the judges of the Supreme Court also applies the law or not. I want to tell you that as of yesterday are already talking lawyers – the question, on what legal basis Supreme Court judges want to give this his – let’s call it – a binding interpretation for judges rope? I want to tell you that this type of action are provided for two other institutions, including question of law and appeal in cassation, and no resolution. This is very important because if you are a judge of the Supreme Court, in that case I understand that same token, you have to obey the law, if one expects from others.
Minister, but they may want it to do so, to a citizen to know …
Breaking the law?
not to know where he stood. Today we have a situation in which citizens really a moment they will not know, because they will be getting court rulings based on the verdicts of the Constitutional Court or other courts, which do not recognize verdicts TK. Somehow it all citizens have to deal with.
This means that the judges of the Supreme Court may, on a pozaproceduralny put pressure on the independence of judges line? That’s what happened yesterday, this action is unprecedented and outrageous. I’ll tell you what happens – it is a rebellion against the legal government of the living room, against ordinary people. You know why? I feel that I know why. Therefore …
But what “living legal”? Minister, what are you talking about? 90 judges of the Supreme Court and all are in the “lounge legal”?
But why not apply the principle here pozaproceduralną? If you would like to spend the interpretation of universally binding, it is up to the cassation appeal is a specific thing …
But you, rulers, also are conducting pozaproceduralnie. The Constitution, which Mr. invoked, also talks about the publication or promulgation of the verdict of the Constitutional Court. You do not do.
We do not do this, because this happens with breaking the law. After this one foresaw such a provision in the constitution …
So the Supreme Court to see your breaking the law seems your …
Oh, it also breaks the law . Well you said.
… it seems its recommendation to the court. Because the situation is a stalemate. The situation is a Gordian knot.
I want to tell you why I think the judges of the Supreme Court is doing. Because living Legal rebelled against the government, because we want to really change the justice system and the judiciary. I do not like the judges, of course, we want to introduce new disciplinary procedures that we want to disclose their wealth, we want real change courts. And so rebel.
Minister, but for now you flounder in place. You far sparaliżowaliście constitutional court and very not even know why.
No, of course, that we know. I want to tell you that if we are talking about paralysis, in our opinion, the paralysis has made the other party. If you ask why this has happened, it is precisely because we want to actually govern. We do not want such a situation, it would be the third chamber of Parliament that filters all of our bill …
… or deliberately paralyze the constitutional court, right? I understand.
No. I wish constitutional court …
… that you said.
If the constitutional court looked like in Germany, ie. Half composition from one side, and half of it on the other side of the political scene and the court ruling are then balanced, I do not have any problems. In contrast, the problem lies in the fact that the platform would and modern, to the Constitutional Court … 14 to 15 judges belonged to them. And then we can not rule. What is a government that can not govern! Can not change Polish.
Mrs. Minister, as you porządzicie for 8 years, as ruled by the Civic Platform, is also dominate the composition of the judges of the Constitutional Court. This is the political logic in Poland. We of course regret this, but as Justice chose their judges, so Platform chose their judges. And today PiS selects either of its judges.
I probably would not be any problem if not for that platform as the first party in the history of competence came into the next parliamentary term. And as you know, since the dispute began. Do you ever come to a head this reflection, that if the Civic Platform did not do it at all not be talking about the Constitutional Court. Or did it come to mind?
Yes, of course, that occurred to me, but you just said that deliberately sparaliżowaliście constitutional court, so I understand that chwycilibyście up some other way.
I did not say. He tried to put me on the lips.
Two questions at the end. Do you already know that there will be an investigation into the non-publication of the verdict of the Constitutional Court in March?
I have no knowledge. I’m not a prosecutor.
A is the amendment of the Law on the Court, promised by the spokesman for the PiS, will somehow extrication from this stalemate? Lord knows in which direction it will be aimed?
I do not know the direction. I do not belong to this group of experts to prepare a solution. On the other hand I do know that it will have another proposal that came out of the initiative on our part, because we really want to resolve this dispute.
Well, yes, but there are good and bad initiatives. Recent initiatives is rather confusing matter.
And what it is a good initiative Second hand – Grzegorz Schetyna and Ryszard Petru? Publish judgment? Well, I am sorry, but the trade-off lies in the fact that one party to the other party goes back and retracts. We went back because we offer: here you are, we can choose the Constitutional Court again.
This is a recession, right? Minister, let me not disarm.
Please tell me, what is wrong with such an initiative, when we say that you-choose position majority of the judges – 8 – and we choose 7. Then Court’s assessment will be balanced. Just as in Germany.
But I can say that our 7 will be able to block any decision of the Court.
At the same time we are talking about the fact that, however, is so that people issued a judgment in the presidential and parliamentary elections. They said that they want to change in Poland. The question is whether they have the right to these changes if they do not. I am determined that these changes be carried out.
Minister, but a democratic mandate is not the anointing of God and it is not absolute power.
But I I do not want absolute power Mr Editor. You know, who claim a right to absolute power? These people, who sent special forces into one of the weeklies. This is absolute power.
See how Patryk What answered questions from the audience RMF FM
No comments:
Post a Comment