natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The letter furthermore requested clarifications as to what the Commission meant by insisting that the binding and final judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal had still not been implemented as well as clarifications why according to the Commission the resolutions electing three judges of the Constitutional Tribunal on 2 December 2015 ran counter to the Tribunal's subsequent judgment.
11. marca 2016 je Beneška komisija sprejela mnenje „o spremembah zakona o ustavnem sodišču s 25. junija 2015“ [17].
On 3 March 2016, the Commission wrote to the Polish Government [16], providing clarifications concerning the issue of the appointment of judges as requested by the Polish Government in the letter of 29 February 2016.
Kar zadeva imenovanje sodnikov, je v svojem mnenju pozvala poljski parlament, naj poišče rešitev na podlagi načela pravne države in ob upoštevanju sodb sodišča.
Regarding the amendment to the Act on the Constitutional Tribunal the letter noted that according to a preliminary assessment, certain amendments, both individually and taken together, made more difficult the conditions under which the Constitutional Tribunal could review the constitutionality of newly passed laws and requested more detailed explanations on this.
Med drugim je tudi menila, da bo zlasti kombinirani učinek visokega kvoruma za sklepčnost, zahteve po dvotretjinski večini pri sprejemanju sodb in strogega pravila, ki onemogoča obravnavanje nujnih zadev, povzročil, da bo sodišče neučinkovito.
The letter also asked for information about other laws which had been adopted recently and further legislative reforms which were being envisaged.
Poleg tega je menila, da bo zavrnitev objave sodbe z 9. marca 2016 še poglobila ustavno krizo na Poljskem.
On 9 March 2016, the Constitutional Tribunal ruled that the law adopted on 22 December 2015 was unconstitutional.
21. marca 2016 je poljska vlada pisala Komisiji in prvega podpredsednika Fransa Timmermansa povabila na sestanek na Poljskem, da bi ocenili dosedanji dialog med poljsko vlado in Komisijo ter opredelili možnosti za nadaljevanje nepristranskega, na dokazih temelječega sodelovanja.
That judgment has so far not been published by the Government in the Official Journal, with the consequence that it does not have legal effect.
31. marca 2016 je poljska vlada pisala Komisiji in predstavila zadnje informacije in pravne presoje v zvezi s sporom glede ustavnega sodišča na Poljskem.
On 11 March 2016, the Venice Commission adopted its opinion ‘on amendments to the Act of 25 June 2015 on the Constitutional Tribunal’ [17].
5. aprila 2016 so v Varšavi potekala srečanja med prvim podpredsednikom Komisije Fransom Timmermansom ter poljskim ministrom za zunanje zadeve, ministrom za pravosodje, podpredsednikom vlade ter predsednikom in podpredsednikom ustavnega sodišča.
As regards the appointment of judges, the opinion called on the Polish Parliament to find a solution on the basis of the rule of law, respecting the judgments of the Tribunal.
Tem srečanjem je sledilo več srečanj med poljsko vlado, ki jo je zastopalo ministrstvo za pravosodje, in Komisijo.
It also considered, inter alia, that a high attendance quorum, the requirement of a two-thirds majority for adopting judgments and a strict rule making it impossible to deal with urgent cases, especially in their combined effect, would have made the Tribunal ineffective.
Po sodbi z 9. marca 2016 je ustavno sodišče nadaljevalo z razsojanjem o zadevah.
Finally, it considered that a refusal to publish the judgment of 9 March 2016 would further deepen the constitutional crisis in Poland.
Poljska vlada v teh postopkih ni sodelovala in sodb, ki jih je ustavno sodišče izreklo od 9. marca 2016, doslej še ni objavila v Uradnem listu [18].
On 21 March 2016, the Polish Government wrote to the Commission inviting First Vice-President Timmermans to a meeting in Poland to assess the dialogue carried out so far between the Polish Government and the Commission and to determine how to continue it in an impartial, evidence-based and cooperative way.
13. aprila 2016 je Evropski parlament sprejel resolucijo o razmerah na Poljskem, v kateri je med drugim poljsko vlado pozval, naj spoštuje, objavi in v celoti ter brez odlašanja izvrši sodbo ustavnega sodišča z 9. marca 2016, naj izvrši sodbi s 3. in 9. decembra 2015 ter v celoti izvaja priporočila Beneške komisije.
On 31 March 2016, the Polish Government wrote to the Commission with recent information and legal assessments regarding the dispute around the Constitutional Tribunal in Poland.
20. aprila 2016 je potekal sestanek med Komisijo ter predstavniki mreže predsednikov vrhovnih sodišč Evropske unije in konference evropskih ustavnih sodišč, da bi razpravljali o razmerah na Poljskem.
On 5 April 2016, meetings took place in Warsaw between First Vice-President Timmermans and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland, the Minister of Justice, the Deputy Prime Minister, as well as with the President and the Vice-President of the Constitutional Tribunal.
26. aprila 2016 je Generalna skupščina poljskega vrhovnega sodišča sprejela resolucijo, s katero je potrdila, da so sodbe ustavnega sodišča veljavne, čeprav poljska vlada zavrača njihovo objavo v Uradnem listu.
Following these meetings, several meetings also took place between the Polish Government, represented by the Ministry of Justice, and the Commission.
29. aprila 2016 je skupina poslancev Sejma predložila zakonodajni predlog za nov zakon o ustavnem sodišču, ki naj bi nadomestil sedanjega.
Following the judgment of 9 March 2016, the Constitutional Tribunal resumed the adjudication of cases.
Aprila je Sejm sestavil skupino strokovnjakov za pomoč pri pripravi novega zakona o ustavnem sodišču.
The Polish Government did not participate in these proceedings and the judgments rendered by the Constitutional Tribunal since 9 March 2016 have so far not been published by the Government in the Official Journal [18].
24. maja 2016 se je prvi podpredsednik Komisije Frans Timmermans v Varšavi sestal s poljsko predsednico vlade, predsednikom in podpredsednikom ustavnega sodišča, varuhom človekovih pravic, županjo Varšave in člani opozicijskih strank v Sejmu.
On 13 April 2016, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution on the situation in Poland, inter alia, urging the Polish Government to respect, publish and fully implement without further delay the Constitutional Tribunal's judgment of 9 March 2016 and to implement the judgments of 3 and 9 December 2015, and calling on the Polish Government to fully implement the recommendations of the Venice Commission.
26. maja 2016 se je prvi podpredsednik Komisije Frans Timmermans v Bruslju sestal s podpredsednikom poljske vlade.
On 26 April 2016, the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Poland adopted a resolution attesting that the rulings of the Constitutional Tribunal are valid, even if the Polish Government refuses to publish them in the Official Journal.
Vendar kljub natančni in konstruktivni naravi izmenjav med Komisijo in poljsko vlado pomisleki Komisije niso bili odpravljeni.
On 29 April 2016, a group of members of the Sejm submitted to the Sejm a legislative proposal for a new Constitutional Tribunal Act with a view to replacing the current Act.
1. junija 2016 je Komisija sprejela mnenje v zvezi z načelom pravne države na Poljskem.
The proposal contained several provisions which were already criticised by the Venice Commission in its opinion of 11 March 2016 and declared unconstitutional by the Tribunal in its ruling of 9 March 2016.
Po dialogu, ki je s poljskimi organi potekal vse od 13. januarja, je Komisija menila, da je treba v navedenem mnenju formalizirati oceno trenutnih razmer.
This included the requirement of a two-thirds majority for adopting decisions for ‘abstract’ constitutional review of newly adopted laws.
V mnenju so bili navedeni pomisleki Komisije, njegov namen pa je bil usmeriti dialog s poljskimi organi proti iskanju rešitve.
In the course of April an expert group was composed in the Sejm to help prepare a new law on the Constitutional Tribunal.
24. junija 2016 je poljska vlada pisala Komisiji in potrdila prejem mnenja Komisije v zvezi z načelom pravne države s 1. junija [19].
On 24 May 2016, First Vice-President Timmermans had meetings in Warsaw with the Prime Minister of Poland, with the President and the Vice-President of the Constitutional Tribunal, with the Ombudsman, with the Mayor of the City of Warsaw and with members of the opposition parties in the Sejm.
V dopisu je Komisijo obvestila o stanju glede parlamentarnega dela na Poljskem, vključno z novim zakonom o ustavnem sodišču, in izrazila prepričanje, da je delo v parlamentu prava pot za dosego konstruktivne rešitve.
On 26 May 2016, First Vice-President Timmermans had a meeting in Brussels with the Deputy Prime Minister of Poland.
Dialog med Komisijo in poljsko vlado se je nato nadaljeval.
Subsequently, further exchanges and meetings took place between the Commission and the Polish government.
SPREJELA NASLEDNJE PRIPOROČILO:
However, despite the detailed and constructive nature of the exchanges between the Commission and the Polish Government, they were not able to resolve the concerns of the Commission.
Poljska bi morala ustrezno upoštevati analizo Komisije, predstavljeno v nadaljevanju, in sprejeti ukrepe iz oddelka 6 tega priporočila, da bi ugotovljene težave rešila v določenem roku.
On 1 June 2016, the Commission adopted an Opinion concerning the rule of law in Poland.
PODROČJE UPORABE PRIPOROČILA
Following the dialogue that had been ongoing with the Polish authorities since 13 January, the Commission deemed it necessary to formalise its assessment of the current situation in that Opinion.
Ta dokument vsebuje pomisleke Komisije v zvezi z načelom pravne države na Poljskem in priporočila poljskim organom o tem, kako te pomisleke odpraviti.
Subsequently, the dialogue between the Commission and the Polish Government continued.
učinkovito delovanje ustavnega sodišča in učinkovitost ustavnega pregleda nove zakonodaje, zlasti glede na zakon o ustavnem sodišču, ki ga je Sejm sprejel 22. julija 2016.
On 22 July 2016, the Sejm adopted a new law on the Constitutional Tribunal replacing the Law of 25 June 2015 on the Constitutional Tribunal.
IMENOVANJE SODNIKOV USTAVNEGA SODIŠČA
A first reading took place on 10 June 2016, a second reading started on 5 July 2016 and a third reading was concluded on 7 July.
Pred splošnimi parlamentarnimi volitvami 25. oktobra 2015 je Sejm v izteku mandata 8. oktobra imenoval pet oseb, ki naj bi jih predsednik republike „izbral“ za ustavne sodnike.
The Senate adopted amendments on 21 July 2016.
Trije sodniki naj bi zasedli mesta, ki so se izpraznila med iztekajočim se mandatom, dva pa mesti, ki bi se izpraznili v času mandata prihajajoče sestave Sejma, ki je začel zasedati 12. novembra 2015.
The Sejm adopted the law as amended by the Senate on 22 July 2016.
19. novembra 2015 je Sejm po hitrem postopku spremenil zakon o ustavnem sodišču in uvedel možnost za razveljavitev imenovanj sodnikov, ki jih je opravila prejšnja sestava Sejma, in za imenovanje petih novih sodnikov.
Before the law can take effect it must be signed by the President of the Republic and published in the Official Journal.
25. novembra 2015 je Sejm sprejel predlog o razveljavitvi petih imenovanj s strani prejšnje sestave Sejma in 2. decembra imenoval pet novih sodnikov.
The Commission provided comments and discussed the content of the draft law with the Polish authorities at various stages of the legislative process,
Ustavno sodišče je začelo postopek v zvezi z odločitvami prejšnje in nove sestave Sejma.
HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
Sodišče je posledično izreklo dve sodbi, in sicer 3. in 9. decembra 2015.
Poland should duly take into account the Commission's analysis set out hereafter and take the measures figuring in section 6 of this recommendation so that the problems identified are solved within the time limit set.
V sodbi je bila tudi izrecno omenjena obveznost predsednika republike, da takoj sprejme zaprisego sodnika, ki ga imenuje Sejm.
SCOPE OF THE RECOMMENDATION
Ustavno sodišče je 9. decembra [21] med drugim razveljavilo pravno podlago za imenovanje treh sodnikov s strani nove sestave Sejma, ki naj zasedli mesta, ki so se izpraznila 6. novembra 2015 in za katera je prejšnja sestava že zakonito imenovala sodnike.
The present recommendation sets out the concerns of the Commission with regard to the rule of law in Poland and makes recommendations to the Polish authorities on how to address these concerns.
Kljub tema sodbama trije sodniki, imenovani s strani prejšnje sestave Sejma, niso nastopili svoje funkcije ustavnih sodnikov, predsednik republike pa še ni sprejel njihove zaprisege.
These concerns relate to the following issues:
Sprejel pa je zaprisego treh sodnikov, ki jih je brez veljavne pravne podlage imenovala nova sestava Sejma.
the appointment of judges of the Constitutional Tribunal and the lack of implementation of the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal of 3 and 9 December 2015 relating to these matters;
Dva sodnika, ki jih je izbrala nova sestava Sejma in ki naj bi nadomestila sodnika, katerih mandat se je iztekel decembra 2015, sta medtem nastopila funkcijo ustavnega sodnika.
the lack of publication in the Official Journal and of implementation of the judgment of 9 March 2016 and of the judgments rendered by the Constitutional Tribunal since 9 March 2016;
28. aprila 2016 je pred predsednikom republike zaprisegel nov ustavni sodnik, ki ga je Sejm imenoval za mesto, ki se je izpraznilo tistega meseca, ko se je enemu od ustavnih sodnikov iztekel mandat.
the effective functioning of the Constitutional Tribunal and the effectiveness of Constitutional review of new legislation, in particular in view of the law on the Constitutional Tribunal adopted by the Sejm on 22 July 2016.
22. julija 2016 je Sejm sprejel nov zakon o ustavnem sodišču.
Ahead of the general elections for the Sejm of 25 October 2015, on 8 October the outgoing legislature nominated five persons to be ‘appointed’ as judges of the Constitutional Tribunal by the President of the Republic.
Člen 6(7) novega zakona določa, da se „po zaprisegi sodniki zglasijo na sodišču in nastopijo svoje funkcije, predsednik sodišča pa jim dodeli zadeve in vzpostavi pogoje, ki jim bodo omogočali opravljanje njihove funkcije“.
Three judges would take seats vacated during the mandate of the outgoing legislature while two would take seats vacated during that of the incoming legislature which commenced on 12 November 2015.
Komisija meni, da zavezujoči in pravnomočni sodbi ustavnega sodišča s 3. in 9. decembra 2015 še vedno nista izvršeni, kar zadeva imenovanje sodnikov.
On 19 November 2015, the Sejm, through an accelerated procedure, amended the Law on the Constitutional Tribunal, introducing the possibility to annul the judicial nominations made by the previous legislature and to nominate five new judges.
Ti sodbi zahtevata, da državne institucije na Poljskem z lojalnim sodelovanjem zagotovijo, da v skladu z načelom pravne države trije sodniki, ki jih je imenovala prejšnja sestava Sejma, nastopijo svojo funkcijo ustavnih sodnikov in da trije sodniki, ki jih je imenovala nova sestava Sejma brez ustrezne pravne podlage, svoje funkcije ne nastopijo.
On 25 November 2015, the Sejm passed a motion annulling the five nominations by the previous legislature and on 2 December nominated five new judges.
Dejstvo, da ti sodbi nista bili izvršeni, sproža resne pomisleke v zvezi s pravno državo, saj je spoštovanje pravnomočnih sodb sodišča bistvena zahteva v okviru načela pravne države.
The Constitutional Tribunal was seised concerning the decisions of both the previous legislature and the incoming legislature.
V enem od svojih dopisov se je poljska vlada sklicevala na poljske ustavne običaje glede imenovanja sodnikov, ki naj bi upravičevali stališče nove sestave Sejma.
The Tribunal consequently delivered two judgments, on 3 and 9 December 2015.
Vendar Komisija, podobno kot Beneška komisija [22], ugotavlja, da je razlaganje in uporaba nacionalnega ustavnega prava in običajev naloga ustavnega sodišča, ki se v svojih sodbah na take običaje ni sklicevalo.
In its judgment of 3 December [20], the Constitutional Tribunal ruled, inter alia, that the previous legislature of the Sejm had been entitled to nominate three judges replacing the judges whose terms expired on 6 November 2015.
Sodbe s 3. decembra, ki je potrdila pravno podlago za imenovanje treh sodnikov s strani prejšnje sestave Sejma na mesta, ki so se izpraznila 6. novembra, ni mogoče razveljaviti s sklicevanjem na domnevne ustavne običaje, ki jih ustavno sodišče ne priznava.
At the same time, the Tribunal clarified that the Sejm had not been entitled to elect the two judges replacing those whose term expired in December.
Poleg tega bi omejevanje vpliva teh sodb zgolj na obveznost vlade, da jih objavi, kot navajajo poljski organi, pomenilo nepriznavanje pravnega in operativnega učinka sodb s 3. in 9. decembra.
The judgment also specifically referred to the obligation for the President of the Republic to immediately take the oath from a judge elected by the Sejm.
S tem se zlasti zanika obveznost predsednika republike, da sprejme zaprisego zadevnih sodnikov, ki jo je potrdilo tudi ustavno sodišče.
On 9 December [21], the Constitutional Tribunal, inter alia, invalidated the legal basis for the nominations by the new legislature of the Sejm of the three judges for the vacancies opened up on 6 November 2015 for which the previous legislature had already lawfully nominated judges.
Komisija nadalje ugotavlja, da tudi Beneška komisija meni, da mora rešitev trenutnega spora glede sestave ustavnega sodišča „temeljiti na obveznosti, da se spoštujejo in v celoti izvršijo sodbe ustavnega sodišča“ in „zato poziva državne organe in zlasti Sejm, naj sodbe v celoti spoštujejo in izvršujejo“ [23].
Despite these judgments, the three judges nominated by the previous legislature have not taken up their function of judge in the Constitutional Tribunal and their oath has not yet been taken by the President of the Republic.
Komisija meni, da zakon o ustavnem sodišču z 22. julija 2016 ni v skladu s sodbama s 3. in 9. decembra.
Conversely, the oath of the three judges nominated by the new legislature without a valid legal basis has been taken by the President of the Republic.
Člen 90 in člen 6(7) zahtevata, da predsednik ustavnega sodišča zadeve dodeljuje vsem sodnikom, ki so zaprisegli pred predsednikom republike, vendar še niso nastopili funkcije kot sodniki.
The two judges elected by the new legislature replacing the two judges outgoing in December 2015 have in the meantime taken up their function of judge in the Constitutional Tribunal.
Te določbe so torej v nasprotju s sodbama ustavnega sodišča s 3. in 9. decembra 2015 in mnenjem Beneške komisije.
On 28 April 2016, the President of the Republic took the oath of a new judge in the Constitutional Tribunal, nominated by the Sejm to fill a vacancy created earlier that month to replace a judge whose term in the Constitutional Tribunal had ended.
Zadevne določbe zakona o ustavnem sodišču z 22. julija 2016 so v nasprotju s sodbama ustavnega sodišča s 3. in 9. decembra 2015 in mnenjem Beneške komisije ter vzbujajo resne pomisleke glede spoštovanja načela pravne države.
On 22 July 2016, the Sejm adopted a new Law on the Constitutional Tribunal.
NEOBJAVA IN NEIZVRŠEVANJE SODBE USTAVNEGA SODIŠČA Z 9.
Article 90 of this Law states that ‘With effect from this Act's entry into force, the President of the Tribunal shall include on panels ruling on cases, and assign cases to, judges of the Tribunal who have taken the oath before the President of the Republic but, by the date of this Act's entry into force, had yet to take up their duties as judges.’
MARCA 2016 IN SODB, IZREČENIH PO 9.
Article 6(7) of the new Law stipulates that ‘After taking the oath, judges shall present themselves at the Tribunal to take up their duties, and the President of the Tribunal shall assign them cases and create conditions enabling them to perform their duties’.
MARCU 2016
The Commission considers that the binding and final judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal of 3 and 9 December 2015 have still not been implemented as far as the appointment of judges is concerned.
22. decembra 2015 je Sejm po hitrem postopku spremenil zakon o ustavnem sodišču [24].
These judgments require that the State institutions of Poland cooperate loyally in order to ensure, in accordance with the rule of law, that the three judges that have been nominated by the previous legislature of the Sejm can take up their function of judge in the Constitutional Tribunal, and that the three judges nominated by the new legislature without a valid legal basis do not take up this function.
Spremembe so podrobneje opisane v oddelku 4.1.
In one of its letters the Polish Government has referred to the existence of a constitutional custom in Poland regarding the nomination of judges which would justify the position taken by the new legislature of the Sejm.
Poljski organi doslej te sodbe niso objavili v Uradnem listu.
The judgment of 3 December which has validated the legal basis for the nominations of the three judges by the previous Sejm for the posts which became vacant on 6 November cannot be overturned by invoking a supposed constitutional custom which the Tribunal has not recognized.
Enako stališče je vlada zavzela glede sodb, ki jih je sodišče izreklo po 9. marcu 2016.
Also, limiting the impact of these judgments to a mere obligation for the Government to publish them, as put forward by the Polish authorities, would deny any legal and operational effect of the judgments of 3 and 9 December.
Komisija meni, da je sodba z 9. marca 2016 zavezujoča in jo je treba spoštovati.
In particular, it denies the obligation of the President of the Republic to take the oath of the judges in question, which has been confirmed by the Constitutional Tribunal.
Ustavno sodišče je ravnalo pravilno, ko ni uporabilo postopka, predvidenega v zakonu z 22. decembra 2015.
The Commission furthermore notes that also the Venice Commission considers that a solution to the current conflict over the composition of the Constitutional Tribunal ‘must be based on the obligation to respect and fully implement the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal’ and ‘therefore calls on all State organs and notably the Sejm to fully respect and implement the judgments’ [23].
V zvezi s tem se Komisija strinja z Beneško komisijo, ki glede tega navaja, da „mora biti preprost zakonodajni akt, ki bi lahko onemogočil ustavni nadzor, predmet ustavnega pregleda, preden ga sodišče lahko uporabi. […] Že sama ideja o nadvladi ustave pomeni, da mora ustavno sodišče zakon, ki naj bi ogrožal ustavno sodno varstvo, nadzorovati in ga po potrebi razveljaviti, preden začne veljati“ [25].
Finally, as regards the law adopted on 22 July 2016 on the Constitutional Tribunal the Commission observes that this law is not compatible with the judgments of 3 and 9 December.
Poleg tega Komisija poudarja, da glede na to, da bi bil po zakonu z 22. decembra 2015 za sodbo v polni sestavi potreben kvorum 13 sodnikov, ustavno sodišče pa je bilo sestavljeno samo iz 12 sodnikov, ustavno sodišče ne bi moglo opraviti ustavnega pregleda sprememb z 22. decembra 2015, kot zahtevajo prvi predsednik ustavnega sodišča, varuh človekovih pravic in nacionalni sodni svet.
Article 90 and Article 6(7) require the President of the Constitutional Tribunal to assign cases to all judges who have taken the oath before the President of the Republic but have not yet taken up their duties as judges.
To bi bilo v nasprotju s poljsko ustavo, ki ustavnemu sodišču nalaga opravljanje ustavnih pregledov.
This provision seems targeted at the situation of the three judges which were unlawfully nominated by the new legislature of the Sejm in December 2015.
Prav tako sodišče ne bi moglo odločati o ustavnosti zahteve o kvalificirani večini, pri tem pa glasovati v skladu z zahtevo, katere ustavnost je presojalo.