There were 51 senators in favor of the resolution – signed by KO, Left, PSL, Polland2050 and more than 30 independent senators – against 47, no one abstained. Marek Pęk (PiS) failed to reject the resolution.
During the debate, PIS senators argued that politicians who moved for a resolution and criticized the recent decision of the Constitutional Tribunal were compromising with the upper house and acting against the interests of the state. The KO senators said the resolution was made out of concern for the country’s future and membership of the European Union.
The resolution was drafted after a constitutional tribunal ruled on Thursday that European law, as far as EU institutions operate outside Polish jurisdiction, is unconstitutional. Contradictory to the Constitution is the European provision which allows national courts to disregard the provisions of the Constitution or to decide on the basis of repealed principles, as well as the provisions of the EU Agreement which allows national courts to review the legality of the appointment of a judge. Give the right to Through resolutions of the President and the National Judicial Council regarding the appointment of judges.
The resolution stated that “the Senate of the Republic of Poland recognizes the decision of the Constitutional Tribunal as contrary to the basic principles of the Polish Constitution and the requirements of the Polish Reason.” The Senate expressed concern that the ruling, issued by a ruling party-controlled tribunal, was a legal introduction to Poland’s secession from the European Union.
The Senate expressed the belief that the Constitution of Poland and the law of the European Union are not contradictory. “On the contrary, referring to the same values: freedom, individual dignity, social cohesion and the rule of law – they complement each other. Member, European law should be in our country.
The senators wrote that “non-acceptance of the decisions of the European Court of Justice means opening the way for Poland to exit the EU.” “Such a move, announced by some members of the ruling camp, is considered by the Senate to be clearly contradictory to Poland’s Resin de Atit,” he said.
“The current crisis in relations with the EU is only due to the efforts of politicians from the ruling groups, especially the leadership of the Ministry of Justice, independent courts and independent judges, including the Supreme Court. Control of political power. Pana is against both the Constitution and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
As the senators wrote, “Such a policy has already disturbed the police’s sense of economic and social security and has delayed the transfer of billions from the EU Reconstruction Fund to Poland.” As a result – as we read in the resolution – it could lead to a complete suspension of the payment of huge funds from the EU budget, including subsidies for farmers and funds for local governments.
“The Senate emphasizes that EU membership enhances Poland’s prosperity and security, and that it is in the interest of the citizens of the Republic of Poland to exercise the rights and freedoms enshrined in European treaties. Should be. Defended “- reads the resolution
“The Senate of the Republic of Poland has announced that it will safeguard the national interest, which is Poland’s continued presence in the European Union.”
During the Senate debate, Bogdan Klitschko (KO), citing the Constitutional Tribunal’s decision, accused the current authorities of “wanting to make the Polish judge a dependent judge, so that no one can control the activities.” Theft, introducing methods of political corruption and running the law illegally “
Klitschko said the constitutional tribunal’s decision “shuts down Polish judges” and prevents them from seeking the CJEU’s decisions. That is why, as a group of senators, we have moved a motion for a resolution of the Senate (…), a total attempt to undermine Poland’s compliance with European law. Clichy said that the authorities should be given an opportunity to question some of the decisions of the CJEU.
Marcin Bosaki (KO) said the draft resolution was drawn out of concern about Poland and the fate of EU membership.
Marek Pęk (PiS) argued that the decision of the Constitutional Tribunal was fundamental to emphasizing the sovereignty of the Polish state and regulating the relationship between European law and the Polish constitution. He further added that the decision of the Constitutional Tribunal was in line with the long line of decisions of the Constitutional Tribunal, even when the tribunal was headed by Merik Safjan.
Poke estimated that the authors of the resolution “once again defame the Senate of the Republic of Poland” and are angry with the petitioners’ actions.
Prime Minister Matteo Muraucci referred the petition to the Constitutional Tribunal following an EU court ruling in early March to discuss the possibility of correcting the process of appointing judges to the courts. As argued by the then Prime Minister’s Chancellery, the petition seeks a comprehensive resolution of the dispute between European law and the principles of the Constitution and the confirmation of previous jurisprudence in this regard.
The Prime Minister asked the Constitutional Tribunal to review the constitutional status of the three clauses of the EU Treaty. On the question of the importance of EU law and the constitutional status of the principle of sincere cooperation between the EU and its member states.
In addition to the difficulties that the Prime Minister wanted to overcome, ordering the National Authority to withdraw from the application of the Polish Constitution or to apply legal provisions contrary to it, as emphasized in the application, Such an understanding of the section “raises far-reaching and legitimate constitutional doubts, which are not subject to the control of the constitutional tribunal in the text of the treaties.” The Prime Minister also appealed against it. A standard of treaty in the sense that it gives or authorizes to enforce a clause which has lost its binding power in accordance with the decision of the Constitutional Tribunal.