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 CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional TribunalPolandjudgesdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroCourt of Justice of the EUNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionMałgorzata ManowskaAndrzej DudaCourt of JusticeIgor TuleyaEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary systemMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiMateusz MorawieckiCJEUmuzzle lawCommissioner for Human RightsNational Recovery PlanAdam BodnardemocracyWaldemar ŻurekPrzemysław Radzikcriminal lawpresidential electionselectionsKamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerPiotr Schabmedia freedomneo-judgeselections 2023judiciaryFirst President of the Supreme Courtpreliminary rulingsSupreme Administrative CourtHungaryelections 2020K 3/21Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaNational Council for JudiciaryharassmentJulia PrzyłębskaProsecutor GeneralprosecutorsŁukasz PiebiakMichał LasotaBeata MorawiecPaweł JuszczyszynCourt of Justice of the European UnionPrime MinisterPresidentConstitutionCOVID-19European Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiCriminal ChamberRegional Court in KrakówRecovery FundExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberEU budgetfreedom of expressiondisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanMałgorzata GersdorfSejmMaciej Ferekfreedom of assemblyconditionalityLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeJustice FundNational ProsecutorPiSStanisław PiotrowiczAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPresident of the Republic of PolandIustitiacourtsTHEMISimmunityAnna DalkowskaNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsStanisław Biernatconditionality mechanismWłodzimierz WróbelLabour and Social Security Chambercommission on Russian influence2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiNational Electoral CommissionJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsPresident of PolandLGBTXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. Polandmedia independenceKrystian MarkiewiczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczMichał WawrykiewiczArticle 6 ECHREAWUrsula von der LeyenTVPmediaLex Super OmniaLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationAndrzej StępkaPiotr GąciarekcorruptionP 7/20K 7/21Lex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanProfessional Liability ChambersuspensionparliamentJarosław DudziczChamber of Professional Liabilityelectoral codePiotr Prusinowskidemocratic backslidingdecommunizationLaw on the NCJrecommendationHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europepublic opinion pollreportEuropean ParliamentZiobrointimidation of dissenterstransferretirement agePiebiak gatehuman rightsEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawcoronavirusC-791/19Piotr PszczółkowskiGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaJarosław GowinLGBT ideology free zonescriminal codeSenateZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczMarcin WarchołdefamationFree CourtsEwa WrzosekEU law primacyAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej MiteraViktor OrbanOLAFNext Generation EUvetoabortionJózef IwulskiTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiMarek MazurkiewiczAndrzej MączyńskiJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław RymarFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskiBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersSLAPPOKO.pressDariusz ZawistowskiMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiMarian BanaśSupreme Audit OfficeAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyKrakówXero Flor v. PolandAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Civil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaPegasusMariusz KamińskisurveillanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraEdyta Barańskaright to fair trialUkraineKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecDariusz DrajewiczRafał Puchalskismear campaignmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentMarzanna Piekarska-Drążekelectoral processWojciech Maczugapublic medialexTuskcourt changeselections integrityelections fairnessabuse of state resourcesPATFoxpopulismequal treatmentfundamental rightsCT PresidentEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justice2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUStanisław ZabłockiLIBE CommitteeFrans TimmermansUS Department of StateSwieczkowskiadvocate generalpress releaseRights and Values ProgrammeC-619/18defamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardWojciech SadurskijudgePechKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakAmnesty Internationaltrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote billresolution of 23 January 2020Leon KieresPKWinfringment actionEU valuesENCJIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawPrzemysła RadzikElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsC-487/19Article 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentSimpson judgmentForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited NationsLeszek Mazurinterim measuresautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingproteststhe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europemedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióGazeta WyborczaPollitykaBrussels IRome IIArticle 2Forum shoppingtransparencyEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian KaletaC-156/21C-157/21Marek PiertuszyńskiNational Prosecutor’s OfficeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOlsztyn courtPrzemysła CzarnekEducation MinisterIpsosOlimpia Barańska-MałuszeHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr Burasauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258clientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's OfficePolish National FoundationLux VeritatisMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykTVNjournalistslexTVNPolish mediaRzeszówborderprimacyEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej RutkiewiczMirosław Wróblewskiright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMichał WośMinistry of FinanceJacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryMarek AstCourt of Appeal in KrakówPutinismKaczyńskiPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderekct on the Protection of the Populatiolegislationlex WośRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtAntykastaStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczKatarzyna ChmuraGrzegorz FurmankiewiczMarek JaskulskiJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaKasta/AntykastaAndrzej SkowronŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiEmilia SzmydtTomasz SzmydtE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał Dworczykmedia pluralism#RecoveryFilesrepairing the rule of lawBohdan BieniekMarcin KrajewskiMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsWiesław KozielewiczNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeGrzegorz PudaPiotr MazurekJerzy KwaśniewskiPetros Tovmasyancourt presidentsODIHRFull-Scale Election Observation MissionNGOKarolina MiklaszewskaRafał LisakMałgorzata FroncJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiSebastian MazurekElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikSzymon Szynkowski vel SękJoanna Scheuring-Wielgusinsulting religious feelingsoppositionAdam GendźwiłłDariusz Dończyktest of independenceTomasz KoszewskiJakub KwiecińskidiscriminationAct on the Supreme Courtelectoral commissionsEuropean Court of HuKrzysztof RączkaPoznańKoan LenaertsKarol WeitzKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiRThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFJustyna WydrzyńskaAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszJoanna KnobelCrimes of espionageextraordinary commissionZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaCourt of Appeal in WarsawOsiatyński'a ArchiveUS State DepartmentAssessment Actenvironmentinvestmentstrategic investmentgag lawsuitslex RaczkowskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActdisinformationNational Broadcasting Councilelection fairnessDobrochna Bach-GoleckaRafał WojciechowskiAleksandra RutkowskaGeneral Court of the EUArkadiusz RadwanLech WałęsaWałęsa v. Polandright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawpilot-judgmentDonald Tusk governmentSLAPPscivil lawRadosław Baszuk