[ad_1]
The Constitution of the Republic of Poland states that this law sets the age limit of 65 when the judges retire. Can a retired judge always be the president of the court, the Supreme Court?
– Although I am not a lawyer, but if I consider this dispute – a non-legal and political dispute, it seems that in this political context it was a goodwill, which unfortunately has exhausted to prevent this dispute or to avoid it. If prof. Małgorzata Gersdorf would show her intention in the required time, she would have expressed her eagerness or statement so that after reaching the retirement age of 65 she would be able to decide and stay the first President of the Court supreme, the president would certainly remain. If prof. Gersdorf wants to focus on improving the image of the Supreme Court, if she wants to gain credibility with this court and perceive this body as an apolitical institution, she could have demonstrated a such good will. She would have won the fact that her term would not be finished. In the meantime, what we are talking about now is nothing more than an attempt to show objections to judicial reforms, and therefore an opposition to the current authorities.
Gersdorf, at a press conference, pointed out that the mandate of the president of the Supreme Court is not subject to discussion and statutory changes. Why is it useful?
– We are talking here about defending the status quo in the justice system, so it was as it was. I want to emphasize that Law and Justice is not the first group that is trying to reform the justice system as a whole. The predecessors have either resigned or resigned from the judiciary, while PiS seems to be determined to carry out this reform, but that it involves political costs and costs of image. We are also under internal pressure from total opposition, as well as from external bodies or institutions, such as the European Commission. These are also pressures motivated by the Platform or Moderns. It is therefore an attempt to stop the reforms, to try to serve those who want to regain power and, if possible, to implement this scenario, they can return to the status quo of their previous governments.
Is not that Gersdorf is in a bind, she does not know how to get out of this situation and therefore the legal struggle?
– The situation is very clear, according to the Supreme Court Act, which came into force on April 3 of this year, the day after the expiry of three months from that date, being the 4th July, the law was repealed by Supreme Court justices aged 65. And that's a fact. However, the assessment of the events we all witness is strongly influenced by the "political glasses". Well, the supporters of Platforma and Nowoczesna claim that the prof. Gersdorf was a good scenario, the implementation of which could thwart PiS plans, while supporters of the ruling party believe that this attitude is a manifestation of rebellion or even the introduction of anarchy. . In any case, it seems that everyone is awaiting the verdict of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg, which has been approached by the European Commission, and which will make a verdict in this case. Which is not to say, these are all scenarios to wait for the external institution to decide the case.
The coming into force of the Supreme Court Act is accompanied by anti-government protests, albeit less numerous. Was the fuel, that all the opposition poured into the tank, exhausted?
– Often it was an illusion, and this is due to the fact that groups of government opponents are very noisy in the media. and many street demonstrations. However, this is not true – as he tries to sell abroad, these changes, whether at the Constitutional Court or now in the judicial system, are met with great disapproval and numerous street protests. These protests, not only fewer and fewer, are not – as we try to do – so important to most of society. These issues are of interest only to people with liberal views, they also protest against the liberal elite associated with the Platform, which defends the status quo of this group of judges
The judges, some of whom are still from the PRL …
Exactly. Some of these judges ruled during martial law, pronouncing sentences against members of the opposition of solidarity. And today people still educated at the time of the PRL, who were in the service of the communist authorities, are still governing, and in addition, they have the power in the courts, occupying specific positions. That is why PiS pursues the main objective after coming to power, namely the exchange of at least some of these elites in such institutions. On the other hand, social protests – albeit noisy in the media – are dwindling more and more, which means that they are receiving less and less social support – also related to end-of-life celebrations. year – and that Poles think mostly from the point of view of their own portfolios. They take into account that under the unified rights rule, child poverty has been drastically reduced, prosocial programs also work well, and although the total opposition presents the PiS government as a time of crisis, the Poles live better today. On the other hand, the demonstrations of the end of democracy in Poland, dramatically described by the politicians of Platforma and Nowoczesna, are not visible. We can therefore say that the problem of prof. Gersdorf, who is strongly accentuated by these circles, is in fact his problem, but it is certainly not a problem for the Poles
How to comment on the participation in the last protests before the Supreme Court and not only the politicians of the total opposition? 19659002] – On the order of the Supreme Court, research related to the perception of the judiciary by the Poles have been conducted – the results of these investigations are alarming. Judges were perceived as politically involved and even more than half of the respondents said they belonged to political groups, although all citizens should know that judges should be apolitical. It turns out that the speeches of these judges do not serve to restore confidence in the judiciary. Of course, by participating in such demonstrations or demonstrations, these people (judges) are guided by good intentions, overinterpret the situation, but nevertheless, if PiS tried to reform the judicial system, it would be perceived differently and then, perhaps, , to avoid all this difficult political situation.
Lech Walesa, who came to picket the Supreme Court and said about the threat of civil war, if the judgments are still ruined, also adds to the fire. Is this a statement worthy of the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize?
– Lech Wałęsa is no longer a problem for organizers of this type of action that a person who helps the protesters. Of course, when you are known in the West, Walesa appears in the media, it's a matter of curiosity, but if someone takes a little trouble and deepens things, he will know the real intentions and will easily make an opinion on this subject. . However, with regard to domestic support in Poland for such events, Lech Wałęsa's statements undermine such actions. The effect is therefore counter-productive.
What can this dispute lead to the Supreme Court?
This dispute is difficult. This leads to the fact that part of the judiciary, although not entitled to do so, speaks of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the ruling party's activities. What's more, it removes the legitimacy of the PiS for changes in the judicial system, not much – it intends to operate in a parallel legal order. In turn, PiS can not afford more decisive moves and must wait this time and all these processes. This is probably the best scenario – wait for the demonstrations and show the EU institutions that there is not really a majority of Supreme Court justices, but only a few . It should be recalled that the statements concerning the desire to remain in the judge's position regarding the legal basis of the new law on the Supreme Court were submitted by nine judges. In turn, in seven subsequent declarations, the judges referred directly to the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and also did not include statements about their state of health. Declarations – in accordance with the regulations – will be the opinion of the National Council of the Judiciary, and then the President will make final decisions. There is also a group of 11 judges of the Supreme Court, including the first president, Małgorzata Gersdorf, who has not made such statements about the will to continue to take the judge's position and so they have been excluded . PiS argues that planned changes in the judicial system serve to reform, improve efficiency, and are not changes that only politically serve the current authorities. Which is not to say, a difficult scenario because it requires time, a lot of patience, also requires a cautious approach in a situation where, from the judicial environment, maybe not so much anarchy, but rather legal chaos, is getting ready. And with this PiS will have to do with it.
Thank you for the interview.
Source link
