National Prosecutor's Office Responds to Supreme Court Ruling on Prosecutor Jacek Bilewicz Appointment

The National Prosecutor's Office (Prokuratura Krajowa - PK) has issued a strong rebuttal to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court's Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamber. The court declared that Jacek Bilewicz was not effectively appointed as deputy prosecutor general because the procedure failed to obtain the President's opinion. The PK, through its spokesperson Prosecutor Przemysław Nowak, contends that this ruling is founded on a flawed interpretation of the "Law on Prosecution."

“

The Supreme Court's ruling is based on a misinterpretation of the law regarding the President's opinion in the appointment process.

According to the PK's statement, the relevant article stipulates that deputy prosecutors general are appointed by the Prime Minister upon the Prosecutor General's request, after obtaining the President's opinion. However, the PK emphasizes that this opinion is advisory and not binding. "It is not an act that creates a legal relationship of appointment," Nowak stated, adding that a negative opinion, or even the President's failure to provide one, does not block the appointment. This interpretation suggests that the President could effectively veto appointments by withholding an opinion, a power the PK argues is not granted by law.

“

The opinion of the president in the procedure for appointing the deputy PG does not have a binding character.

The PK further clarified that the Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, had indeed sought President Andrzej Duda's opinion on Bilewicz's candidacy on May 24, 2024. The Presidential Chancellery responded on June 21, 2024, but did not provide the requested opinion, thus exercising its right not to offer one. Bilewicz was subsequently appointed on July 22, 2024. The PK's stance underscores a significant institutional dispute over the boundaries of presidential and governmental authority in prosecutorial appointments, highlighting the ongoing political tensions surrounding the judiciary in Poland.

“

It is not an act that creates a legal relationship of appointment. It is not an official act of the President of the Republic of Poland within the meaning of Article 144(1) of the Constitution, therefore it is not subject to countersignature.