Constitutional Tribunal to protect Prof. Glapinski. There is a judgment

On Thursday, this issue was considered by the Constitutional Tribunal The constitutionality of the provisions of the State Tribunal Act, which allows the President of the National Bank of Poland to be brought before the Court of Justice. (NBP). The panel of judges included the following judges: President Julia Przylbska (chairwoman), Kristina Pavlovic (rapporteur), Bartlomiej Sochanski, Rafal Wojciechowski and Bogdan Swieckowski.

The Constitutional Tribunal determined whether the Constitution allowed the automatic suspension of the President of the NBP on the basis of an indictment (then his function was to be replaced by the Vice President), as well as the provision of an absolute majority that could install the head. In such a state of the bank. The judges found these provisions unconstitutional.

Kristina Pavlovic justified that the President of the Central Bank is legally guaranteed independence from the ruling majority and his appointment requires “cooperation between the President and the Seimas”. Therefore, there was a majority that allowed him to be brought before a state tribunal It should be the same as, for example, in the case of ministers (three fifths of the Seimas, i.e. 276 deputies).

The rest of the article is below the video

He noted that the Constitution does not provide for a qualified majority in the form of a simple majority. Therefore, the provision allowing the head of the NBP to be brought before the Court of Justice on this basis cannot be said to be in conformity with the Constitution.

– The principle of independence of the NBP and the president of the NBP from other state authorities, including the principles of his term of office, certainly does not exclude the possibility of indicting the president of the NBP. State Tribunal. However, it is impossible to comply with the statutory regulation, which envisages calling the member of the Council of Ministers to constitutional responsibility and imposing constitutional responsibility before the State Tribunal of the President of NBP by a qualified majority provided by the qualified majority. President of NBP removed from office by identical majority. This especially determines the content of art. 227 Section 3 of the Constitution, which provides for the principle of operation of the powers of this position, which implies the constitutional protection of the President of the National Movement to a higher degree than that provided for a member of the Council of Ministers. First of all, the president of NBP is protected by (…) the principle of independence of NBP from other public authorities – explained Pavlovich.

Pavlovich noted that the principle of universal validity of every decision of the Constitutional Tribunal leads to the prohibition of the use of legal norms recognized by the Constitutional Tribunal as violating the Constitution.

Pavlovic stressed that the Sejm is constitutionally bound to refrain from considering every preliminary motion submitted to hold the NBP president accountable to the state tribunal until Thursday's decisions are implemented by statute.

– The legislator is also obliged to adapt the legal status to the content of the decision of the Constitutional Tribunal – added the judge.

Judges Bartlomiej Sochanski and Rafal Wojciechowski presented a dissenting opinion.

This is a blow to the plans of the current government. Politicians from the ruling coalition (calling themselves the “Coalition of October 15”) repeatedly emphasized that they had the majority to put Adam Glapinski on trial.

In an interview with WP, Prof. and deputy PIS Krzysztof Szczukki noted that, according to the applicants, the contested provisions are “incompatible with the Constitution and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as both of these acts guarantee the independence of the central bank.”

– This is related to our second objection, which is that an absolute majority in the Seimas is sufficient for the impeachment of the president of the NBP. An absolute majority can be, for example, 116 deputies. So, in effect, a government majority can lead to the suspension of the NBP president. In such a case, one cannot talk about the independence of the central bank, the interlocutor of WP claims.