The decision of the prosecutor’s prosecutor’s office was notified -In relation to the results of the special team of the prosecutor of the National Prosecutor’s Office, for the benefit of the completed public opinion between the rules of unified. It is related to the results to examine the remaining problems. 2016-2023 year.
Mid -January of this year. Partial reports on the audit of these years of the year were presented. The prosecutor team, established in the summer of last summer, has investigated 600 lawsuits. The first partial reports discovered covered those 200. A significant irregularity was found in a case conducted in 163. The report includes three procedures for non -issuing the ruling of the Constitutional Court.
As a spokesman of the Prince Public Prosecutor’s Office, prosecutor Norbert Antonni Woriskki was issued on June 24, 2016 and February 9, 2018 to refuse the start of the investigation, and February. The decision was issued on the 10th. In 2017, the procedure was decided.
A few years ago, the prosecutor’s last decision was reflected. In February 2017, the office of the Warsaw Plaga district prosecutor canceled the failure of public duty by public servants from March 9, 2016 to February 10, 2017. The Council of the Prime Minister, Prime Minister and employee of the Law Law, the CT decision of March 9, 2016, April 6, 2016, June 6, 2016 and August 11, 2016, and the CT decisions of the Prime Minister, Prime Minister and Employee of the Law Law Center. , And the action by the Minister of the Justice of Justice.
The survey was the result of the Warsaw Court’s decision that ordered a lawsuit in October 2016. Previously, the prosecutor’s bureau refused to start the survey -complaint by the Helsinki Human Rights Foundation in accordance with the lack of the ruling of the Constitutional Court, which led to political, political, economic, and imaginary damage. It was submitted.
Revision of the law in the Constitutional Court. Incident again under the prosecutor’s magnifying mirror
This litigation did not implication mainly of the Constitutional Court on March 9, 2016 -about the revision of the CT law by the PIS in December 2015 and the ruling of the Constitutional Court on August 11, 2016. -The decision on the new law on the Constitution Court by the PIS in July 2016. These decisions were passed when Andrzejrzepski was the President of the Constitutional Court.
On March 9, 2016, the Constitutional Court thought that the novel in December 2015 was unconstitutional. Defined the complete configuration of the Constitution as at least 13 judges. The majority of requirements of two -thirds of his votes for his judgment and an order to consider applying by the Constitutional Court in order of influence. The date to take into account the case of the Constitutional Court has been extended, and SEJM has introduced the possibility of discontinuing CT judge’s delegation.
On August 11, 2016, the Constitutional Court ruled that some of the new laws for Constitutional Court were unconstitutional. The possibility of blocking a complete configuration judgment by four judges for up to six months. A commitment of the President of the Constitutional Court, which allows three judges selected by SEJM (Henryk Cioch, Lech Morawski, Mariuszmuszyński). Exclude the ruling of the Constitutional Court on March 9 from the obligation to publish the issued ruling from March 9. The President of the Constitutional Court stipulates that he “instructs an application” to announce the ruling to the Prime Minister.
According to the information of 2017, the prosecutor stated that the suspension of these judgments was stated that the disclosure of these decisions was “the protection of the public interest and not allowed the introduction of decisions that contrary to legal order.” He reported that he was established. 。 “
“According to the public prosecutor’s opinion, act with such a motivation, supported by some reasons and opinions of the science community determined in the process of the survey described in the opinion attached to the file. It cannot be regarded as intentional, so it disassembles the laws that are prohibited by criminal law.
The audit results have been revealed. “The case is needed again”
It was released in mid -January this year. A report on the audit of the case from 2016 to 2023 indicated that the prosecutor’s evaluation was “incomplete and unilateral direction.”
“The conclusions must be taken into account as much option as possible, so the decision may not be survived, and the procedure should be done without disadvantages. You should think. ” January report.
As emphasized, it is necessary to re -analyze the case after conducting related procedures after conducting related procedures and the context of the actual status. Not published.
This survey is also covered in two similar cases completed a few years ago by refusing to start a lawsuit in relation to discussions related to the debate in the decision to be canceled in February 2017. 。
The subsequent dispute over the publication of the CT judgment was first partially completed on December 29, 2016. It was announced when the 15 unpublished rulings of the Constitutional Court were published in Journal of Laws, as stipulated by the law stipulated by the law. Law on the organization and procedure of litigation in front of the Constitutional Court, and the status of the Constitutional Court. However, regulations were not applied to the decisions related to normative acts that lost their power at that time.
Next, on June 5, 2018, thanks to the revision of the law, there were three more rulings of the 2016 Constitutional Court, and these decisions were issued in violation of regulations. At that time, CT decision on August 9, 2016, August 9, and November 7, 2016.
Stay regularly and become more than 200,000. Look at our fan page -comment on the article there, like an Interia event on Facebook!
Rusk with a CPK perspective: You can reach 60 million passengers a year/RMF FM/RMF
