Two members of the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs, considered not to meet the standards, will not deal with election protests. According to TVN24, a spokesman for this institution, Aleksander Stępkowski, he hinted that in the current legal environment there is no place to question the status of the Chamber.
As reported by TVN24 reporter, it's about judges Leszek Divine and Grzegorz Żmija.
Aleksander Stępkowski explained that he was striving to consider all submitted applications and to adopt a resolution by the Supreme Court regarding the validity of the election of the president, but he pointed out that Two judges regularly suspend the course of proceedings, which blocks further procedure. Asked about the appointment of these judges on the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU, the spokesman pointed out that the situation was more complicated than the critics of the Chamber's actions say.
He also argued that the legislator did not make any amendments to the provisions of the Supreme Court, so this institution must operate under the current regulations. According to him, it is unacceptable to refuse to apply the adopted law, even if some judges evaluate them critically. He also noted that ignoring the applicable regulations contradicts the mission of the judge performed in the highest instance.
At the same time, he assured that the Supreme Court intends to meet the date of consideration of all protests, because in his opinion the highest justice body is obliged to determine the correctness of the election of the President of Poland.
The judge comments
Judge Leszek Bosek quoted by TVN24 said that the decisions of the President of the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs on excluding from election proceedings may influence the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, similar to the effect attributed to the filling of warehouses according to a specific key.
Guided by the constitution and the current wording of the Act on the Supreme Court, Leszek Bosek recognizes that the above -mentioned ordinances They violate the applicable law. That is why the Supreme Court Disciplinary Ombudsman was informed about them.
In his opinion, regarding the exclusion of specific people from conducting some cases, one should ask the authors of the indications that refer to pushing judges about a different case -law.
He also emphasized that the rulings in the cases under consideration do not prejudge the position that the Supreme Court will take in full composition when making decisions on the validity of the election. He pointed out that judges omitted in the current assignment also participate in this process.
