natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Furthermore, without any constitutional or legal basis, the chancellery of the Prime Minister has purported to control the validity of judgments of the Tribunal by refusing to publish its judgments.
V odgovoru se vlada v nobeni točki ne strinja s stališčem iz Priporočila in ne napoveduje nobenih novih ukrepov za odpravo pomislekov Komisije glede pravne države.
The opinion also underlined that the problem of the appointment of judges has not been solved as recommended and that the implementation of the provision in the Law of 22 July 2016 requiring the Tribunal's President to assign cases to the December judges would be contrary to the Tribunal's judgments, which are universally binding and thus bind all state authorities, including the Tribunal and its President.
Dne 31. oktobra 2016 je Odbor za človekove pravice Organizacije združenih narodov sprejel Sklepne ugotovitve o sedmem rednem poročilu Poljske.
The opinion concluded that by adopting the law, the Polish Parliament assumed powers of constitutional revision which it did not have when it acted as the ordinary legislature.
Izrazil je pomisleke glede negativnega vpliva zakonodajnih reform, vključno s spremembami zakona o ustavnem sodišču iz novembra in decembra 2015 ter julija 2016, in neupoštevanja sodb ustavnega sodišča ter delovanja in neodvisnosti ustavnega sodišča in izvajanja Mednarodnega pakta o državljanskih in političnih pravicah.
It considered that the Polish Parliament and the Government continued to challenge the Tribunal's position as the final arbiter of constitutional issues and attributed this authority to themselves: they created new obstacles to the effective functioning of the Tribunal, and acted to further undermine its independence.
Odbor je izrazil pomisleke tudi glede zavrnitve predsednice vlade, da bi objavila sodbe ustavnega sodišča iz marca in avgusta 2016, in prizadevanj vlade za spremembo sestave ustavnega sodišča na načine, ki jih ustavno sodišče šteje za neustavne, ter sodnega postopka, sproženega proti predsedniku ustavnega sodišča zaradi domnevne zlorabe oblasti.
By prolonging the constitutional crisis, they obstructed the Constitutional Tribunal, which cannot play its constitutional role as the guardian of democracy, the rule of law and human rights, according to the opinion.
Odbor je ugotovil, da bi morala Poljska zagotoviti spoštovanje in varstvo integritete in neodvisnosti ustavnega sodišča in ustavnih sodnikov ter zagotoviti izvršitev vseh njegovih sodb.
The Polish government decided not to participate in the sitting of the Venice Commission on 14 October 2016 as it considered that the opinion of the Venice Commission was one-sided and did not take into account the Government's position.
Odbor je Poljsko pozval, naj takoj uradno objavi vse sodbe ustavnega sodišča, naj ne uvaja ukrepov, ki ovirajo njegovo učinkovito delovanje, ter naj zagotovi pregleden in nepristranski postopek imenovanja njegovih članov ter zajamčeno pravico do mandata, ki izpolnjuje vse zahteve glede zakonitosti v skladu z domačim in mednarodnim pravom.
On 26 October 2016, a group of members of the Sejm submitted a new legislative proposal regarding the organisation and proceedings before the Constitutional Tribunal.
Ustavno sodišče je 7. novembra 2016 izreklo sodbo o ustavnosti določb zakona z dne 22. julija 2016 o izboru predsednika in podpredsednika ustavnega sodišča [10].
The proposal contains detailed provisions on the organisation and proceedings before the Constitutional Tribunal, including new rules on the election of the President and Vice-President of the Tribunal.
Opozoriti je treba, da trije ustavni sodniki niso želeli sodelovati v zadevi [11] in trije sodniki, ki jih je oktobra 2015 zakonito imenovala 7. sestava Sejma, niso prevzeli svojih sodnih funkcij na ustavnem sodišču, zato je moralo ustavno sodišče spremeniti svojo sestavo iz polne sestave senata v senat petih sodnikov.
The proposal complements the legislative proposal on the status of judges of the Constitutonal Tribunal, submitted to the Sejm on 30 September 2016 (see above); both legislative proposals are closely interlinked and intend to replace the Law of 22 July 2016.
Ustavno sodišče že od 11. avgusta 2016 ne more zasedati v polni sestavi senata za izrekanje sodb.
On 27 October 2016, within the time limit of 3 months set in the Recommendation, the Polish Government replied to the Commission Recommendation.
Dne 10. novembra 2016 je moralo obravnavo zadeve v polni sestavi senata odložiti, ker ni bilo mogoče doseči sklepčnosti za polno sestavo senata.
The reply disagrees on all points with the position expressed in the Recommendation and does not announce any new measures to alleviate the rule of law concerns addressed by the Commission.
Poleg tega 30. novembra in 8. decembra 2016 generalna skupščina ni mogla sprejeti resolucije o predložitvi kandidatov za predsednika ustavnega sodišča, ker ni bilo mogoče doseči zakonsko predpisane sklepčnosti.
On 31 October 2016, the UN Human Rights Committee adopted Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Poland.
Dne 1. decembra 2016 je senat sprejel zakon z dne 30. novembra 2016 o pravnem statusu ustavnih sodnikov (v nadaljnjem besedilu: zakon o statusu sodnikov).
It expressed concerns about the negative impact of legislative reforms, including the amendments to the Law on the Constitutional Tribunal of November and December 2015 and July 2016, and the disregard of the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal; the functioning and independence of the Tribunal and the implementation of the Covenant.
Dne 2. decembra 2016 je senat sprejel zakon z dne 30. novembra 2016 o organizaciji ustavnega sodišča in postopkih pred sodiščem (v nadaljnjem besedilu: zakon o organizaciji in postopkih).
The Committee also expressed its concerns about the refusal of the Prime Minister to publish the judgments of March and August 2016 of the Tribunal and efforts of the government to change the Tribunal's composition in ways which the Tribunal has regarded as unconstitutional, and about the legal proceedings initiated against the President of the Tribunal for alleged abuse of power.
Dne 14. decembra 2016 je Evropski parlament razpravljal o stanju pravne države na Poljskem.
The Committee concluded that Poland should ensure respect for and protection of the integrity and independence of the Constitutional Tribunal and its judges and ensure the implementation of all its judgments.
Na tej razpravi je Komisija nujno pozvala poljske organe, naj ne uveljavljajo novih zakonov, preden bi imelo ustavno sodišče priložnost, da preuči njihovo ustavnost.
The Committee urged Poland to immediately publish officially all the judgments of the Tribunal, to refrain from introducing measures that obstruct its effective functioning and to ensure a transparent and impartial process for the appointment of its members and security of tenure, which meets all requirements of legality under domestic and international law.
Dne 15. decembra 2016 je senat sprejel zakon z dne 13. decembra 2016 o izvajanju zakona o organizaciji in postopkih ter zakona o statusu sodnikov (v nadaljnjem besedilu: izvedbeni zakon).
On 7 November 2016, the Constitutional Tribunal rendered a judgment on the constitutionality of the provisions of the Law of 22 July 2016 regarding the selection of the President and Vice-President of the Tribunal [10].
Sodnica Julia Przyłębska je 20. decembra 2016 trem sodnikom, ki jih je 8. sestava Sejma imenovala brez veljavne pravne podlage, omogočila nastop funkcije na ustavnem sodišču in sklicala sejo generalne skupščine za isti dan.
It should be noted that due to the refusal of three judges of the Tribunal to participate in the case [11] and in view of the fact that the three judges that were lawfully nominated in October 2015 by the 7th term of the Sejm had not taken up their judicial functions in the Tribunal, the Constitutional Tribunal had to change its composition from the full bench into a bench of five judges.
Zaradi kratkega roka sklica se en sodnik seje ni mogel udeležiti in je prosil za njeno preložitev na naslednji dan.
Since 11 August 2016 the Constitutional Tribunal has not been able to sit in full bench to render judgments.
Sodnica Julia Przyłębska je prošnjo zavrnila, seje pa se ni udeležilo tudi sedem drugih sodnikov.
In addition, on 30 November and on 8 December 2016, the General Assembly was unable to adopt a resolution on presenting candidates to the post of the President of the Constitutional Tribunal as the quorum prescribed by law could not be reached.
Dne 21. decembra 2016 je predsednik republike imenoval sodnico Julio Przyłębsko na položaj predsednice ustavnega sodišča.
On 1 December 2016, the Senate adopted the Law of 30 November 2016 on the legal status of judges of the Constitutional Tribunal (‘Law on the status of judges’).
SPREJELA NASLEDNJE PRIPOROČILO:
On 2 December 2016, the Senate adopted the Law of 30 November 2016 on organisation and proceedings before the Constitutional Tribunal (‘Law on organisation and proceedings’).
Republika Poljska bi morala ustrezno upoštevati analizo Komisije, predstavljeno v nadaljevanju, in sprejeti ukrepe iz oddelka 7 tega priporočila, da bi ugotovljene težave rešila v določenem roku.
On 14 December 2016, the European Parliament held a debate on the situation of the rule of law in Poland.
PODROČJE UPORABE PRIPOROČILA
During this debate, the Commission urgently called on the Polish authorities not to put into force the new laws before the Constitutional Tribunal has had the occasion to examine their constitutionality.
Na podlagi tega vsebuje priporočila poljskim organom o tem, kako te pomisleke odpraviti.
On 15 December 2016, the Senate adopted the Law of 13 December 2016 implementing the Law on organisation and proceedings and the Law on the status of judges (‘Implementing Law’).
Pomisleki se nanašajo na naslednje zadeve:
On 19 December 2016, the President of the Republic signed the three laws referred to above which were published in the Official Journal.
imenovanje ustavnih sodnikov in neizvrševanje sodb ustavnega sodišča z dne 3. in 9. decembra 2015 ter z dne 11. avgusta 2016 v zvezi s temi zadevami;
On the same day, the President of the Republic appointed judge Julia Przylębska, a judge elected by the new Sejm, to the position of acting President of the Constitutional Tribunal.
neobjavo in neizvrševanje več sodb ustavnega sodišča od marca 2016, vključno s sodbama z dne 9. marca in 11. avgusta v zvezi z zakonodajnimi akti o ustavnem sodišču;
In view of the short notice, one judge was unable to participate and requested to postpone the meeting for the next day.
pravila o izboru kandidatov za položaj predsednika in podpredsednika ustavnega sodišča ter imenovanju vršilca dolžnosti predsednika ustavnega sodišča v zakonu o organizaciji in postopkih ter izvedbenemu zakonu.
Judge Julia Przyłębska refused and seven other judges also did not participate in the meeting.
IMENOVANJE SODNIKOV USTAVNEGA SODIŠČA
Only six judges, including the three judges unlawfully nominated, took part in the meeting and elected two candidates, Julia Przyłębska and Mariusz Muszyński, who were presented as candidate to the President of the Republic.
Komisija je v Priporočilu z dne 27. julija 2016 [12] priporočila, naj poljski organi v celoti izvršijo sodbi ustavnega sodišča z dne 3. in 9. decembra 2015, ki zahtevata, da trije sodniki, ki jih je oktobra 2015 zakonito imenovala 7. sestava Sejma, nastopijo svojo funkcijo ustavnih sodnikov in da trije sodniki, ki jih je imenovala 8. sestava Sejma brez ustrezne pravne podlage, svoje funkcije sodnika ne nastopijo.
On 21 December 2016, the President of the Republic appointed judge Julia Przyłębska to the post of President of the Constitutional Tribunal.
Komisija je navedla, da je zakon o ustavnem sodišču z dne 22. julija 2016 v nasprotju s sodbama ustavnega sodišča z dne 3. in 9. decembra.
HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
Člen 90 [13] določa, da predsednik ustavnega sodišča zadeve dodeljuje vsem sodnikom, ki so zaprisegli pred predsednikom republike, vendar še niso nastopili funkcije kot sodniki.
The Republic of Poland should duly take into account the Commission's analysis set out hereafter and take the measures figuring in section 7 of this Recommendation so that the problems identified are solved within the time limit set.
Ustavno sodišče je v sodbi z dne 11. avgusta 2016 ugotovilo, da je člen 90 zakona z dne 22. julija 2016 neustaven, Beneška komisija pa je v mnenju z dne 14. oktobra 2016 potrdila, da ta določba ni rešitev v skladu z načelom pravne države [14].
SCOPE OF THE RECOMMENDATION
Vendar poljska vlada še vedno ne priznava veljavnosti sodbe z dne 11. avgusta 2016 in zavrača njeno objavo v Uradnem listu (glej oddelek 3 spodaj).
The present Recommendation complements the Recommendation of 27 July 2016.
Poljska vlada v odgovoru z dne 27. oktobra 2016 meni, da v sodbah ustavnega sodišča z dne 3. in 9. decembra 2015 ni bilo navedeno, kateri sodniki naj bi nastopili funkcijo, ter da je nova sestava Sejma decembra 2015 zakonito imenovala pet sodnikov.
It examines which of the concerns raised in that recommendation have been addressed, sets out the remaining concerns and lists a number of new concerns of the Commission with regard to the rule of law in Poland which have arisen since then.
V odgovoru vlada priznava, da v izreku sodbe z dne 3. decembra 2015 ustavno sodišče navaja dolžnost predsednika republike, da takoj sprejme zaprisego sodnika, ki ga izvoli Sejm.
On this basis, it makes recommendations to the Polish authorities on how to address these concerns.
Vendar meni, da navedena sodba ne more zavezovati drugih organov k uporabi določb na določeni način v neki zadevi.
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 and of 11 August 2016 relating to these matters;
Ta razlaga je v nasprotju z načelom lojalnega sodelovanja med državnimi organi, kar je, kot je poudarjeno v mnenjih Beneške komisije, ustavni osnovni pogoj v demokratični pravni državi.
the lack of publication and of implementation of a number of judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal since March 2016, including the judgments of 9 March and 11 August relating to legislative acts on the Constitutional Tribunal;
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“ [18].
the rules applicable to the selection of candidates for the post of President and Vice-President of the Constitutional Tribunal and to the appointment of an acting President of the Constitutional Tribunal in the Law on organisation and proceedings and the Implementing Law.
NEOBJAVA IN NEIZVRŠEVANJE SODBE USTAVNEGA SODIŠČA Z DNE 9.
In its Recommendation of 27 July 2016 [12], the Commission recommended that the Polish authorities implement fully the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal of 3 and 9 December 2015 which requires that the three judges that were lawfully nominated in October 2015 by the 7th term of the Sejm can take up their judicial functions in the Constitutional Tribunal, and that the three judges nominated by the 8th term of the Sejm without a valid legal basis do not take up their judicial functions.
MARCU 2016
As regards the law of 22 July 2016 on the Constitutional Tribunal the Commission noted that this law is contrary to the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal of 3 and 9 December.
Komisija je v Priporočilu z dne 27. julija 2016 priporočila, naj poljski organi objavijo in v celoti izvršijo sodbo ustavnega sodišča z dne 9. marca 2016 in poznejše sodbe ter zagotovijo, da bodo prihodnje sodbe objavljene samodejno, ne pa glede na odločitev izvršilnih ali zakonodajnih oblasti.
Article 90 [13] requires 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.
Poleg tega nobena od 16 sodb ustavnega sodišča, izrečenih po 11. avgustu 2016, še ni bila objavljena.
This provision seems targeted at the situation of the three judges which were unlawfully nominated by the 8th term of the Sejm in December 2015.
Ustavno sodišče je s sodbo z dne 11. avgusta 2016 člen 89 zakona z dne 22. julija 2016 razglasilo za neustavnega zaradi njegove neskladnosti z načeli delitve in ravnovesja oblasti ter neodvisnostjo sodišč in tribunalov od drugih vej oblasti.
It would enable these judges to take up their function while using the vacancies for which the previous legislature of the Sejm had already lawfully nominated three judges, as has been held in the judgments of 3 and 9 December 2015.
Odgovor poljske vlade z dne 27. oktobra potrjuje, da vlada še vedno meni, da ima pooblastila za preverjanje zakonitosti sodb ustavnega sodišča in da samodejne objave sodb ni mogoče zagotoviti.
In addition, the new Law on the status of judges reintroduces a provision [15] similar to Article 90 of the Law of 22 July 2016 which was declared unconstitutional in the judgment of 11 August 2016.
Ta določba je sama po sebi korak v pravo smer.
Likewise, provisions aiming at deploying a similar effect can be found in the Law on organisation and proceedings [16] and in the Implementing Law [17].
To stališče je v svojih mnenjih [21] potrdila tudi Beneška komisija.
In its reply of 27 October 2016 the Polish Government considers that the judgments of 3 and 9 December 2015 of the Tribunal did not specify which judges were to take up their function and considers that the new legislature of the Sejm has lawfully nominated the five judges in December 2015.
Poleg tega ni zagotovila, da bo s členom 114(2) zakona o organizaciji in postopkih zagotovljeno, da bo prihodnji predsednik ustavnega sodišča objavil vse sodbe, sprejete pred začetkom njegovega mandata.
The reply implies that, with or without the judgments of the Tribunal, the situation would remain the same.
Ta negotovost ogroža učinkovitost ustavnega pregleda in vzbuja resne pomisleke glede pravne države.
The reply concedes that in the operative part of the judgment of 3 December 2015, the Constitutional Tribunal addressed the duty of the President of the Republic to immediately take an oath from a judge elected to the Tribunal by the Sejm.
Spoštovanje pravnomočnih sodb je bistvena zahteva v okviru načela pravne države.
It takes however the view that that judgment cannot bind other authorities to apply provisions in the manner specified in a given case.
Zavrnitev objave zavezujoče in pravnomočne sodbe pomeni nepriznavanje samodejnega pravnega in operativnega učinka sodbe ter kršitev načel zakonitosti in delitve oblasti.
This interpretation limits the impact of the judgments of 3 and 9 December 2015 to a mere obligation for the Government to publish them but would deny them any further legal and operational effect, in particular as regards the obligation for the President of the Republic to take the oath of the judges in question.
PREGLED ZAKONA O USTAVNEM SODIŠČU IN UČINKOVITOST USTAVNEGA PREGLEDA NOVE ZAKONODAJE
This interpretation goes against the principle of loyal cooperation between state organs which is, as underlined in the opinions of the Venice Commission, a constitutional precondition in a democratic state governed by the rule of law.
Komisija je zakon z dne 22. julija 2016 in njegov učinek podrobneje obravnavala v Priporočilu z dne 27. julija 2016, pri čemer je upoštevala učinek določb tako posamično kot v kombinaciji ter predhodno sodno prakso ustavnega sodišča in mnenje Beneške komisije.
In conclusion, the Commission considers that the Polish authorities should respect and fully implement the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal of 3 and 9 December 2015.
V odgovoru je tudi na kratko pojasnjena skladnost zgoraj navedene zakonodaje s temeljnimi pravicami.
The relevant provisions of the Law of 22 July 2016 on the Constitutional Tribunal raise serious concerns in respect of the rule of law and have been found unconstitutional by the judgment of 11 August 2016 of the Constitutional Tribunal.
V odgovoru je tudi zanikana temeljna vloga ustavnega sodišča pri zagotavljanju načela pravne države na Poljskem.
Also this judgment should be respected, published and implemented by the Polish authorities.
Komisija se s to trditvijo ne strinja.
In addition, provisions [19] aiming at producing a similar result included in the Law on the status of judges, the Law on organisation and proceedings and in the Implementing Law are also inconsistent with these judgments and must not be applied.
Ustavno sodišče je v resnici eden od glavnih varuhov pravne države na Poljskem, zlasti ker je njegova naloga razsojanje o ustavnosti poljskih zakonov.
LACK OF PUBLICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL TRIBUNAL JUDGMENT OF 9 MARCH 2016 AND OF THE JUDGMENTS RENDERED SINCE 9 MARCH 2016
Iz poljske ustave je jasno razvidno, da je ustavno sodišče pristojno za razsojanje o skladnosti zakonov in mednarodnih sporazumov z ustavo, o skladnosti zakonov z ratificiranimi mednarodnimi sporazumi, za ratifikacijo katerih je bilo potrebno predhodno soglasje, odobreno z zakonom, o skladnosti pravnih predpisov, ki jih izdajo osrednji državni organi, z ustavo, ratificiranimi mednarodnimi sporazumi in zakoni, o skladnosti namenov ali dejavnosti političnih strank z ustavo in o pritožbah v zvezi s kršitvami ustave [22].
In its Recommendation of 27 July 2016, the Commission recommended that the Polish authorities publish and implement fully the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 9 March 2016 and its subsequent judgments and ensure that the publication of future judgments is automatic and does not depend on any decision of the executive or legislative powers.
Ustavno sodišče tudi rešuje spore o pooblastilih med osrednjimi ustavnimi državnimi organi [23].
On 16 August 2016, the Polish Government, on the basis of Article 89 of the Law of 22 July 2016, published 21 judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal rendered in a period from 6 April 2016 to 19 July 2016.
Dejstvo, da v skladu z ustavo ustavno sodišče države obravnava primere kršitev ustave ali zakonov, ki jih zakrivijo določene osebe [24], in da predsednik republike zagotavlja upoštevanje ustave [25], ne vpliva na to temeljno vlogo ustavnega sodišča.
However, the two judgments of 9 March and 11 August 2016 have still not been published by the Polish Government, contrary to what had been requested in the Commission's Recommendation.
Komisija ugotavlja, da zakon o organizaciji in postopkih ne vsebuje več naslednjih določb zakona z dne 22. julija 2016, glede katerih je bil v priporočilu izražen pomislek, in sicer člena 26(1)(1g) o predložitvi zadev polni sestavi senata [26], člena 38(3) o obravnavi zadev v časovnem zaporedju [27], člena 68(5)–(8) o preložitvi posvetovanj [28], člena 61(6) o možnosti generalnega državnega tožilca, da prepreči preučitev zadev [29], in členov 83 do 86 o prehodnih določbah za odprte zadeve [30].
The reply of the Polish Government of 27 October confirms that the Government still considers to have the power to check the lawfulness of judgments of the Tribunal and that the automatic publication of judgments cannot be ensured.
Tveganje, ugotovljeno v Priporočilu, da kvorum za sklepčnost za polno sestavo senata včasih ne bo dosežen, se je že uresničilo [32].
Article 114(1) and (2) of the Law on organisation and procedure provides that ‘Adjudications are published in the appropriate official journal, in accordance with the principles and in the manner laid down in the Constitution and the act of 20 July 2000 on the publication of the normative acts and certain other legal acts […]’.
Poleg tega zakon o organizaciji in postopkih, zakon o statusu sodnikov in izvedbeni zakon vsebujejo druge določbe, zaradi katerih so nekateri pomisleki iz Priporočila postali še večji (glej oddelek 2 o imenovanju sodnikov in oddelek 3 o objavi sodb) ali pa so zaradi njih nastali novi pomisleki glede položaja sodnikov (glej oddelek 4.1) ter imenovanja predsednika, podpredsednika in vršilca dolžnosti predsednika ustavnega sodišča (glej oddelek 5).