lex Tusk

Position_Themis_LexTusk_logo

It is about the act on the commission for Russian influence, referred to as “lex Tusk”. President Andrzej Duda announced on Monday that he was signing the bill and at the same time referred it to the Constitutional Tribunal in the so-called follow-up mode.

The position on the act was issued on Tuesday by the Association of Judges Themis. In his opinion, this law is completely unconstitutional. “Her analysis results in the statement, as indicated by the Commissioner for Citizens’ Rights, that the purpose of the Commission, which is a public administration body, is to stigmatize and subject to punishment, by means of decisions corresponding to criminal measures, public officials, management staff of business entities and any person inconvenient for the authorities” – we read .

According to the judges, the purpose of the Commission is to influence the outcome of the parliamentary elections in the interest of the current government. – What’s more, it is directed directly against the leader of the parliamentary opposition, which is clear from its justification, in which it is written, among others: “At the same time, it is impossible not to notice that the government of Donald Tusk in the years 2007-2014 implemented a completely different policy towards the Russian Federation . It is referred to as a reset in relations with Russia, which was conceptually developed in Germany by the government of Angela Merkel.

The position notes that signing the act and its subsequent referral to the Constitutional Tribunal will guarantee its entry into force, the appointment of the Commission and the enforceability of the “penal measures” imposed by it before the autumn elections. A subsequent statement by the Constitutional Tribunal that the Act was inconsistent with the Constitution will be irrelevant. Themis points out that regardless of this, the Constitutional Tribunal, e.g. as a result of President Duda’s earlier actions (swearing in double judges), he ceased to be an effective guardian of the Constitution anyway.