On Wednesday afternoon, the Sejm, the lower house of Poland's parliament, approved two significant bills aimed at reforming the Constitutional Tribunal, marking a pivotal step in the government coalition's comprehensive overhaul plan initiated earlier this year.
These bills, which will now move to the upper house, the Senate, for further deliberation, include a new act on the Constitutional Tribunal and another with implementing provisions.
The vote saw 242 members of the Sejm supporting the new act on the Constitutional Tribunal, with 202 opposing, and no abstentions recorded.
A similar pattern of votes supported the accompanying procedural regulations.
This legislative push follows several weeks of intense parliamentary discussions and comes amid ongoing Senate deliberations on a related constitutional amendment concerning the Tribunal.
The Senate's legislative committee is set to continue these discussions in the fall, after evaluating feedback from a public hearing conducted in early July.
These legislative changes are part of a package that also includes a resolution passed by the lower house in March and a proposed constitutional amendment, together offering a broad scope of reforms for the Tribunal.
The reform package aims to invalidate several past decisions of the Tribunal deemed to be made by unauthorized judges, rendering these decisions null and without effect.
Additionally, the reforms propose changes allowing current judges the option to retire upon the new law's enactment, though this does not apply to judges considered unauthorized.
The bills also introduce increased powers for the General Assembly of the Constitutional Tribunal Judges and expand the range of entities that can nominate Tribunal judges.
A significant amendment is the broadened scope for reviewing constitutional complaints, aimed at enhancing judicial oversight and accountability.
In a tense exchange before the vote, opposition members accused the ruling party of attempting to monopolize control over the Tribunal, alleging that the proposed reforms were unconstitutional.
In response, government supporters argued that the reforms were necessary to restore the integrity and impartiality of the Tribunal, which they claimed had been compromised under previous administrations.
(rt/gs)
Source: IAR, PAP