This statement refers to the "Report of the Committee on Constitutional Responsibility on the work on the preliminary motion to bring the President of the National Bank of Poland, Adam Glapiński, to constitutional responsibility before the Tribunal of State."
NBP: In principle, there should not be...
"Conducting proceedings in relation to the constitutional liability of the President of the National Bank of Poland by the Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Responsibility - in principle, should not take place due to the principle of independence of the central bank established in the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal, as well as primary law of the European Union," we read in the position of the central bank.
NBP assessed that the Sejm Committee on Constitutional Responsibility "did not substantively comment on any arguments of the National Bank of Poland" that had been presented since 2024.
"The evidentiary proceedings conducted by the Committee for Constitutional Responsibility aimed only at confirming preconceived theses and achieving the goal set as part of the 2023 Parliamentary election campaign. In particular, these proceedings were completed without the National Bank of Poland providing any source materials, as well as without effective questioning of key witnesses - directors of the central bank, taking into account the information they possessed that is protected by secrets," NBP wrote.
He also stated that the content of the report of the Committee on Constitutional Responsibility, the conclusions formulated there and the motion to hold the President of the NBP constitutionally accountable "were based on a unilateral, selective and biased interpretation of the collected materials, including selectively selected testimony of several people." The central bank indicated that these people did not work at NBP in the period for which they submitted their statements or were "in open conflict with NBP", so they could "act only in their own interest and for a known personal purpose".
NBP on omitted testimony
"This remains significant because the testimony of dozens of other people was omitted, whose testimony was exactly different and confirmed the correct functioning of the central bank. This means that the Constitutional Accountability Committee did not even attempt to verify and assess the credibility of the collected 'evidence', which only confirms that it was intentionally obtained only as part of the pre-established goal of formulating a motion to hold the President of the National Bank of Poland constitutionally liable," NBP added.
He emphasized that in the "above conditions" the public statements of some people involved in the commission's activities are understandable, "contesting the results of the work and the way they were conducted and indicating that this case will most likely not stand up in the State Tribunal."
NBP: The Commission should not conduct such proceedings
According to the NBP, both the very functioning and mode of activities undertaken by the Committee for Constitutional Responsibility, the model of evidentiary proceedings adopted by it, and the content of the adopted report disqualify the Committee as a body conducting proceedings in the field of constitutional responsibility.
"Unfortunately, this empirically proves the thesis, resulting in particular from the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal with a twenty-year tradition, that the Commission absolutely should not conduct this type of proceedings, because then they have only a political dimension, dictated by the rhythm of subsequent election campaigns and the triggering of events only for the current use of social influence expected by party leaders," the central bank said.
He noted that "contrary to the current attempt to conduct a narrative", a simple majority of votes in the Sejm would not be enough to hold the NBP President constitutionally liable. He pointed out that, first of all, it would be necessary to amend the Act on the Tribunal of State to "bring its provisions into compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and European Union law." The NBP also emphasized that the institution of suspension from duties does not apply to the President of the NBP due to the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal.
According to the NBP, this means that regardless of the date of the vote in the Sejm, as well as the possible results of this vote, they will have no significance for the manner and mode of operation of the National Bank of Poland and its bodies.
"Various unfounded treatments and unauthorized activities will in no way affect the proper functioning of the Polish central bank. The National Bank of Poland and its bodies: the President of the NBP, the Monetary Policy Council and the Management Board of the NBP are prepared for any scenario, even the most demanding one," the NBP assured.
"This is the essence of central banking and this mission will be continued uninterrupted by the independent National Bank of Poland, independent of any pressure, especially political pressure," NBP declared.
Donald Tusk's promise
Prime Minister Donald Tusk promised to dismiss the president of the NBP during the election campaign in 2023. A group of MPs from the ruling coalition submitted a preliminary motion to bring Glapiński before the State Tribunal to the Sejm in March 2024. The motion accuses the president of the NBP of violating the constitution and laws, including: by indirectly financing the budget deficit as part of asset purchases in 2020-2021, conducting this purchase without "due authorization" from the Monetary Policy Council or by failing to comply with the apolitical order of the President of the NBP.
In October, the Committee for Constitutional Responsibility adopted a report on its work on the preliminary motion to bring the President of the NBP, Adam Glapiński, before the State Tribunal. In this position, the committee requested that the President of the NBP be held constitutionally responsible.
