This is 1 of the most crucial days for the Polish legal strategy and democracy in fresh years. At precisely 1:00 p.m., the historical gathering of the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the ultimate Court began to issue a resolution on the validity of the presidential election. There are not only close to 54,000 electoral protests on the table, but besides a fundamental dispute over the legality of the judges themselves ruling on the matter. lawyer General Adam Bodnar applied to exclude the full composition of the Chamber, arguing that it did not meet the criteria of an independent court. Prime Minister Donald Tusk announced that the ruling, regardless of its content, would be published with a peculiar endorsement on the legal position of the Chamber. The decision to be taken will have far-reaching consequences not only for the result of the elections, but besides for the full debate on the regulation of law in Poland.
Record number of protests. Did irregularities affect the outcome?
The scale of social opposition to the fresh presidential elections held on 18 May and 1 June is unprecedented. The ultimate Court received a immense number nearly 54,000 electoral protests. The citizens raised a number of objections, mainly concerning the organisation of the voting process, the counting of votes and the drafting of protocols by the electoral commissions. It is these papers that form the basis for establishing the authoritative result.
The ultimate Court, examining the incoming complaints, decided to merge most of them for a collective examination. In respective individual cases, the judges acknowledged the right of the protesters, confirming the existence of circumstantial irregularities. These were, among another things, mistakes in counting votes or mistakes in completing protocols. However, crucially, in the erstwhile decisions of the SN, it considered that the deficiencies identified were of a non-emergency nature and did not have adequate weight to influence the final result of the elections nationwide. Today's resolution is to be the final and comprehensive summary of the analysis of all the objections raised and to answer the key question: were the elections important?
A dispute over the legality of the judges. The lawyer General is vetoing
Parallel to the analysis of electoral protests, the fundamental legal dispute concerning the home of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs itself was raised first. It is this House, set up in the framework of the improvement of the judiciary carried out by the erstwhile government, that creates large controversy in the legal environment and among the European institutions. Its position has been challenged respective times by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights.
In this key debate, he stepped in with all his might. Attorney General Adam Bodnar. He made a formal request to exclude all judges in this Chamber from considering the validity of the elections. In his opinion, the current composition of the Extraordinary Control Chamber does not meet the constitutional and European criteria of an independent and impartial court. Bodnar requested that the case be referred to another non-controversial Chamber of the ultimate Court – the Chamber of Labour and Social Insurance.
A spokesperson for the lawyer General informed that if this proposal was not taken into account, Adam Bodnar would not present his authoritative position on the validity of the elections to the ultimate Court. This is an unprecedented movement, which aims to item fundamental doubts about the legitimacy of the Chamber itself to regulation on specified a vital constitutional matter.
The government is speaking. Tusk announces a judgement with a ‘valid endorsement’
The situation triggered an immediate consequence from the government. Prime Minister Donald Tusk, referring to the case, took a clear position. He stressed that neither the government nor the prosecution nor any another executive authority could decide the validity of the elections. As he stated, it is the sole competence of the ultimate Court. “Since the assessment that elections are crucial or irrelevant, there is simply a ultimate Court” – said the Prime Minister, at the same time criticizing the fact that the decision is taken by the home with specified a controversial status.
However, the Prime Minister has announced a solution that is to reconcile the legal work with reservations about the legality of the composition of the judge. The ultimate Court ruling, whatever its content, will be published in the authoritative diary of the Acts, but with attached peculiar note. It is to inform about the legal and systemic position of the home of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs and the reservations raised by the lawyer General. It is simply a signal that executive power, erstwhile publishing a document, is at the same time distancing itself from the basis of its release.
Donald Tusk besides added that where there are serious and legitimate doubts about the correctness of the vote counting, they will be recalculated. The decision is to be taken by experts and the lawyer General on the basis of an analysis of circumstantial protests.
What's next? Public sitting and live broadcast for all
To guarantee maximum transparency of the full process, The ultimate Court has decided to public nature of today's sitting. This means that any citizen afraid can keep track of it. A peculiar online broadcast was made available on the authoritative channels of the ultimate Court, allowing full insight into the arguments of the parties and the proceedings.
The decision to make will be crucial. If the ultimate Court determines the validity of the elections, it will formally end the election process, although the dispute over the legality of the Chamber itself will surely proceed and affect public debate. The possible, although unlikely, annulment of elections would mean a political earthquake and the request to repeat the vote. Regardless of the outcome, today's events in the ultimate Court will long be recorded in the past of the Polish judiciary and will be an crucial mention point in the discussion on the future of judicial reform.
Continued here:
The ultimate Court decides on the validity of the elections. Bodnar demands that the judges be excluded
