Sejm Rejects Presidential Bill Following Venice Commission Criticism
Deputy Speaker of the Sejm Włodzimierz Czarzasty has announced that the Sejm will not proceed with the presidential bill aimed at judicial reforms, citing a scathing assessment from the Venice...
Deputy Speaker of the Sejm Włodzimierz Czarzasty has announced that the Sejm will not proceed with the presidential bill aimed at judicial reforms, citing a scathing assessment from the Venice Commission.
Table Of Content
The Decision to Halt Legislation
The presidential bill regarding the restoration of the right to a court and the processing of cases without undue delay will not be further processed in the Sejm. Deputy Speaker Włodzimierz Czarzasty confirmed the decision, stating he would not give the project a legislative path.
Venice Commission Recommendations
The decision follows the publication of a critical opinion from the Venice Commission, which suggested that Poland should abandon the project. Although the commission’s opinion is not legally binding, Czarzasty opted to follow its recommendations to prevent further destabilization of the judiciary.
Constitutional and Legal Concerns
Czarzasty noted that the bill faced significant scrutiny from legal experts regarding its constitutionality. He argued that the proposal threatened to fracture the judicial system and exacerbate the ongoing crisis between polarized political forces in Poland.
Details of the Abandoned Bill
The 26-article proposal aimed to prohibit judges from questioning the legality of state bodies, including the Constitutional Tribunal and the National Council of the Judiciary. It sought to prevent judges from evaluating the appointment process of other judges or assessors, effectively shielding existing appointments from legal challenge.
Proposed Sanctions and Restrictions
The bill included provisions that would automatically invalidate court acts or rulings if they were based on challenging the status of a judge or assessor. The legislation also sought to prohibit the questioning of judicial decisions based on the legality of the judge’s original appointment.


