DoRzeczy.pl: : How do you evaluate the words of the Speaker of the Seimas, Shimon Holavnia?Who said at the press conference that he asked the Supreme Court to appoint a panel of judges to the MPs in the case of Wąsik and Kamiński, who would not object?
Dr. Michal Sopinski: This is a complete rejection of the presumption of constitutionality. Destroying the entire legal system. The Marshal of the Sejm currently acts as an authority. A body of the Seimas whose task is to take specific substantive and technical action as a means of appeal.
Then what should he do?
He must, in accordance with the jurisdiction specified in the Act, file a formal appeal against the decision to revoke the mandates to the Supreme Court through the Supreme Court Appeals Office, which sends a letter to the competent chamber in law, or Audit. Chamber. Any form of influence by the marshal or determination of who is a real judge and who is not, as well as any form of determination by the marshal of the Seimas as to which chamber is competent and which is not, is a gross violation of the marshal's authority. In my opinion as a lawyer, this violation is subject to criminal liability under Art. 231 of the Criminal Code, because it is an action not praeter legem, but contra legem by the marshal of the Sejm.
The defenders of the actions of Marshal Holownia point to the decision of the CJEU, which found that the judge's chamber in the case of Maciej Wąsik is not a court and that there are no judges in it. Is this a good explanation?
No. The party that makes accusations against judges is very selective when it talks about the Extraordinary Control and Professional Responsibility Chamber as a court and when it talks about a non-judicial one. Finally, Shimon Holonia and his people appealed to the Chamber of Control and Special Appeals the decision to reject the report on the financing of Holonia in the presidential elections. On the other hand, the media is dominated by information about the acquittal of the man nicknamed “Frog” who drove crazy in Warsaw and the decision issued by the Chamber of Professional Responsibility, and as we see the headlines on many leading websites, there is no information about it being “un-Camber” or ” neo-judges”. This is pure hypocrisy.
We are dealing with a convenient application of CJEU judgments, which refer to a specific case, do not concern the Polish legal system and have no direct impact. Add to this that the Audit Office found that the October 15 referendum is valid but non-binding due to the absence of a vote, and for some reason there is no claim or discussion about it. In turn, we are faced with the impending decision of this House on the issue of the validity of the election. If the validity of the election is to be decided by supposed non-judges, let us first recognize that the Marshal of the Sejm is not a marshal, is not an MP, and yet is a media celebrity, because there was no election. I say this to show the absurdity and selectivity of this thinking. In the rule of law, we have a presumption of constitutionality, and every lawyer should know that.
Also read:
Beata Szydlo: Enough saidAlso read:
Chaos in the Supreme Court. The judge doesn't want to release Kaminsky's files
(tags translate)hołownia