Minister Ziobro: “Speaker of the Senate breached the Constitution by inviting the Venice Commission”. He did not breach it

Share

Journalist at OKO.press.

More

“Representatives of the Ministry of Justice can meet with the representatives of the Venice Commission, treating their arrival a little like a quasi-private visit,” said Zbigniew Ziobro in TV Trwam on 8 January. The minister is of the opinion that the invitation of the Commission to Warsaw by the Speaker of the Senate, Tomasz Grodzki, was an abuse. The facts speak differently



“According to the Polish constitution, the speaker of the Senate, Tomasz Grodzki did not have the right to ask the Venice Commission to issue an opinion on the amendment of the court acts. […] An abuse has taken place,” insisted justice minister Zbigniew Ziobro on 8 January 2020 in “Rozmowy Niedokończone” [Unfinished Discussions] in TV Trwam.

 

But it is not the Polish Constitution that determines who can ask the Venice Commission to issue an opinion, but the Commission itself. Poland has also been its member since 1992.

 

According to the principles of operation of the Venice Commission, representatives of a given country, the government, parliament or the head of state, can ask it for its opinion. In addition, the bodies of the Council of Europe and other international organizations, such as the European Union, are also able to do so.

 

The argument regarding Grodzki’s abuse is a further manipulation by a representative of the Law and Justice government.

 

Firstly, in accordance with Article 8 of the Regulations of the Senate, Tomasz Grodzki represents the higher chamber of the Polish parliament. Therefore, he is a representative of this parliament, who is authorized to invite the Commission, which he did at the end of December 2019.

 

His competence was confirmed by the Commission itself, by accepting the invitation and announcing that it would issue an opinion on the disciplining act in a priority procedure.

 

In 2015, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of that time, Witold Waszczykowski, did the same as Grodzki. A representative of the government then asked the Venice Commission to evaluate the “reform” of the Constitutional Tribunal.

 

The reporters of the Venice Commission will visit Poland on 9–10 January.

 

Grodzki sends the invitation

 

Speaker of the Senat, Grodzki, called on the Venice Commission shortly after he received a letter from the Vice-President of the European Commission of 19 December 2019. In it, Věra Jourová appealed to the highest authorities of the Republic of Poland to stop work on the so-called act disciplining judges.

 

“I invite all State organs not to take forward the legislative proceedings before carrying out the necessary consultations with all stakeholders,” she wrote in the letter.

 

Jourová called on the Polish authorities to talk especially to the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe.

 

Tomasz Grodzki responded immediately to her letter.

 

He assured the Vice-President of the European Commission that the Senate will ensure that the Act is progressed in a transparent and legal manner and that the partners in Poland and abroad will be thoroughly consulted. Shortly afterwards, on 30 December, he sent a letter inviting the Venice Commission to Warsaw.

 

The Commission is to issue an opinion on the so-called disciplining act, also referred to as the muzzle act. The bill, which was voted through by Law and Justice in the Sejm on 20 December, after 29 hours of chaotic “correction”, assumes, among other things, a drastic increase in the disciplinary liability of judges.

 

They are to be threatened with penalties for challenging the status of judges appointed with the participation of the neo-NCJ.

 

The Venice Commission received Grodzki’s invitation on 2 January 2020. As the Senate’s justice commission will deal with the bill for the first time at the session on 7–8 January, the Commission decided to prepare the opinion in priority mode. It will be prepared by the team of reporters who will visit Poland on 9–10 January.

 

Normally, the Commission accepts opinions at plenary sessions which are held four times a year. However, in urgent cases, it can do this earlier and just support the earlier findings at the plenary session. The next plenary session is planned for 20–21 March 2020.

 

The Commission’s visits to Poland

 

The Venice Commission was invited to Poland in December 2015 by Law and Justice’s former minister of foreign affairs, Witold Waszczykowski. Shortly after the visit to Warsaw, at the session of 12–13 March 2016, the Commission accepted a devastating opinion about the “reform” of the Constitutional Tribunal conducted by the Law and Justice government.

 

It acknowledged that:

 

  • President Andrzej Duda must swear in the three judges chosen by the Sejm of the 7th term of Office;
  • the Constitutional Tribunal should not adjudicate on the constitutionality of an act on the basis of the provisions of that same act;
  • the publication of the Constitutional Tribunal’s judgement of 9 March 2017 (the Tribunal acknowledged the amendment of the Act on the Constitutional Tribunal to be unconstitutional) is a “pre-condition” for Poland to come out of the constitutional crisis.

 

The Law and Justice government ignored this opinion.

 

Waszczykowski’s decision to invite the Commission was strongly criticized by his party’s colleagues, including Chairman Kaczyński. Waszczykowski himself made the assurance that the opinion is not binding on Poland and that the Commission was biased. He explained that if he had not invited it himself, it would still have been “sent” to Poland.

 

The Venice Commission has visited our country several times in the years after that to analyse the Law and Justice party’s reforms:

 

  • in April 2016, it was “sent by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to take a look at the amendment to the Act on the Police, which increased the ability to invigilate citizens;
  • in October 2016, the Commission again analysed the reforms of the Constitutional Tribunal (at the request of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Thorbjørn Jagland), to check whether the government had complied with the opinion of March;
  • in May 2017, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe asked it to assess the amendments to the law on the prosecution service;
  • in October 2017, also at the request of the Parliamentary Assembly, it analysed the “reform” of the ordinary courts, the Supreme Court and the NCJ.

 

Each of the opinions criticized the changes introduced by the Law and Justice government. In turn, this government has not implemented any of the Commission’s comments.

 

Translated by Roman Wojtasz.



Author


Journalist at OKO.press.


More

Published

January 9, 2020

Tags

Supreme CourtPolandDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaljudgesrule of lawdisciplinary proceedingsNational Council of the JudiciaryZbigniew Ziobrojudicial independenceCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionMałgorzata ManowskaAndrzej DudaCourt of JusticeEuropean Court of Human RightsMinister of JusticeAdam BodnarIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemneo-judgesCJEUmuzzle lawJarosław KaczyńskiNational Recovery PlanMateusz MorawieckiCourt of Justice of the European UnionCommissioner for Human RightsWaldemar ŻurekPrzemysław RadzikdemocracyNational Council for Judiciaryelections 2023media freedomelectionscriminal lawpresidential electionsJulia PrzyłębskaKamil ZaradkiewiczPiotr Schabdisciplinary commissionerjudiciaryelections 2020HungarySupreme Administrative Courtprosecutionpreliminary rulingsFirst President of the Supreme CourtDagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaK 3/21harassmentNational ProsecutorBeata MorawiecRecovery FundPresidentProsecutor GeneralMichał LasotaŁukasz PiebiakPaweł JuszczyszynprosecutorsMarek Safjanimmunityfreedom of expressionMaciej NawackiPrime MinisterSejmConstitutionCriminal ChamberCOVID-19Regional Court in KrakówIustitiaEuropean Arrest Warrantreformdisciplinary liability for judgesOSCEWojciech HermelińskiVenice CommissionMaciej FerekcourtsEU budgetMałgorzata GersdorfMinistry of JusticeExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberKrystian MarkiewiczNCJJustice Fundcommission on Russian influenceTHEMISLGBTPiSStanisław PiotrowiczPresident of the Republic of PolandLaw and JusticeJarosław DudziczconditionalitycorruptionLabour and Social Security ChamberAleksander StepkowskiStanisław Biernatfreedom of assemblycriminal proceedingsreformsconditionality mechanismCouncil of EuropeWłodzimierz WróbelNational Public ProsecutorAnna DalkowskaParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeP 7/20Andrzej StępkaConstitutional Tribunal PresidentPiotr Gąciarekmedia independenceCivil ChamberReczkowicz and Others v. PolandMay 10 2020 electionssuspensionProfessional Liability ChamberPresident of PolandNational Reconstruction PlanLex DudaK 7/21Xero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandparliamentSenateChamber of Professional LiabilityPiotr PrusinowskiTVPabortionNext Generation EUMichał WawrykiewiczArticle 6 ECHRLex Super OmniamediaEAWKrzysztof Parchimowiczelectoral codeLech GarlickiSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationMarcin RomanowskiSLAPPDidier ReyndersEwa ŁętowskaAmsterdam District CourtdefamationUrsula von der LeyenOrdo IurisAndrzej ZollNational Electoral Commissionacting first president of the Supreme CourtFreedom HouseArticle 7PM Mateusz MorawieckiJustice Defence Committee – KOSJarosław Wyrembak2017policeSupreme Court PresidentaccountabilityMirosław WyrzykowskiMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław RymarFerdynand RymarzAndrzej Rzeplińskielectoral processJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSupreme Audit OfficeZiobroSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczOKO.presscourt presidentsWojciech MaczugaBohdan ZdziennickiMarek Zubikrestoration of the rule of lawJanusz Niemcewiczinsulting religious feelingsintimidation of dissentersvetotransferDariusz ZawistowskiOLAFViktor Orbanpublic mediaMaciej MiteraJózef IwulskiSzymon Szynkowski vel SękAndrzej MączyńskiMarek MazurkiewiczWojciech ŁączkowskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaStefan JaworskiAdam JamrózMirosław GranatKazimierz DziałochaTeresa Dębowska-Romanowskajudcial independencedemocratic backslidingJoanna Misztal-KoneckaInternational Criminal CourtK 6/21Astradsson v IcelandJakub IwaniecXero Flor v. PolandrecommendationKrakówUkrainePegasusdecommunizationJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraEdyta Barańskaright to fair trialCentral Anti-Corruption BureauLaw on the NCJsurveillanceMariusz Kamińskistate of emergencyBelarusAdam SynakiewiczKrystyna PawłowiczThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europepublic opinion pollmilestonesMarek PietruszyńskiMichał LaskowskireportMarzanna Piekarska-Drążeksmear campaignMariusz MuszyńskiDariusz DrajewiczMarian BanaśMaciej TaborowskiPaweł FilipekRafał PuchalskiKonrad WytrykowskiHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEtransparencylex NGOPiebiak gateZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczLGBT ideology free zoneselections integrityelections fairnessJarosław GowinPATFoxMarcin Warchołhuman rightsAdam TomczyńskiGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesFree CourtsEuropean Association of JudgesEuropean ParliamentPiotr PszczółkowskiEwa Wrzosek11 January March in Warsawcriminal codecourt changesBelgiumcivil societyDariusz Kornelukabuse of state resourcesBogdan ŚwięczkowskiRussiaSLAPPscoronavirusC-791/19EU law primacylexTuskNetherlandsretirement ageenvironmentE-mail scandalWiesław KozielewiczJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczMarek JaskulskiOsiatyński'a ArchiveGrzegorz FurmankiewiczWałęsa v. PolandinvestmentUS State DepartmentTomasz SzmydtEwa ŁąpińskaIvan MischenkoAndrzej SkowronAssessment ActKasta/AntykastaChamber of Professional ResponsibilityMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiThe Codification Committee of Civil LawEmilia SzmydtPaweł StyrnaZbigniew Łupinacivil partnershipsLech WałęsaKatarzyna Chmuract on the Protection of the PopulatioMałgorzata Wąsek-WiaderekJarosław MatrasPaulina AslanowiczKaczyńskiPutinismCourt of Appeal in Krakówsame-sex unionsRafał Wojciechowskicivil partnerships billKRSDobrochna Bach-GoleckaNational Broadcasting CouncilJudicial ReformsMarek Astelection fairnessKrystyna Morawa-Fryźlewiczlegislationstrategic investmentKatarzyna KotulaArkadiusz RadwanGeneral Court of the EUIrena BochniakStanisław Zdungag lawsuitsAntykastalex RaczkowskiAleksandra RutkowskaPiotr RaczkowskiŁukasz Bilińskithe Spy ActdisinformationRome Statutelex WośAct sanitising the judiciarypilot-judgmentJakub KwiecińskiKarolina MiklaszewskaPoznańDariusz BarskiLasotainsultKoan LenaertsAnti-SLAPP DirectiveKarol WeitzHater Scandaljustice system reformDonald TuskKaspryszyn v PolanddiscriminationNCR&DNCBiRright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawVěra JourováRafał LisakMałgorzata FroncJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiNational School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (KSSiP)Act on the Supreme CourtMarcin MatczakState Tribunaltest of independenceelectoral commissionsDariusz Dończykcodification commissionEuropean Court of HudelegationsAdam GendźwiłłWatchdog PolskaoppositionKrzysztof RączkaJoanna Scheuring-WielgusElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikSebastian MazurekThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFTomasz Koszewskicivil lawMarcin KrajewskiBohdan BieniekC‑718/21Zbigniew Kapińskipreliminary referencerepairing the rule of lawEU lawethicsDonald Tusk governmentAnna Głowacka#RecoveryFilesCourt of Appeal in Warsawmedia pluralismMichał Dworczykextraordinary commissionMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakRadosław BaszukJustice MinistryJustyna WydrzyńskaAction PlanNGOFull-Scale Election Observation MissionODIHRNational Council for the JudiciaryAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszPetros TovmasyanJerzy KwaśniewskiPiotr MazurekGrzegorz PudaHelsinki Foundation for Human RightsNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeJoanna KnobelCrimes of espionagePiotr HofmańskiDworczyk leaksEU valuesGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawPrzemysła RadzikElżbieta KarskaJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarnekhate speechhate crimesENCJIsraelforeign agents lawWojciech SadurskiOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationlegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited NationsSimpson judgmentAK judgmentOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsC-487/19Article 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieLeszek Mazurinfringment actionpopulismLIBE CommitteeFrans TimmermansUS Department of StateSwieczkowskiadvocate generalpress releaseRights and Values ProgrammeC-619/18defamatory statementsStanisław ZabłockiCouncil of the EUequal treatmentfundamental rightsCT PresidentEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justice2018Nations in TransitWorld Justice Project awardjudgePechKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote billresolution of 23 January 2020Leon Kieresrepressive actAct of 20 December 2019KochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakAmnesty Internationaltrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersPKWIpsosLux VeritatisMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykTVNjournalistslexTVNPolish mediaRzeszówborderPolish National FoundationEuropean Public Prosecutor's OfficeOlimpia Barańska-MałuszeHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr Burasauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258clientelismoligarchic systemprimacyEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawErnest BejdaJacek SasinSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej RutkiewiczMirosław Wróblewskiright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMichał WośMinistry of FinancePorozumienie dla PraworządnościEducation Ministerinterim measuresC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service Actmedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruCelmerGermanyautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingproteststhe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huSebastian KaletaC-156/21C-157/21Marek PiertuszyńskiNational Prosecutor’s OfficeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOlsztyn courtEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeForum shoppingTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióGazeta WyborczaPollitykaBrussels IRome IIArticle 2Przemysła Czarnek