The President of the NBP before the State Tribunal. There is a ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal

The Constitutional Tribunal issued a ruling on the constitutionality of the provisions on the State Tribunal in relation to the President of the NBP. This concerns the regulations regarding the suspension of the head of the central bank after the Sejm votes on the motion to bring him before the Tribunal. The judges ruled that the regulations were unconstitutional. The president of the Constitutional Tribunal, Julia Przyłębska, announced the decision.

TK: The Sejm cannot bring the president of the NBP before the State Tribunal

The Constitutional Tribunal dealt with the procedure of holding the President of the NBP constitutionally liable. A group of Law and Justice MPs wanted to examine the constitutionality of some of the provisions of the Act on the Tribunal of State. Their motion was a reaction to the announcements by politicians of the current ruling coalition regarding the bringing of the current head of the central bank, Adam Glapiński, before the State Tribunal.

For the president of the NBP to appear before the State Tribunal, it is enough for 115 MPs to submit an application to the Speaker of the Sejm and then vote on it. In the case of the president of the NBP, an absolute majority of the statutory number of deputies is enough. A resolution of the Sejm on holding someone liable results in the suspension of the person concerned from performing their duties.

According to the applicants, the norm causing automatic suspension from activities after the Sejm adopts a resolution to bring a given person before the State Tribunal when it refers to the president of the NBP is inconsistent with the constitutional and EU guarantees regarding the independence of the central bank and its president.

PiS MPs pointed out, among others, that the decision on suspension is made by the Sejm, which is a strictly political body, instead of a judicial body, and a prolonged suspension may result in a loss of public trust in the suspended person.

In the applicants’ opinion, the standard resulting from the presumption of innocence, which requires treating a person as innocent until a verdict is passed, is illusory in this situation, and suspension from duties without any procedural guarantees and without control over the political decision of the Sejm constitutes a disproportionate violation of the law guaranteeing equal access to public service .