Adam Bodnar clearly cares about bringing amusement to lawyers. Unfortunately, they're the only ones. But looking at the rate of sinking into the erstwhile legal authority in the fall, Bobas' laughter will be seen widely.
It's a lot more serious than it looks. Well, patoprocurator general Adam Bodnar inactive bases his actions on opinions alternatively than legal acts.
This time, the arrest of Maciej Romanowski alternatively of the laws (or applicable acts of the Council of Europe, which have precedence over Polish laws under the applicable provisions of the Constitution) was decided by 2 lawyers about Without doubt, many technological achievements.
The first is by Dr. hab. Joanna Juchniewicz from the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn. This postgraduate of the University of Gdańsk (1998) has already committed together with Mark Chmaj Comment on the Constitution (2022). But not to the whole, only to respective selected articles (120-124). Of course, she wrote more, but the number of positions does not go down. The second opinion is by Dr hab. Andrzej JackieviczProfessor of the University of Białystok. Similarly, the number of publications is not significant.
However, let us decision on to the opinions on the website of the Ministry of Justice.
Called by (well, who exactly?) the “runners” were to answer 3 questions of fundamental importance.
1) Does the immunity of the members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (representatives and their deputies) resulting from Article 40 of the Statute of the Council of Europe adopted in London on 5 May 1949 (Journal of Laws of 1994 No 118, item 565) and Articles 14 and 15 of the General Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe drawn up in Paris on 2 September 1949, and Article 5 of the Additional Protocol to the General Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe, drawn up in Strasbourg on 6 July 1952 (Journal of Laws of 2001 No 23, item 270) exclude the anticipation of making allegations, detention and the application of a preventive measurement in the form of provisional arrest in connection with a crime committed by a associate of the Sejm, which does not stay in connection with the exercise of the mandate of a associate of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and is not corrupt in connection with the activities of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and does not concern specified a associate in the hot act of committing a crime?
2. If the immunity referred to in point 1 includes specified offences, is the consent of a associate of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to be held liable for the criminal offence of a associate of the Polish Parliament in a national procedure? If not, which authority is competent to take a decision on this substance (the Polish Parliament or the competent body of the Council of Europe)? What procedure is then applicable ?
3) If the immunity referred to in point 1 covers specified offences, shall the consent to detention and the application of a preventive measurement in the form of provisional detention against a associate of the Polish Parliament in a national procedure be tantamount to the consent of a associate of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe ? If not, which authority is competent to take a decision on this substance (the Polish Parliament or the competent authority of the Council of Europe) ? What procedure is then applicable?
The answer is Dr. Joanna Juchniewicz.
Let's skip the debates that no Organ reads, but let's go consecutive to the final conclusions.
1) The immunity of the members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (representatives and their deputies) resulting from Article 40 of the Statute of the Council of Europe adopted in London on 5 May 1949 (Journal of Laws of 1994 No 118, item 565) and Articles 14 and 15 of the General Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe drawn up in Paris on 2 September 1949, as well as Article 5 of the Additional Protocol to the General Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe, drawn up in Strasbourg on 6 July 1952 (Journal of Laws of 2001 No 23, item 270) does not exclude the anticipation of making allegations, detention and the application of a preventive measurement in the form of provisional arrest in connection with a crime committed by a associate of the Sejm, which is not to be conducted on the territory of the Polish State. Where a case covered by the immunity of a typical or an alternate typical is simply a national matter, the associate of the Assembly shall enjoy the protection provided for by national law. This is due to the wording of Article 15a of the General Provisions - during the session of the Advisory Assembly, representatives in the Assembly and their deputies, whether or not they are members of the parliament, enjoy immunity granted in that State to members of the Parliament. In the case of representatives of the Polish State, this protection will be outlined by the provisions of Article 105(2) to (5) of the Polish Constitution.
2. The Sejm's consent to the appointment of a associate of the Polish Parliament as a typical or deputy typical of the Assembly for the act will, in my opinion, besides be prohibited from acting in the context of the protection of the 15th Immunity typical and Deputy typical of the ultimate Court if the substance does not stay in connection with the exercise of the mandate of the typical or deputy typical in the Assembly and does not affect travel in the matters of the Assembly. Giving consent to criminal liability will require the application of the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and the Act on the exercise of the mandate of a associate and Senator.
3) The consent of the Sejm to detain and apply a preventive measurement in the form of a temporary arrest against a associate of the Polish Parliament acting as typical or deputy typical of the ZPRE will be effective in the context of the immunity of the typical and deputy typical of the ZPRE if the substance does not stay in connection with the exercise of the mandate of the typical or deputy typical in the Assembly and does not affect travel in the matters of the Assembly. The consent to detention and application of the preventive measurement will require application of the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and the Act on the exercise of the mandate of a associate and Senator.
According to Dr. Andrew Jackievicz is... very similar.
The answer to Question 1 cannot be conclusive, since it depends on a number of circumstances that differentiate conclusions.
(a) Article 14 of the General Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe does not exclude the anticipation of making allegations, detention and the application of a preventive measurement in the form of provisional arrest in connection with a crime committed by a associate of the Polish Parliament, which does not stay in connection with the exercise of the mandate of a associate of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and is not corrupt in connection with the activities of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, nor does it concern the taking of specified a associate in the act of committing a crime.
(b) Article 15 of the General Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe excludes the anticipation of making allegations, detention and the application of a preventive measurement in the form of a temporary arrest in connection with a crime committed by a associate of the Sejm, which does not stay in connection with the exercise of his mandate as a associate of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and is not corrupt in relation to the activities of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and does not concern the entry of specified a associate in the act of committing a crime, during the actual session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and during the journey to the place of the Assembly and back.
(c) Article 15 of the General Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe in conjunction with Article 3 of the Additional Protocol excludes the anticipation of making allegations, detention and the application of a preventive measurement in the form of provisional arrest in connection with a crime committed by a associate of the Polish Parliament, which does not stay in connection with the exercise of the mandate of a associate of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and is not corrupt in connection with the activities of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and does not concern the entry of specified a associate in the act of committing the offence in the event that he attends the committees or subcommittee of the Assembly, whether or not the Assembly will be sitting at that time.
(d) Article 15 of the General Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe is interpreted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in a way beyond the normative content resulting from Article 40 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, from the General Agreement and from the Additional Protocol, in breach of the powers conferred on it by the Statute of the Council of Europe, by extending the scope of the immunity protection provided for in Article 15 of the General Agreement, acting without a legal basis in this regard, and by violating the rule of exceptions non sunt extendendae, as expressed in the resolution 1490 referred to in its opinion. In the event that the investigating authority agrees to this practice, it should be considered that Article 15 of the General Agreement excludes the anticipation of making allegations, detention and the application of a preventive measurement in the form of a provisional arrest in connection with a crime committed by a associate of the Polish Parliament, which does not stay in connection with the exercise of the mandate of a associate of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and is not corrupt in relation to the activities of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and does not concern the entry of specified a associate in the act of committing the offence in any event in the performance of his duties as a member. Meetings or during business trips related to the Assembly, whether in or outside Poland.
In consequence to question 2, it should be considered that, in the situations set out in answer to question 1, in which Article 15 of the General Agreement excludes the anticipation of making allegations, detention and the application of a preventive measurement in the form of a provisional arrest in connection with a crime committed by a associate of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland, which does not stay in connection with the exercise of the mandate of a associate of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and is not corrupt in connection with the activities of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the consent to a criminal offence for an offence against a associate of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland in a national procedure is tantamount to giving his consent to a associate of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, erstwhile a associate of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland is in the territory of the Republic of Poland. On the another hand, erstwhile a associate of the Sejm is in another associate State, it is essential to waive the immunity of inviolability provided for in Article 15 of the General Agreement by the Parliamentary Assembly under regulation 65 of the Parliamentary Rules of Procedure of the Council of Europe.
In answer to Question 3, it should be noted that Article 15 of the General Agreement does not differentiate the scope of protection with respect to criminal liability and the privilege of individual immunity. Therefore, the answer to this question must be analogous to the answer to Question 2, which means that in the situations set out in the answer to Question No 1, in which Article 15 of the General Agreement excludes the anticipation of a message of objections, detention and the application of a preventive measurement in the form of a provisional arrest in connection with a crime committed by a associate of the Polish Parliament which does not stay in connection with the exercise of his mandate as a associate of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and is not corrupt in connection with the activities of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, giving consent to detention and the application of a preventive measurement in the form of a temporary arrest against a associate of the Polish Parliament in a national procedure is tantamount to giving consent to a associate of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in the situation where the MP in the Polish Sejm is in the territory of the Republic of Poland. On the another hand, erstwhile a associate of the Sejm is in another associate State, it is essential to waive the immunity of inviolability provided for in Article 15 of the General Agreement by the Parliamentary Assembly under regulation 65 of the Parliamentary Rules of Procedure of the Council of Europe.
PHow simple is that? According to the recently appointed legal authorities, Mr Bodnar's consent to the detention of Mr Maciej Rymanowski expressed by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is only required if the same associate would stay outside the borders of Poland. In the background, however, it is clear that it should be an act straight related to his parliamentary activity.
But as we remember during the period of the Polish People's Republic, the democratic opposition was not punished at all for the acts that were left in connection with its political activity. For example, the spread of leaflets was treated as littering the city. Just like throwing cigarettes out of garbage cans or throwing banana peels on a public road...
OK, I'm in over my head. Bananas were hard to scope in PRL. ;)
This is simply a clear discrimination to another mode of consent arrest of a associate of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe being in the country of which he is simply a parliamentarian is due to a alternatively prosaic fact.
Let's go back a small bit in fresh history.
On 9 March 2016, the Polish Sejm adopted a resolution on the release of Nadia Sawchenko.
Among another things, we read:
Nadia Sawchenko's trial before the Russian court is an outstanding example of the violation of fundamental human rights. Nadia Sawchenko as a delegate of Ukraine to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has global immunity, which, in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, guarantees her individual immunity and protects her from arrest and legal proceedings, including judicial proceedings. The Russian Federation ratified the Statute of the Council of Europe in 1996 and has since been required to respect the guarantees resulting from the provisions of this Statute and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
This resolution was adopted by the acclamation.
This is why this peculiar legal caseuistic work is carried out by people with small legal achievements. At the base Scopus lawyer Joanna Juchniewicz is unknown, and so is lawyer Andrzej Jackieewicz.
However, Mr Joasia is known for social media, but this seems to be a very unreliable qualification for attacking global solutions.
Juchniewicz on Facebook or X (twitter) did not find it. ;)
18.07 2024
Ps. By the way, the above selection of legal “experts” does not prove Bodnar best. Clearly, people of discipline who have any more or little crucial achievements no longer want to interact with a legal lunatic.
