President Andrzej Duda’s attack on Polish constitutional court

Share

Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland

More

On 3 July, the President of Poland Andrzej Duda visited Lwówek Śląski and gave a speech in which he criticized the activity of the Constitutional Tribunal, whose ruling from 2014 recognized the conformity of a gradual increase in the retirement age with the Polish Constitution.



In 2012, the previous government introduced an important pension system reform increasing the retirement age to 67 years for men and women. The constitutionality of this legal change was questioned by the Law and Justice (PiS) MPs, including Andrzej Duda, who lost the case.

 

President Andrzej Duda made the following comment:

 

“I have no doubt that the Constitution was also violated by the actions of the Constitutional Tribunal, when it ruled that increasing the retirement age of all Poles against their will is in accordance with the Constitution, because that’s what it ruled. Was the Tribunal acting in the name of Polish society and the Polish state? Or did it rule for some narrow ruling caste, aligned with that group’s interests at that time? I think that everyone can answer this question.”

 

The Constitutional Tribunal is responsible for resolving disputes on the constitutionality of statutory law. It also responds to constitutional complaints and adjudicates on disputes over the power of other constitutional bodies. The President, questioning the correctness of the Constitutional Tribunal’s decision, damage the credibility of an institution requiring public trust. President Duda’s statement triggered responses by former and current judges.

 

Stanisław Biernat, a former judge of the Supreme Administrative Court, the Constitutional Tribunal and a member of the panel of judges adjudicating on the matter of the retirement age stressed that he felt a moral duty to speak, and posed several questions to President Duda, including:

 

“How is the President entitled to state decisively, without any justification, that the Constitutional Tribunal’s judgment is inconsistent with the Constitution? Is it consistent with the position assigned to him by the Constitution?”

 

“Did the President read and rethink the justification of the judgment in Case K 43/12, numbering 98 pages, before deciding to offend the Tribunal, as well as the transcript of the hearing in which he was supposed to participate [as a member of parliament from PiS], numbering 143 pages?”

 

“Could the President explain his shocking accusation that the Tribunal did not act in the name of Polish society and the Polish state?”

 

Moreover, eleven former and current judges of the Constitutional Tribunal emphasized that the President’s speech “must meet with [their] firm protest and opposition”.

 

“It is unwise to suggest that the content of judgments of the judiciary should be determined after consultation, in an undefined manner, with citizens. Such a case would shift the activity of the judicial authorities from the sphere of settling what is just and right to the sphere of political decisions, inevitably influenced by politicians fighting for power in the state.”

 

In their statement, the representatives of the Constitutional Tribunal drew attention to the ethical importance of responsibility for their words, especially those spoken in public, and referred to the “immoderate criticism” that this institution and the judiciary in general have encountered in recent years.

 

“Discrediting the activities of the Tribunal, when it acted independently, violates the common good and undermines the foundations of the legal culture in society.”

 

“Judges [ruling in the verdict of 7 May 2014 on the increase to the retirement age], both advocating for resolution and submitting dissenting opinions, were guided by their assessment of compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland in accordance with their conscience, their own knowledge and life experience. We do not have knowledge of any other factors.”

 

President Duda’s words are one of many examples of undermining trust in Poland’s judicial institutions. So far, the important questions asked by Stanislaw Biernat remain unanswered.

 

[by Barbara Sip]



Author


Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland


More

Published

July 31, 2019

Tags

Supreme Courtdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawDisciplinary Chamberjudicial independencePolandEuropean CommissionjudgesCourt of Justice of the EUConstitutional TribunalZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the JudiciaryEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeAndrzej DudaIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemMinister of JusticeCommissioner for Human RightsMałgorzata Manowskapresidential electionsjudiciarypreliminary rulingsdemocracyJarosław Kaczyńskielections 2020Beata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsCJEUmuzzle lawHungaryEuropean Arrest WarrantAdam BodnarCOVID-19European Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary commissionerMateusz MorawieckiPresidentfreedom of expressionKamil ZaradkiewiczOSCENational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsProsecutor GeneralconditionalityConstitutionCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJcriminal lawNational ProsecutorelectionsMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsWaldemar Żurekmedia independenceAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczEAWmediaimmunityAnna DalkowskaCouncil of EuropePrime Minister2017freedom of assemblyJulia PrzyłębskaFreedom HouseExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberVenice CommissionSupreme Administrative CourtEU budgetPM Mateusz MorawieckiMinistry of JusticeC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionWojciech HermelińskiAndrzej ZollMarek SafjanGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesAleksander StepkowskiPresident of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesSejmMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramdefamationTHEMISMaciej NawackiTVPLex Super OmniaPaweł JuszczyszynBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan ŚwięczkowskiPiotr SchabPrzemysław Radzikdemocratic backslidingViktor OrbandecommunizationNext Generation EUvetopoliceJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJLech GarlickirecommendationHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeSupreme Court Presidentreportmedia freedomArticle 7European ParliamentZiobroconditionality mechanismWłodzimierz WróbelAndrzej StępkaMichał Laskowskihuman rightsEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawcoronavirusPiSresolution of 23 January 2020Stanisław PiotrowiczPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakLeon KieresPKWinfringment actionEU valuesENCJlex NGOcivil societyRussiaIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtPresident of the Republic of PolandLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechcriminal codeGrzęda v PolandXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawIustitiaKrystian MarkiewiczPrzemysła RadzikSenateMarcin WarchołElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekcourtsOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsC-487/19Article 6 ECHRArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieUrsula von der LeyenEwa WrzosekAK judgmentSimpson judgmentEU law primacyForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcasterAdam Tomczyńskimutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited Nationsjudcial independenceLeszek MazurMaciej Miterapopulisminterim measuresOLAFautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingequal treatmentabortionprotestsfundamental rightsthe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońCT PresidentGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUJustice Defence Committee – KOSC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeEUStanisław BiernatTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaWhite PaperKazimierz DziałochalustrationMirosław Granattransitional justiceAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiEwa ŁętowskaMarek MazurkiewiczAndrzej MączyńskiJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław Rymarpublic opinion pollFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiJerzy Stępień2018Piotr TulejaNations in TransitSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczCouncil of the EUMirosław WyrzykowskiBohdan ZdziennickiMarek Zubikmedia taxStanisław Zabłockiadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerDidier ReyndersKlubrádióSLAPPLIBE CommitteeStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationFrans TimmermansGazeta WyborczaOKO.pressUS Department of StatePollitykaBrussels IRome IISwieczkowskiArticle 2Forum shoppingadvocate generalDariusz ZawistowskitransparencyEuropean Economic and Social Committeepress releaseSebastian KaletaRights and Values ProgrammeC-156/21C-157/21C-619/18Marek Piertuszyńskidefamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardNational Prosecutor’s Officeintimidation of dissentersMarek PietruszyńskiWojciech SadurskiBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberjudgeTribunal of StatetransferPechKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakretirement ageAmnesty InternationalŁukasz PiebiakPiebiak gatetrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakJustice FundGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote bill