If anyone else was imagining that the real intent of Tusk, Bodnar and all the remainder of this thalassy is to reconstruct the regulation of law in Poland, even if they realize it, the last legal performance of Dr hab. Adam Bodnar should dispel all doubts.
TUsk, seemingly frightened by the reaction of his increasingly shrinking electorate to the news of his signature on the decision of the president establishing a justice of the commissioner in the SN decided... to retreat the signature!
This, of course, has awakened any joy among the lawyers.
However, Adaś Bodnar, standing alongside the rice, found reason.
Well, he says it was the alleged self-control of the administrative body.
If a complaint is lodged, the authority which takes the decision may, under the law of the Administrative Courts, make a circumstantial adjustment to its decision.
Complaints have been filed. If the complaints concern the content of the administrative act, in this case the countersignature deposited by the Prime Minister, until this countersignature does not materialise, i.e. the selection process of the president of the civilian Chamber is not launched, an amendment may be made in accordance with Article 54 of the Law on proceedings before administrative courts.
As the Russians say in specified cases – Sowsiem fucked up’.
Well, the countersignature, or signature on the President's authoritative act, is not an administrative act!
It's just a message of will.
The above seemingly for the Minister of Justice and something else Adam Bodnar is simply a hermetic knowledge, although available to law students already in the mediate of the second semester of master's degree. possibly in the case of undergraduates it is the same.
The institution of countersignature of decisions of the head of state appeared in the Polish legal strategy with the adoption of the Constitution 3 May. It assumed the rule that all individual decisions of the King should be issued with the consent and signature of the Law Guard. The countersignate caused a transfer of work before the Sejm from the King to members of the government who granted specified a sanction.
Similar restrictions were imposed on the president of Poland by the March Constitution. Article 44(4) thereof provided that "Each act of the president of the Republic requires for its validity the signature of the Prime Minister and the Minister responsible, who, by signing the act, presume work for it". This regulation meant that all decision of the head of state had to be sanctioned by the signature of 2 members of the government, i.e. the Prime Minister and the Minister responsible. Through their countersignature, they assumed parliamentary work for presidential acts. In the light of the provisions of the March Constitution, the president of Poland did not exercise any powers independently.
This issue has been verified in the April Constitution. First of all, it is crucial to note the introduction by the April Constitution of the concept of an authoritative act known to us present as a form of sovereign action of the president of Poland. A akin to that presently in force is introduced a clear breakdown into authoritative acts requiring countersignatures and prerogatives of the head of state. It had a general rule that each authoritative act should be covered by a double countersignature of RM members. In this regard, the disposition of Article 14(1) of the April Constitution provided that "the authoritative acts of the president of the Republic require the signature of the Prime Minister and the Minister liable to be valid". However, on the another hand, the rule was introduced that the authoritative acts flowing from the prerogatives of the president of Poland do not require a countersignature.
(for: Constitution. Commentary, ed. prof. dr hab. Marek Safjan, dr hab. Leszek Bosek, 2016)
The same is actual now with the difference, however, that the countersignata is single. Only the Prime Minister's signature is required.
NThe President's decision is an administrative act. Therefore, the Provincial Administrative Court received from the Prime Minister's office sent a complaint to the President, and thus to the authority which issued the order so that he could respond in accordance with the procedure.
It seems that Tusk could only evade the effectiveness of the signature under the civilian Code.
However, that would be hard due to the fact that he would gotta show that either acted under duress (e.g. writing militias threatened to beat him), or was affected by a crucial error. It is surely not possible to invoke the fact that he is signing blind papers lying on his desk due to the fact that he has avoided the effects of a declaration of will.
ALet us presume for a minute that Bodnar is right and that Tusk's signature on the presidential act (the order) is besides an administrative act.
Thus, in the event of refusal to sign president Andrzej Duda could challenge Prime Minister Donald Tusk to the applicable Administrative Court then, in the event of a win, alternatively of a signature (so-called countersignature) Tuska to place the judgement signature.
This is the logical consequence of Bodnar's explanation as correct.
Of course, everyone realizes this is absurd.
If that's the case, let's get back to where we started thinking. There can only be 1 logical conclusion.
Bodnar's claim that the Prime Minister's countersignature on the presidential act is an administrative act is nonsense.
ALe... why is Bodnar doing this?
A man who, in December of last year, was considered an independent lawyer in a fewer months turned to the position of an adult causipera, willing to justify all iniquities of his master partially for money, and partially for deficiency of any moral principles.
In Bodnar's case, there's another crucial factor. Well, he thinks that anything he says will not be understood by 90% of the audience.
And those who can and should respond will not do so due to the most average opportunism. due to the fact that generally, lawyers don't like Law and Justice.
On the another hand, those who will be moved by Bodnar's next mockery will rapidly challenge themselves from the urinals or neo-judges.
But for the widest group of people who are shrinking, however, there is something else that counts. Well, Bodnar, in fact only a habilitated doctor (2019), is inactive called a professor, in specified a way as to make a belief in the recipients that he has the highest technological title in Poland.
This is simply described in the mid-19th century by German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer so-called. argumentum ad ad autctoritatem (argument to authority). Bodnar's technological position is simply to dazzle and bring humility to a possible opponent of supporters and to strengthen the belief that the Progressive and intelligent Polska has closed ranks against the Catholic darkland.
Who are you, bug? A journalist, and after political science, physics, or even after 5 years of fruitless first year like... rotational? You dare question the words of the prof. of law???
POn the another hand, Tusk had played the opposition before. Almost all-powerful Deputy Minister Rostowski was besides a ‘professor’, although in fact he reached the point of... Bacalarz (equivalent to Polish bachelor's).
This is the case, and it is not only in Poland that, according to popular opinion, highly educated people cannot be wrong.
Bodnar, then, is making more and more... quirks, and all he has to say is that he is nodding his head. Fear that specified an attitude will consequence in a reward for them in the form of any EU judicial work!
It's advanced time for an innocent orphan to scream Adaś is naked... ;)
10/11. 09 2024
