The prosecution in the new Act of Parliament dated back to 2016

An experiment with the subjection of the prosecution to the executive. The article proves that the prosecution as an non-constitutional authority is subjected to political influences. The author presents the subordination of the prosecution in Poland and other European Union countries. The author indicates that the 2010 reform of the prosecution as well as the disengagement of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice offices has not produced the expected results, since the reform of the prosecution has not been completed. The reform not only failed to strengthened the position of the Attorney General but it has weakened one’s prerogatives. The aforementioned Act of Parliament brought many of the provisions, which on one hand are a contribution to the independence of the prosecutor’s office, and on the other hand, are a tool of control over the prosecution (article 10e and 10f), making the prosecution’s independence illusory. Therefore, according to the author, the new regulations should be given a chance, despite concerns. The aim of the implementation the 2016 Act of Parliament is to provide recovery of strong position by the Attorney General against both the subordinate prosecutors, as well as external bodies.

Some comments in the matter of deconstitutionalisation of public prosecutor’s office

The article is an attempt to show that reasons of deconstitutionalisation of public prosecutor’s office are not obsolete. The author argues, that the omission regulations of public prosecution’s office in the Constitution of the Poland Republic was caused by the adoption of the concept of personal junction Attorney General and Minister of Justice, which could not be reconciled with the postulate of the independence of the prosecutors. The article presents the impact of the adoption of the concept of personal union of Attorney General and Minister of Justice on the course of parliamentary work on the assumption of the Constitution, in relation to the prosecutor’s office. The author concludes that the current model of the prosecutor’s office – establishing the separation of function Attorney General from posi- tion of Minister of Justice – does not justify the continuation of the state deconstitutionalisation of this institution. The lack of constitutional responsibility for the actions of the Attorney General and the incompleteness of the model prosecutor’s office as an agency of legal protection make, that the stipulation of constitutionalisation of public prosecutor’s office seems to be indispensable, although with regard for the current political situation, it is difficult to implement.

In this paper I focus on the creation powers of the President in view of the current problems. I also attempt to find answers to some of the questions related to the issue whether, provided the Constitution of the Slovak Republic concedes the President of the Slovak Republic the power to appoint a constitutional official on the proposal of a collective body or a specific person, the President may refuse to appoint a public official, and what the position of the President is in this kind of appointment, thus what function he performs.

Prosecutor’s Office and the Council of Ministers  (remarks aside the evaluation of the report of Public  Prosecutor General by the President of the Council of Ministers)

The time of the prosecutor’s office functioning within the new political system allowed for determination of deficiencies in terms of legal regulations and correction of the legal instruments of the prosecutor’s office operation. Present legal regulations give the autonomy to the Public Prosecutor General, which is expressed in the fact that the prosecutor’s office is not subordinate to any other state authority. However, placement within the state authorities’ structures does not involve breaking up the institutional bonds between the Public Prosecutor General and other public authorities, especially with the Council of Ministers and the Minister of Justice. Pursuant to the idea of separation of powers in the democratic state of law, apart from the principle of competences distribution, the principle of public authorities’ co-operation is underlined. In the context of the activity of the Public Prosecutor General and yearly report which is submitted by him to the Council of Ministers the author presents the dilemmas which result from the situation. She indicates which direction the changes shall go with reference to it, in the new act on the prosecutor’s office right which is under preparation by the government. The main objective of the new bill is to allow for the parliamentary, yearly debate over the prosecutor’s office activity and introduction of institutional solutions which would allow for good co-operation of the Council of Ministers with the Public Prosecutor General, what does not always happen. The author thinks that the act does not specify any deadline in which the President of the Council of Ministers has to evaluate the report. Such a state of uncertainty is a major threat for the prosecutor’s office functioning. It may have a negative impact on the act of undertaking organizational and functional changes which improve the work of the prosecutor’s office, while the Public Prosecutor General being afraid of the prime minister’s decision may avoid public speaking in important issues. This is why the prime minister shall be bound with the specified deadline for giving the decision. Additionally, the President of the Council of Ministers may apply to the Seym with the motion to recall the Public Prosecutor General before the end of the period which he was appointed for. The article indicates then issues that have to be changed in the new act in order to assure the efficient functioning of the prosecutor’s office.

General Prosecutor before the Constitutional Tribunal – contribution towards protection of the genuine rule of law

 The General Prosecutor, due to the unrestricted legitimacy, its role in protecting the rule of law and authorities from Constitutional Tribunal act, is a legal entity of great importance in regard to proceeding before the Constitutional Tribunal. The actions of the General Prosecutor are required to be assessed in correspondence with the implementation of statutory and constitutional authorities, effectiveness in requesting Constitutional Tribunal, presenting written statements, as well as overall activity before the Constitutional Tribunal. In conclusions the remarks on the General Prosecutors’s contribution in protection rule of law are presented.

The Prosecutor’s Office and the Sejm

Author argues in the article that under the legal status preceding the 2009 amendment to the Act on the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Sejm’s control over the actions of the Minister of Justice – Prosecutor General found a direct basis in the constitutional norm, which entrusts the Sejm with the control over the Council of Ministers. Under the 2009 prosecution model, where the functions of the Prosecutor General and the Minister of Justice were separated, the Prosecutor General, directing the activities of the prosecution service, was an autonomous body in relation to Council of Ministers, President, Sejm and Senate. The reconnection of the functions of the Minister of Justice and Prosecutor General by the 2016 Act gives the Sejm the possibility of parliamentary control of the Prosecutor General. Author indicates the instruments of parliamentary control emphasizing that the Sejm is entitled only to such powers of control that have been clearly defined in the Constitution and laws. Author justifies the thesis that the diversity of the models of functioning of the prosecutor’s office in Poland, as an institution beyond the framework of the classical Montesquieu classification, does not deprive the Sejm of the right to control the prosecutor’s office, which he realizes with the help of diverse means.