EN
The Tribunal of State was re-established in Poland's post-war system of government more than 25 years ago. Today, the Tribunal performs the role of a constitutional organ within the judicial branch of power which has the power to adjudicate in matters of: 1) constitutional accountability of top state officials for constitutional violations; 2) criminal responsibility of persons, specified by law, for an act which shows all the features of an offence or fiscal offence. Members of the Tribunal of State are chosen by the Sejm, for the term of office of the Sejm, from among Polish citizens (who are not Deputies or Senators).In a modern democratic state ruled by law, the Tribunal of State is essential for strengthening the protection of the population against harmful practices of persons holding top state positions. However, if the Tribunal is to play an important role in shaping legal culture in Polish society, its total reform is required, which will involve the amendment of several provisions of the existing Constitution and adoption of a new Act to regulate the principles of constitutional accountability and the system of organization the Tribunal of State. Such reform should lead to establishing a professional prosecutor, independent of other state institutions, that would have exclusive power to initiate proceedings before the Tribunal. It would also be advisable to deprive the Tribunal of jurisdiction over criminal offences committed by the President of the Republic and members of government. Membership of the Tribunal should include only active judges of the Supreme Court and appellate courts sitting regularly in criminal cases - appointed for an indefinite period by the President of the Republic of Poland from among candidates selected by organs of corporations of judges.. The scope of persons under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in relation to constitutional offences should be extended to include persons holding other state offices (e.g.. the Commissioner for Citizens' Rights). Decisions of the Tribunal in matters of constitutional offences should be made in a one-stage process. The abandonment of the reform efforts would mean that an appearance of constitutional accountability of top state officials has been maintained.