There is an investigation concerning Małgorzata Gersdorf. The results will not taste the PiS



[ad_1]

Most Poles think that prof. Małgorzata Gersdorf is expected to be the first President of the Supreme Court until 2020, exactly as the Constitution assumes – according to the SW Research poll.

The study was conducted on behalf of the portal rp.pl. The Poles were questioned on a question: "Should Professor Małgorzata Gersdorf be the first President of the Supreme Court until 2020?" The largest group of respondents (44%) answered "yes". 30% of respondents were of the opposite opinion. Opinions in this case did not rise to 26%

More often for the rest of the prof. Gersdorf on the job are men (47%), people over 50 (52%) and those with higher education (49%). Respondents are also net income from 2001 to PLN 3000 (55%) and respondents from cities from 100 to 199,000.

Recall that the confusion around Margaret Gersdorf lasts since the beginning of July, date of 39, entry into force of the new Court Regulation. supreme. They assume that SN judges, who are 65, are retiring. They can continue to perform their function if they submit a health certificate and ask the president, and he agrees.

There are 73 judges in the Supreme Court. 65 of them were graduated by 27 of them, including the first president of the SN Małgorzata Gersdorf. She stresses that her six-year term is guaranteed by her constitution. A similar consensus is the assembly of 63 Supreme Court justices, who recently passed that Gersdorf is responsible for this court by April 30, 2020.

Another party is the ruling party. The Chancellery of the Prime Minister has published on its website a statement regarding the state of retirement of Supreme Court judges. According to KPRM, prof. Gersdorf no longer covers the position of the first president of the Supreme Court. Also, President Paweł Mucha's minister announced on Tuesday that the first president of the SN was no longer performing his duties, even if she thought so.

See also: Amazing thesis on the protests in the Supreme Court. Editor's commentary

[ad_2]
Source link