The term of the Ombudsman and the constitutional principle of trust for the state and the law. Commentary on Constitutional Tribunal Judgement of 15 April 2021, case K 20/20

The commentary presented in the paper is doctrinal and has descriptive and interpretive aims. It discusses the Tribunal’s judgement concerning the unconstitutionality of one of the provisions of the Act on the Ombudsman. According to the provision, the Ombudsman shall continue to perform duties after the end of term and until the election of the new Ombudsman.

In the Tribunal’s view, the provision provided an unconstitutional extension of the Ombudsman’s term. Since the judgement was passed by the unconstitutionally elected members of the Tribunal and it was to remove Adam Bodnar (the former Ombudsman) from the office, it has to be interpreted in the context of the current constitutional crisis in Poland. The article argues that the Tribunal’s reasoning was constitutionally wrong, logically incoherent, and far from clear if considering the well-established case-law. Moreover, the paper explains how the Tribunal and the President of the Tribunal violated the law on the assignment of judges to the Tribunal’s panels and the constitutional principle of judicial independence. The concluding remarks focus on the possible legal consequences of unlawfulness in the Polish constitutional order, which does not directly provide any review of the Tribunal’s judgements or its President’s actions.

The commentary presented in the paper is doctrinal and has descriptive and interpretive aims. It discusses the Tribunal’s judgement concerning the unconstitutionality of one of the provisions of the Act on the Ombudsman. According to the provision, the Ombudsman shall continue to perform duties after the end of term and until the election of the new Ombudsman.

In the Tribunal’s view, the provision provided an unconstitutional extension of the Ombudsman’s term. Since the judgement was passed by the unconstitutionally elected members of the Tribunal and it was to remove Adam Bodnar (the former Ombudsman) from the office, it has to be interpreted in the context of the current constitutional crisis in Poland. The article argues that the Tribunal’s reasoning was constitutionally wrong, logically incoherent, and far from clear if considering the well-established case-law. Moreover, the paper explains how the Tribunal and the President of the Tribunal violated the law on the assignment of judges to the Tribunal’s panels and the constitutional principle of judicial independence. The concluding remarks focus on the possible legal consequences of unlawfulness in the Polish constitutional order, which does not directly provide any review of the Tribunal’s judgements or its President’s actions.