SN LOVER Council: The judgments of the control room are defective

The Supreme Court Law Council in the resolution adopted on Friday once again called for the introduction of statutory changes restoring legal order in the Supreme Court. She added that all judgments of the SN Extraordinary Control Chamber are defective, including those that relate to presidential elections.

“The restoration of the rule of law in this building is moving away, but it is not yet wasted” – commented during the Friday press conference after the SN's meeting of the Supreme Court Council, its chairman Andrzej Kompa.

During this meeting – as announced – the Council was to deal with recommendations for SN lay judges in connection with the changed perspectives for restoring the rule of law in the Supreme Court, which is related to, among others with the decision of the presidential election. In these matters, the Council adopted two resolutions on Friday.

In the first resolution, the Lawnicza Council emphasized that “the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court is not a court within the meaning of the Polish Constitution.” “The Council again indicates that all the rulings and judgments of the above -mentioned Chamber of SN are defective, which also applies to the validity of the election, as well as other cases in this chamber of considered” – noted in the resolution.

“Although this does not naturally mean the inability to resolve elections, the results of which are given by the PKW, the current status quo deprives the Citizens of the Republic of Poland of part of their constitutional political rights in relation to elections. This resolution also applies to all past elections carried out in the current legal status” – read the content of the Computer Resolution.

The resolution also repeated the request “statutory changes restoring legal order in the Supreme Court.”

Another resolution of the bench council was directed directly to lay judges. “Taking into account the changes in political conditions in Poland, in particular resulting from the election of the new President of the Republic of Poland, the Council appeals to all Supreme Court lay judges so that they remain unmoved in their current defense of the Constitution and a democratic legal state in the Supreme Court” – this resolution read by the Computer.

It was added in this resolution that “in the current state of law there were absolutely no changes that would justify any change in our approach to the Chamber of Extraordinary and Public Affairs, as well as to the Chamber of Professional Responsibility.”

At the same time, the computer noted that the Council does not question the result of the presidential election in any way, because this is announced by the National Electoral Commission.

In the autumn of 2022, the Senate chose 30 years of the Supreme Court jurches for a four -year term from among 54 candidates. The candidates of the vast majority of the jurors selected at the time – 26 people – were submitted by the Democracy Defense Committee.

The vast majority of selected lay judges refuse to adjudicate or decide only in the warehouses with the so -called old judges, i.e. selected to the Supreme Court in the KRS procedure before 2018 and at the same time reports separate sentences to the judgments regarding objections to the two chambers of Supreme Court created after 2018.

A spokesman for the Supreme Court and the Judge of the Extraordinary Control Chamber Aleksander Stępkowski had already indicated that the activities of most lay judges should be assessed as extremely harmful to the entire justice system and for individual citizens. “The bench council of the current term consists of persons usually evading the performance of the juror's duties in the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs. Instead of properly performing the law provided by law, these persons are aiming at destabilizing the work of the SN.

And the president of the Supreme Court Małgorzata Manowska requested a total of a dozen or so lay judges to the Senate. The justification for the conclusions – as indicated in them – was, among others failure to comply with these lay judges by refusing to adjudicate in numerous judicial compositions of the Supreme Court. The Senate did not agree to dismiss any of the lay judges. (PAP)

MJA/ MRO/