DOCSLIB.ORG

Association of Polish Judges and “THEMIS” Association of Judges and the Cooperation Forum of Judges on the New National Council of the Judiciary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Association of Polish Judges and “THEMIS” Association of Judges and the Cooperation Forum of Judges on the New National Council of the Judiciary Position Position of the “Iustitia” Association of Polish Judges and “THEMIS” Association of Judges and the Cooperation Forum of Judges on the new National Council of the Judiciary The “Iustitia” Association of Polish Judges with the “THEMIS” Association of Judges and the Cooperation Forum of Judges, convinced about the common responsibility for the system of justice in Poland, hereby presents their position about the organ presently holding the function of the National Council of the Judiciary (hereinafter NCJ). The position encompasses three issues: - the election procedure of the new members of the NCJ; - the politicisation of the NCJ; - the execution of constitutional tasks of the NCJ; The aim of the comments below is, first and foremost, to present the most important problems related to the establishment and functioning of the new NCJ. The systemic issues related to the changes in the NCJ have been broadly presented in the response of “Iustitia” to the White Book on the reform of the Polish system of justice presented by the Polish government to the European Commission1. I. The election procedure of the new members of the NCJ There is no doubt that the election procedure of judges to the NCJ, introduced by means of the act of 8 December 2017 on the amendments to the National Council of the Judiciary and some other acts, is in violation of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. This is the opinion that has been voiced by association of judges, self-government authorities of judges nationwide, the NCJ in its previous composition, as well as the most prominent figures in the legal profession in Poland. 1. The termination of the term in office of the members of the NCJ 1 https://www.iustitia.pl/images/pliki/odpowiedz_na_biala_ksiege_pl.pdf;​ https://www.iustitia.pl/images/pliki/kompedium_pl.pdf;​ https://twojsad.pl/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/WP-response.pdf Pursuant to Art 187(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, the term in office of elected members of the NCJ is four years. The act of 8 December 2017, by means of regulation contained in Art 6, has shortened the term in office of members of the NCJ elected from among judges. Based on this regulation, on 6 March 2018, the Sejm elected 15 judges to the NCJ. The actual election was in the hands of the governing party, i.e. Law and Justice (9 recommended members), as well as the Kukiz 15 parliamentary club (6 recommended members). The terms in office of judges – members of the NCJ, elected by the self-government organs of judges pursuant to the law in force at a time of their election, were to end on the following dates: - 28.01.2018 r. - 1 judge (Piotr Raczkowski) - 21.03.2018 r. - 5 judges (Andrzej Adamczuk, Maria Motylska-Kucharczyk, Sławomir Pałka, Janusz Zimny, Waldemar Żurek) - 22.03.2018 r. - 2 judges (Andrzej Niedużak, Gabriela Ott) - 24.03.2018 r. - 2 judges (Katarzyna Gonera, Dariusz Zawistowski) - 16.05.2018 r. - 1 judge (Janusz Drachal) - 29.06.2018 r. - 1 (Jan Kremer) - 11.01.2020 r. - 1 (Jan Grzęda) - 20.03.2020 r. - 1 (Krzysztof Wojtaszek) The first session of the new NCJ took place on 27 April 2018. Judge Leszek Mazur was elected President of the NCJ. Before (on 6 March 2018), the First President of the Supreme Court, judge Małgorzata Gersdorf, resigned from the function of the President of NCJ. The term in office of at least 4 members of the NCJ was, therefore, terminated before the due date (Janusz​ Drachal, Jan Kremer, Jan Grzęda, Krzysztof Wojtaszek). The assessment is not changed by the ruling of the Constitutional Court of 20 June 2017, K 5/17. In response to the ruling, the Presidium of the NCJ noted, with satisfaction, that the composition of the Court shared the view of the NCJ about the constitutionality of the previously binding model of electing NCJ members from among judges and by judges themselves. The composition of the Constitutional Court only questioned the limitation of the passive electoral right of some of the judges of common courts, the limitation of active electoral rights of judges of regional administrative courts (these problems, therefore, do not refer to the judges of the Supreme Court of military courts), as well as the mutual relations of the tenures of the elected NCJ members. The NCJ Presidium also noted that the adjudicating panel who issued the ruling, was composed of persons elected to the Constitutional Court by the Sejm of the present term, to positions which had already been occupied by elected Constitutional Court judges, as was established in the Court’s decision of 3 December 2015, K 34/15 (the so called “judges – doubles”). It should be underlined that the problem of there being no proper representation of the different tiers and divisions of the judiciary has intensified. Whilst previously the NCJ suffered from the deficit of judges adjudicating in district courts (in the years 2014 – 2018 there was only one such judge in the Council), in the present NCJ there is not a single judge representing a court of appeals of the Supreme Court (elected), there is one judge from a regional court and thirteen from district courts. 2. Non-transparency of the procedure of submitting candidatures to the NCJ The mode of proposing candidatures from among judges to the position of NCJ members was completely non-transparent. In line with the initial version of the presidential draft bill (finally adopted on 8 December 2017), the Speaker of the Sejm was obliged to immediately present to the members of the parliament and inform the public opinion of all the documents submitted by judges seeking membership in the NCJ, including letters of recommendation. Each candidate was to obtain the recommendation of at least either 25 judges or 2000 citizens. However, in the last moment during the session of the parliamentary Commission for Justice and Human Rights, an amendment was introduced that the Speaker of the Sejm was to publish the document attached to the applications of the candidates but “with the exclusion of attachments”. In effect, when the Civic Development Forum, pursuant to the law on the access to public information, approached the Minister of Justice for these letters of support, it received a Xerox copy of a document with empty spaces instead of names of the persons who had recommended candidates. The public opinion was deprived of the possibility to verify whether the candidates had met the formal conditions at all. It is impossible to check whether the candidates have actually – as the new NCJ claims – received support in their courts, or whether they did not recommend each other or did get support from the judges seconded to work at the Ministry of Justice, of whom there are now approximately 160 and who hold there administrative positions, thus being subordinate to the Minister of Justice. On 12 July 2018, the Regional Administrative Court in Warsaw repealed the decision of the Chancellery of the Sejm in which it refused to present the attachment to the applications of the judge candidates to the NCJ. Among these attachments were lists of judges recommending the candidates to the NCJ. The judgement is not binding, the Chancellery of the Sejm has the right of appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court2. It is not hard to imagine a future situation where the new NCJ issues a recommendation to a position in a court of higher instance for a judge whose only “virtue” will be the fact that in the past this judge supported the candidates for the NCJ; in such a situation the public will not be able to know the real motives behind the NCJ’s decision. Interestingly, the new NCJ has voiced a negative opinion about making the lists of names in support of the candidates to the NCJ public on grounds that the judges, whose names are on these lists, may be met with repressions3. Apart from the absolute lack of transparency of the electoral procedure to the new NCJ, there are also other doubts as to the correctness of how it has been performed: - in the case of Maciej Nawacki, some of the judges who had recommended him withdrew their support before the candidature was submitted to the Speaker of the Sejm; Maciej Nawacki presented a list with 28 signatures from judges, a number of whom have, in the meantime, withdrawn their recommendation. It is, therefore, doubtful, whether in this situation the candidature was submitted correctly; - the claim that 90% of candidates received support in their court district is non-verifiable and has generated very serious doubts, if only in light of the resolutions of the organs of the self-governing bodies of judges (e.g. resolutions of judges of the Regional Court and Court of Appeals in Krakow about Paweł Styrna and Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woicka, in whose cases it was indicated that the two were not representatives of the community of judges4; as well as resolution of the Assembly of the Representatives of Judges of the Regional Court in Warsaw, which expressed 2 http://bip.warszawa.wsa.gov.pl/661/783/komunikat-w-sprawie-skargi-na-decyzje-szefa-kancelarii-sejmu-r p-odmawiajaca-udostepnienia-zalacznikow-do-zgloszen-kandydatow-na-czlonkow-krs.html 3 See opinion of the NCJ of 11.05.2018 r., No. WO 020-28/18, druk sejmowy nr 2355. 4 The last paragraph of the Resolution No. 1 of the Meeting of Judges of the Regional Court in Kraków, of 24 May 2018. no acceptance for the candidates to the NCJ, and in particular in reference to judges running for the position from the Warsaw region, i.e.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Justice Under Pressure – Repressions As a Means of Attempting to Take Control Over the Judiciary and the Prosecution in Poland
    IUSTITIA RAPORTY Justice under pressure – repressions as a means of attempting to take control over the judiciary and the prosecution in Poland. Years 2015–2019 Edited by Jakub Kościerzyński Prepared by: sędzia SA Michał Bober sędzia SO Piotr Gąciarek sędzia SR Joanna Jurkiewicz sędzia SR Jakub Kościerzyński prokurator PR Mariusz Krasoń sędzia SR Dorota Zabłudowska Th e report was drawn up by judges from the Polish Judges’ Association “Iustitia” and by a prosecutor from the “Lex Super Omnia” Association of Prosecutors. “Iustitia” is the largest association of judges in Poland. It is fully independent, apolitical and self-governing, with over 3500 members, which is over 1/3 of the total number of judges. Our main mission is to defend the principles of a democratic state of law: freedom, rights and civil liberties, which are the cornerstone of democratic Poland. We are active in many fi elds not only throughout Poland but also in the international arena as a member of international associations of judges (IAJ, EAJ, MEDEL). “Lex Super Omnia” is fully independent, apolitical and self-governing. It brings together more than 200 prosecutors. Th e main goal of the association is to strive for establishing an independent prosecution, the position of which is defi ned in the Polish Constitution. ISBN: 978-83-920641-8-3 Spis treści Introduction ................................................................................................................. 7 Part I. Judges ............................................................................................................... 9 Chapter I. List of judges against whom the disciplinary prosecutor of common courts, judge Piotr Schab and his deputies, judges: Michał Lasota and Przemysław W. Radzik, have launched investigations or initiated disciplinary proceedings in connection with judicial and extrajudicial activities.
    [Show full text]
  • POLAND: Duda's Victory Paves the Way for Pis Rule Until 2023
    Europe | July 13, 2020 POLAND: Duda’s victory paves the way for PiS rule until 2023 According to preliminary data from the National Electoral Commission (PKW), incumbent President Andrzej Duda – supported by the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party – narrowly won the second round of the presidential election held on 12 July. With nearly all ballots counted, Duda secured 51.2% of votes, leaving his opponent Rafal Trzaskowski (Civic Platform, PO) behind with 48.8%. The fiercely contested presidential race attracted a nearly record turnout of 68.1%. The PKW is expected to announce the official results within few days. Trzaskowski has not accepted defeat yet and could still challenge the result in courts, although this appears unlikely. An extremely divisive electoral campaign and a tight result reveal the deep polarization of Poland’s society. Exit polls show that Duda was predominantly supported by farmers, senior citizens, blue-collar workers, and the unemployed based in smaller towns and villages in the eastern parts of the country. Meanwhile, Trzaskowski performed well among students and entrepreneurs, as well as highly-qualified professionals. He is also much more popular in large cities and the western parts of the country. Duda’s re-election is a major win for the ruling PiS, which is now relatively well-positioned to continue carrying out its policy agenda until the parliamentary election in the autumn of 2023. In terms of the government’s policy priorities going forward, justice minister Zbigniew Ziobro (United Poland) has highlighted that it would further reform state institutions – including the judiciary – and continue implementing its generous social policies.
    [Show full text]
  • DOSSIER Serwisy Analityczne
    Co zmieni rząd Morawieckiego? DOSSIER Serwisy analityczne. Dowiedz się więcej przed innymi. PI Finance PI Energy Jedyny w Polsce serwis analityczny Codzienny serwis Codzienny serwis dla profesjonalistów sektora dla profesjonalistów sektora dla liderów biznesu, polityki finansowego oraz doradców energetycznego oraz doradców i dyplomacji. i prawników obsługujących i prawników obsługujących branżę. branżę. ZAMÓW DOSTĘP PRÓBNY ZAMÓW DOSTĘP PRÓBNY ZAMÓW DOSTĘP PRÓBNY Zapraszamy do kontaktu: Dagmara Bochyńska [email protected] Zapraszamy do kontaktu: Dagmara Bochyńska [email protected] manager ds. sprzedaży +48 691 916 986 manager ds. sprzedaży +48 691 916 986 STRATEGIA Rekonstrukcja ma pchnąć PiS ku centrum Jarosław Kaczyński poprzez rekonstrukcję zaczął przygotowania do wyborów parlamentarnych. Celem jest uzyskanie przez PiS większości konstytucyjnej. PiS zrzuca balast i idzie po centrum. Rekonstrukcja na szczeblu ministrów domyka prze- Wojciech Szacki budowę rządu, którą zapoczątkowała nominacja Mateusza Morawieckiego. Wspólnym starszy analityk ds. politycznych mianownikiem większości nominacji jest dążenie do demobilizacji opozycji i próba zdoby- cia wyborców o umiarkowanych poglądach, niezdecydowanych i słabiej zorientowanych w polityce. Dlatego Jarosław Kaczyński pozbył się z rządu ministrów będących największym obciążeniem politycznym i wizerunkowym: Antoniego Macierewicza, Jana Szyszki, Witolda Waszczykowskiego i Konstantego Radziwiłła. To oni byli najłatwiejszym celem dla opozycji. Ich następcy - poza MinObr
    [Show full text]
  • 11 Marca 2016 R
    Sejm Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej Kadencja VIII Sprawozdanie Stenograficzne z 13. posiedzenia Sejmu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej w dniu 11 marca 2016 r. (trzeci dzień obrad) Warszawa 2016 SPIS TREŚCI 13. posiedzenie Sejmu (Obrady w dniu 11 marca 2016 r.) Wznowienie posiedzenia Poseł Sprawozdawca Wiesław Janczyk. 204 Komunikaty Głosowanie Sekretarz Poseł Daniel Milewski . 201 Marszałek. 205 Zmiana porządku dziennego Punkt 9. porządku dziennego: Sprawozda- Marszałek. 201 nie Komisji Finansów Publicznych oraz Punkt 7. porządku dziennego: Sprawozda- Komisji Spraw Zagranicznych nie Komisji Kultury i Środków Przeka- o rządowym projekcie ustawy o ratyfi- zu o poselskim projekcie uchwały kacji Umowy o utworzeniu Azjatyckie- w sprawie uczczenia pamięci Jam go Banku Inwestycji Infrastruktural- Saheba Digvijay Sinhji (cd.) nych, sporządzonej w Pekinie dnia Głosowanie 29 czerwca 2015 r. (cd.) Marszałek. 201 Głosowanie Sprawy formalne Marszałek. 205 Poseł Krzysztof Brejza. 201 Punkt 13. porządku dziennego: Sprawo- Poseł Jerzy Meysztowicz . 202 zdanie Komisji Nadzwyczajnej o rządo- Punkt 6. porządku dziennego: Sprawo- wym projekcie ustawy o zmianie ustawy zdanie Komisji Kultury i Środków Kodeks postępowania karnego oraz Przekazu o poselskim projekcie niektórych innych ustaw (cd.) uchwały w sprawie uczczenia setnej Poseł Sprawozdawca Andrzej Matusiewicz. .205 rocznicy urodzin Marii Mireckiej-Loryś Głosowanie – niezłomnej bohaterki niepodległego Marszałek. 206 państwa polskiego (cd.) Poseł Mirosław Pampuch . 206 Poseł Robert Winnicki . 202 Poseł Arkadiusz Myrcha . 206 Marszałek. 203 Minister Sprawiedliwości Prokurator Generalny Punkt 3. porządku dziennego: Sprawozda- Zbigniew Ziobro. .206 nie Komisji Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi Poseł Arkadiusz Myrcha . 207 o rządowym projekcie ustawy o zmia- Poseł Witold Zembaczyński. 207 nie ustawy o systemie identyfikacji Minister Sprawiedliwości Prokurator Generalny i rejestracji zwierząt (cd.) Zbigniew Ziobro. .208 Głosowanie Poseł Zbigniew Gryglas .
    [Show full text]
  • Komunikatzbadań NR 111/2017
    KOMUNIKATzBADAŃ NR 111/2017 ISSN 2353-5822 Zaufanie do polityków u progu nowego sezonu politycznego Przedruk i rozpowszechnianie tej publikacji w całości dozwolone wyłącznie za zgodą CBOS. Wykorzystanie fragmentów oraz danych empirycznych wymaga podania źródła Warszawa, wrzesień 2017 Fundacja Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej ul. Świętojerska 5/7, 00-236 Warszawa e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] http://www.cbos.pl (48 22) 629 35 69 ZAUFANIE DO POLITYKÓW U PROGU NOWEGO SEZONU POLITYCZNEGO % Andrzej Duda 71 9 18 1 Beata Szydło 56 11 31 1 Paweł Kukiz 51 20 20 3 6 Mateusz Morawiecki 43 15 17 4 21 Zbigniewa Ziobro 42 14 40 3 2 Elżbieta Rafalska 37 12 16 3 32 Mariusz Błaszczak 37 15 31 3 15 Jarosław Kaczyński 37 11 50 2 Jarosław Gowin 34 23 25 4 14 Witold Waszczykowski 29 14 29 3 25 Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz 28 18 13 4 36 Antoni Macierewicz 28 11 55 3 3 Patryk Jaki 27 13 22 3 36 Anna Zalewska 26 13 25 4 33 Piotr Gliński 25 17 18 5 35 Marek Kuchciński 25 15 25 4 32 Ryszard Petru 23 18 47 3 10 Grzegorz Schetyna 23 19 51 3 5 Stanisław Karczewski 22 14 15 4 46 Borys Budka 21 14 24 3 39 Kamila Gasiuk-Pihowicz 20 9 14 2 54 Jan Szyszko 19 12 37 3 29 Włodzimierz Czarzasty 15 20 21 4 40 Zaufanie Obojętność Nieufność Trudno powiedzieć / Nieznajomość Odmowa odpowiedzi Badanie „Aktualne problemy i wydarzenia” (327) przeprowadzono metodą wywiadów bezpośrednich (face-to-face) wspomaganych komputerowo (CAPI) w dniach 17–24 sierpnia 2017 roku na liczącej 1009 osób reprezentatywnej próbie losowej dorosłych mieszkańców Polski.
    [Show full text]
  • Druk Nr 2393 Warszawa, 6 Stycznia 2004 R
    Druk nr 2393 Warszawa, 6 stycznia 2004 r. SEJM RZECZYPOSPOLITEJ POLSKIEJ IV kadencja Pan Marek Borowski Marszałek Sejmu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej Na podstawie art. 118 ust. 1 Konstytucji Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z dnia 2 kwietnia 1997 r. i na podstawie art. 32 ust. 2 regulaminu Sejmu niżej podpisani posłowie wnoszą projekt ustawy: - o zmianie ustawy o ubezpieczeniach obowiązkowych, Ubezpieczeniowym Funduszu Gwarancyjnym i Polskim Biurze Ubezpieczycieli Komunikacyj- nych. Do reprezentowania wnioskodawców w pracach nad projektem ustawy upoważniamy pana posła Kazimierza Marcinkiewicza. (-) Adam Bielan; (-) Andrzej Diakonow; (-) Ludwik Dorn; (-) Jacek Falfus; (-) Szymon Giżyński; (-) Przemysław Gosiewski; (-) Wojciech Jasiński; (-) Marek Jurek; (-) Elżbieta Kruk; (-) Marek Kuchciński; (-) Marcin Libicki; (-) Adam Lipiński; (-) Andrzej Liss; (-) Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz; (-) Barbara Marianowska; (-) Maria Nowak; (-) Marian Piłka; (-) Paweł Poncyljusz; (-) Jacek Sauk; (-) Małgorzata Stryjska; (-) Marek Suski; (-) Wojciech Szarama; (-) Aleksander Szczygło; (-) Bartłomiej Szrajber; (-) Kazimierz Michał Ujazdowski; (-) Wiesław Walendziak; (-) Zbigniew Wassermann; (-) Zbigniew Ziobro. Projekt USTAWA z dnia ............... 2004 r. o zmianie ustawy o ubezpieczeniach obowiązkowych, Ubezpieczeniowym Funduszu Gwarancyjnym i Polskim Biurze Ubezpieczycieli Komunikacyjnych Art. l. W ustawie z dnia 22 maja 2003 r. o zmianie ustawy o ubezpieczeniach obowiązkowych, Ubezpieczeniowym Funduszu Gwarancyjnym i Polskim Biurze Ubezpieczycieli Komunikacyjnych (Dz.U.
    [Show full text]
  • Where the Law Ends
    ideaForum Where the law ends The collapse of the rule of law in Poland – and what to do “Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law.” (Article 47, EU Charter on Fundamental Rights) Berlin – Warsaw 29 May 2018 ii Executive Summary No member state of the EU has ever gone as far in subjugating its courts to executive control as the current Polish government has done. The Polish case is a test whether it is possible to create a Soviet-style justice system, where the control of courts, prosecutors and judges lies with the executive and a single party, in an EU member state. In December 2017 the Commission proposed to the EU Council to determine that there was “a clear risk of a serious breach by the Republic of Poland of the rule of law.” It warned that in Poland the constitutionality of laws “can no longer be verified and guaranteed by an independent constitutional tribunal.” It expressed “grave concerns” over the lack of independent courts. In March 2018 an Irish High Court judge noted a “deliberate, calculated and provocative legislative dismantling by Poland of the independence of the judiciary, a key component of the rule of law.” She argued, in an extradition case involving a Polish suspect, that “the rule of law in Poland has been systematically damaged by the cumulative impact of all the legislative changes that have taken place over the last two years.” Things are about to get even worse.
    [Show full text]
  • Polish Judiciary in the Shadow of the 'Muzzle Law'
    Polish judiciary in the shadow of the ‘muzzle law’ prepared by Dariusz Mazur, spokesperson of the association of judges “Themis” updated for 3 December 2020 I. Introduction. In a ground breaking judgment of 19 November 2019, the ECJ agreed with the reservations of the Polish Supreme Court (SC) included in its request for preliminary ruling that the Polish new National Council of the Judiciary (neo-NCJ) and the Disciplinary Chamber of the SC may not satisfy the requirement of independence under EU law. The ECJ has simultaneously authorized Polish SC to determine whether judges appointed with the participation of the neo-NCJ are judges within the meaning of EU law and provided clear criteria according to which they are to assess the independence of these bodies. Following the guidelines contained in the ECJ judgment of 19 November 2019 Polish SC: - in its judgment of 5 December 2019 assessed that the Disciplinary Chamber is not a court both under Polish constitution and the EU law, - in the Resolution of Joined Chambers of 23 January 2020 decided that rulings of ordinary courts would not be automatically squashed, but examined at the party’s request by the appeal courts which would apply independence test in respect of judges of first instance appointed with participation of neo-NCJ. II. “The muzzle law” as the crowning achievement of the government's actions intended to politically subordinate the judiciary The muzzle law which entered into force on 14 Feb 2020 constituted the legislative response of the Polish government to the ECJ ruling of 19 Nov 2019: - introduced new types of disciplinary torts for judges (questioning the legal status of the neo NCJ, judges appointed with its participation or other constitutional bodies became a serious disciplinary offence, punishable by expulsion from the profession.
    [Show full text]
  • Minister Srodowiska
    Warszawa Z015 _03. 0 2 MINISTER SRODOWISKA DP-II.0230.24.2016.MT Wg rozdzielnika Działając na podstawie postanowień uchwały Nr 190 Rady Ministrów z dnia 29 pażdziernika 2013 r. — Regulamin Pracy Rady Ministrów (M.P. poz. 979) uprzejmie informuj ę, że na stronie internetowej Ministerstwa Środowiska pod adresem: htt,s://bi • mos ov.ill)rawo/ ro .ekt «bwieszczen/ został zamieszczony projekt obwieszczenia Ministra Środowiska w sprawie stawek opłat na rok 2017 z zakresu przepisów Prawa geologicznego i górniczego wraz z uzasadnieniem. Uprzejmie proszę o zgłoszenie ewentualnych uwag do ww. projektu w terminie 10 dni od dnia otrzymania niniejszego pisma. Ewentualne uwagi prosz ę przekazywać również drogą elektroniczn ą na adres: [email protected] . Jednocze śnie uprzejmie informuj ę, że brak odpowiedzi w ww. terminie pozwol ę sobie potraktować jako uzgodnienie projektu. z up. xd'f.I~l r.. y. i: [°/;. GLORrN å r Prof Otrzymuj ą: dr h •lu sz - O rio W; yxek 1. Pan Piotr Gliński Wicepremier, Minister Kultury i Dziedzictwa Narodowego 2. Pan Jarosław Gowin Wicepremier, Minister Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wy ższego 3. Pan Mateusz Morawiecki Wicepremier, Minister Rozwoju 4. Pan Andrzej Adamczyk Minister Infrastruktury i Budownictwa 5. Pan Witold Bańka Minister Sportu i Turystyki 6. Pan Mariusz Błaszczak Minister Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji 7. Pan Marek Gróbarczyk Minister Gospodarki Morskiej i Żeglugi Śródlądowej 8. Pan Dawid Jackiewicz Minister Skarbu Państwa 9. Pan Krzysztof Jurgiel Minister Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi 10.Pan Antoni Macierewicz Minister Obrony Narodowej 11.Pan Konstanty Radziwiłł Minister Zdrowia 12.Pani Elżbieta Rafalska Minister Rodziny, Pracy i Polityki Społecznej 13.Pani Anna Streżyńska Minister Cyfryzacj i 14.Pan Paweł Szałamacha Minister Finansów 15.Pan Krzysztof Tchórzewski Minister Energii 16.Pan Witold Waszczykowski Minister Spraw Zagranicznych 17.Pani Anna Zalewska Minister Edukacj i Narodowej 18.Pan Zbigniew Ziobro Minister Sprawiedliwości 19.Pan Mariusz Kamiński Minister — Czlonek Rady Ministrów, Koordynator ds.
    [Show full text]
  • WYDARZENIA POWIATU BĘDZIŃSKIEGO N R 4/4 Czerwiec 2015 WYDARZENIA POWIATU BĘDZIŃSKIEGO1 GAZETA SAMORZĄDOWA Nr 4/4 Czerwiec 2015 Nakład: 20 Tys
    WYDARZENIA POWIATU BĘDZIŃSKIEGO N r 4/4 czerwiec 2015 WYDARZENIAwww.powiat.bedzin.pl POWIATU BĘDZIŃSKIEGO1 GAZETA SAMORZĄDOWA nr 4/4 czerwiec 2015 nakład: 20 tys. egz.bezpłatny ISSN 2392-2710 BĘDZIN BOBROWNIKI CZELADŹ MIERZĘCICE PSARY SIEWIERZ SŁAWKÓW WOJKOWICE Powiatowy Piknik Strażacka RYWALIZACJA Mało gościnni okazali się gospodarze Powiatowych Zawodów Sportowo- Rodzinny -Pożarniczych, rozegranych 21 czerwca w Bobrownikach. W aż trzech, spo- śród czterech kategorii, najlepsi okazali się strażacy z gminy Bobrowniki. str.6-7 Na stadionie Orła Bobrowniki, zmierzyło się 31 drużyn w czterech katego- riach. Zmaganiom strażaków zawsze towarzyszą duże emocje. Podobnie było i w tym roku. Pomimo wyjątkowo niesprzyjającej pogody, na trybunach zna- lazła się duża grupa kibiców, a także przedstawicieli władz strażackich i sa- morządowych, wśród których znaleźli się Senator RP Zbigniew Meres, Poseł na Sejm RP Waldemar Andzel oraz Sta rosta Będzińsk i Arkadiusz Watoła. Tradycyjnie zmagania rozpoczęły się od sztafety. Najbardziej emocjo- nujące dla widzów były jednak ćwiczenia bojowe. Świetnym występem popisali się tutaj druhowie z Rogoźnika, którzy swoje zadanie wykonali w 34 sekundy, co zapewniło im pierwsze miejsce w klasyfikacji generalnej w grupie A. Tuż za nimi uplasowali się strażacy z jednostki OSP Siewierz Osiedle. Trzecie miejsce przypadło zespołowi OSP Siemonia. Ciekawie wyglądała również rywalizacja w grupie kobiet. Tutaj najlepsze okazały się zawodniczki z OSP Siemonia, które wyprzedziły swoje rywal- ki z OSP Rogoźnik. Trzecie miejsce na podium przypadło druhnom z OSP Siewierz Osiedle. Tego dnia zmierzyły się ze sobą Młodzieżowe Drużyny Pożarnicze. Wśród dziewcząt do 16 lat prym wiodły zawodniczki z OSP Goląsza-Brzękowi- ce. Tuż za nimi na podium znalazły się zespoły z OSP Siewierz Osiedle (II miejsce) oraz OSP Wojkowice Kościelne (III miejsce).
    [Show full text]
  • Poland Political Briefing: Political Crisis and Changes in the Composition of the Government Joanna Ciesielska-Klikowska
    ISSN: 2560-1601 Vol. 33, No. 1 (PL) October 2020 Poland political briefing: Political crisis and changes in the composition of the government Joanna Ciesielska-Klikowska 1052 Budapest Petőfi Sándor utca 11. +36 1 5858 690 Kiadó: Kína-KKE Intézet Nonprofit Kft. [email protected] Szerkesztésért felelős személy: CHen Xin Kiadásért felelős személy: Huang Ping china-cee.eu 2017/01 Political crisis and changes in the composition of the government Last weeks have brought an almost never-ending discussion about changes in the government and its planned reconstruction. It is a rare procedure in the Polish political system under which some ministers lose their powers and new ones appear on the stage. Unexpectedly, however, the Animal Protection Act shook the talks and caused a serious political crisis. The reconstruction that followed the crisis is very far-reaching and shows who is genuinely ruling the country. Political crisis related to the Animal Protection Act The debate about reducing the number of ministries, changing their competences or powers of individual ministers had already been going on throughout the summer period (see Poland 2020 September Domestic Policy Briefing). When it seemed that the three parties which create the ruling coalition of the United Right (Law and Justice Party, Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, PiS; United Poland; Solidarna Polska; Agreement, Porozumienie Jarosława Gowina) were already agreeing on the appearance of the new government, one vote shocked the political scene and public opinion. A real game changer was the voting on the Animal Protection Act (so-called "five for animals" act), which entered the deliberations of the parliament on September 18, and was voted shortly after by a large part of the political circles represented in the SeJm.
    [Show full text]
  • Mission Report Following the Ad Hoc Delegation
    European Parliament 2014-2019 Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs 03.12.2018 MISSION REPORT following the ad hoc delegation to Poland on the situation of the Rule of Law, 19 - 21 September 2018 Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Members of the mission: Claude Moraes (S&D) (Leader of the mission) Judith Sargentini (Greens/EFA) Valdemar Tomaševski (ECR) Frank Engel (EPP) Nicolas Bay (ENF) Barbara Spinelli (GUE/NGL) Joelle Bergeron (EFDD) 1 Mission report on the ad hoc delegation to Poland on the situation of the Rule of Law 19-21 September 2018 Table of Contents 1. Objective of the mission 2. Background to the mission: the Rule of Law Framework and the Article 7(1) TEU procedure 3. Summary of the meetings and visits 4. Key findings ANNEXES ANNEX 1: Draft programme ANNEX 2: List of participants ANNEX 3: CVs of interlocutors ANNEX 4: Decision of the Conference of Presidents ANNEX 5: Documents received from the Polish Authorities 2 1. Objective of the mission The objective of this mission of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) was to better understand the ongoing reforms of the Polish justice system as carried out by the Polish authorities, their objectives and their impact on the rule of law situation in Poland, within the framework of the Article 7(1) TEU procedure activated by the European Commission on 20 December 2017 in relation to the rule of law situation in Poland. For this purpose, the delegation met with representatives of the Polish Government, the Sejm and the Senate, political parties, judicial institutions, representatives of the OSCE/ODIHR, legal practitioners, journalists and representatives of civil society.
    [Show full text]