Tag: K 3/21
Retired Constitutional Tribunal’s judges explain lies and misunderstandings regarding the K 3/21 decision
“We hope that it will contribute to the clarification of the false statements contained in the Constitutional Tribunal’s judgment of October 7, 2021 (K 3/21), its oral explanations, and statements of political authorities’ representatives regarding the coexistence of Polish and the European Union law.”
Statement of Deans of Law Faculties of Polish Universities regarding the Constitutional Tribunal’s conclusion of 7 October 2021 in case K3/21
“The conclusion of the Constitutional Tribunal was made in violation of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, with the participation of persons not authorised to adjudicate and in fact exceed the scope of cognition of the Constitutional Tribunal, which does not include the control of judicial decisions, including decisions of the Court of Justice of the EU. “
Why is the Decision of the Constitutional Tribunal such a Threat to the Rule of Law?
To understand why the 7 October 2021 decision of the Constitutional Tribunal is such a threat to the rule of law, it is necessary to review the arguments of the Polish government that prompted this decision, together with the arguments presented by the Commissioner for Human Rights in opposition that were rejected by the Tribunal. The conclusion from such a review is apparent – the goal of the current government is to free itself in reality from the constraints of EU law while formally remaining a Member State.
Statement of retired judges of the Constitutional Tribunal of 10 October 2021
“It is not true that the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 7 October 2021 was issued in order to guarantee primacy of the Constitution over EU law, as such a position of the Constitution has been sufficiently established in the Tribunal’s judgments to date”
Legal PolExit. Julia Przyłębska’s Constitutional Tribunal held that CJEU judgments are incompatible with the Constitution
The Constitutional Tribunal, headed by Julia Przyłębska, ruled that the CJEU’s interpretation of Articles 1 and 19 of the EU Treaty is incompatible with the Constitution. The Prime Minister used the Constitutional Tribunal to block judges from invoking CJEU judgments and to have a para-argument in the negotiations with the European Commission.
The president, prosecutor general, and Sejm support the PM’s motion to the Constitutional Tribunal that leads to legal PolExit
Ombudsman Adam Bodnar was defending Poland’s place in the legal order of the EU at the Tribunal. Meanwhile, the President, the Prosecutor General and the Sejm agree with Minister Morawiecki’s motion to the Constitutional Tribunal. The hearing was adjourned until Thursday 15 July at 1 p.m.
Judge Biernat: Prime Minister’s motion to the Constitutional Tribunal creates a false conflict between EU law and the Constitution
The Constitutional Tribunal will consider Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki’s motion to examine the constitutionality of the provisions of the EU Treaty on 13 July. ‘The applicant is acting in bad faith and creating a false conflict between EU law and the Constitution,’ explains Professor Stanisław Biernat. This is an interpretation of international law like that from imperial states, from Russia,’ considers Professor Jerzy Kranz.
On the PM Morawiecki motion to the Constitutional Tribunal regarding EU Treaties conformity with the Polish Constitution (case K 3/21)
The Prime Minister’s petition to the Constitutional Tribunal is supposed to legalize the changes in the courts. ‘This is PolExit from the EU legal order’, deputy Commissioner for Human Rights Dr. Hab. Maciej Taborowski warns.
E-mail scandal. Dworczyk discussed the timing of forthcoming judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal with Przyłębska
Judiciary in Poland: an ongoing decay of the rule of law
The unruly media of the authorities, namely editors Morawiecki and Dworczyk in the Karnowskis’ portal
Open Letter to the European Commission regarding Polish National Council of the Judiciary
E-mail scandal: ‘Some journalist should ask me about it’. How the government’s narrative about ‘anarchy’ in the judiciary was created