“I am appalled by the disregard shown by the President of the Chamber of Labor and Social Insurance, Piotr Prusinowski. Order No. 1/2024 of the First President of the Supreme Court of January 4 of this year, which resolved the competence dispute between the Chamber of Emergency Control and Public Affairs and the Chamber of Labor and Social Insurance, which clearly indicated the jurisdiction of the Chamber. The decision of the Marshall of the Seimas on the appeal of MP Mariusz Kaminski on the case of emergency control and public affairs on the expiration of the parliamentary mandate”, – wrote the first president of the Supreme Court in a statement.
President Manowska emphasizes that such an action represents a “significant violation” of the legal order of the Republic of Poland and is “the result of the arbitrariness of the President of the Chamber of Labor and Social Insurance acting in consultation with the Speaker of the Sejm.” – Legislative authority body”.
Supreme Court President: There is a question about Prusinowski's impartiality
“It is appalling that such an agreement was reached in a case that aimed to review the legality of the decision of the Speaker of the Seimas by the Supreme Court. The legislative body transferred the complaint of MP Mariusz Kaminski to another chamber defined by law. As indicated by the appellant, and the President of the Chamber of Labor and the Social Security Committee supported such activities, unfortunately, these circumstances raise questions regarding the impartiality of the actions of the President of the Chamber of Labor and Social Security, as they may raise doubts among citizens about the apolitical nature of the Supreme Court as a judicial body. we read in the statement.
President Manowska has no doubt that such actions by the President of the Chamber of Labor and Social Insurance constitute a violation of national legislation, including the internal regulations applicable to the Supreme Court.
“And they also have no basis in the decision C-718/21 of the Court of Justice of the European Union of December 21, 2023.” Paragraph 74 of this decision clearly states that the reservations therein regarding the Extraordinary Control Chamber. and public relations were formed “solely for the purpose of assessing the admissibility of statements “requesting a prior ruling in accordance with Article 267 of the TFEU.” Therefore, they do not refer to other issues. by law. The same applies to the reservations established by the European Court of Human Rights in accordance with Article 6. 1) ECHR, because this provision does not refer to the review of Marshall decisions on the expiration of the mandate of a member of parliament, as the tribunal itself has repeatedly stated, the last time in 2016 in connection with the expiration of the parliamentary term. Dariush Mandates of Barski and Bogdan Shvechkovski (§ 57)”, we read in the statement.
Also read:
Kaminsky: Soon I will be the first political prisoner in our countryAlso read:
Vesik showed the letter from Holonia. “Then I'm back to work!”
(translate tags)Manowska