Constitutional Tribunal
Polish Government Moves To Limit Poland's Constitutional Tribunal
Classified Polnews
Warsaw, Poland 29 June, 2007 In its continuing battle with Poland's Constitutional Tribunal, the Polish Government has proposed legislation that will constrain the Tribunal and put the Chief Justice on a "short leash".
The Polish Government, frustrated by the Tribunal's recent ruling on the lustration law and Parliamentary banking investigating committee, has responded to the Tribunals demonstration of independence by proposing a law that will limit the Tribunal's ability to act similarly in the future. See Poland: Constitutional Tribunal Rules Against Polish Government
The law is very short and simple. But it places some very significant limitations on the Tribunal.
A provision shortens the term of the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Tribunal to a period of three years.
Under the current law the Chief Justice holds his position until his nine year term as a Justice on the Tribunal expires. The new law will limit his term to three years thus providing the President of Poland the opportunity to appoint a new Justice who would rule more to the President's liking.
Opposition politicians object to this saying that it places the Chief Justice on a "short leash".
The Justices of the Tribunal will also be empowered to vote the Chief Justice of office. That will allow politically appointed justices favorable to the current government to hand at the President the opportunity to appoint one of them to the new position.
And the discretion of the Tribunal to determine when to hear a case will be totally removed. The Tribunal will be required to hear cases and render rulings in the order in which the cases are presented to them.
This removal of discretion allows the government to pass a law that is patently unconstitutional and to be able to operate under that law without the interference of the constitutional tribunal for an extended time. The Tribunal will not be able to move the case to the head of the docket.
By way of analysis, in the matter of the lustration law that was ruled unconstitutional, it was only that it was put to the head of the Tribunal's docket that prevented it from taking effect and allowing to Government to act. Had it not been moved to the head of the docket, this grossly unconstitutional law would be in effect now and the Tribunal would not have had the opportunity to hear arguments and render a decision yet. The damage would already have been done.
Opposition party member Ryszard Kalisz (SLD), the lawyer that argued the case against the lustration law before the Constitutional Tribunal, said that the ruling Law And Justice party is passing legislation without the understanding that someday it may be in the opposition and such legislation may be used against its members.
Kalisz added that the person who drafted the new law is smart because as he, Kalisz, sees it, the law is constitutional.
If You Did Not Find What You Want Here, Use This Search Box
