Parlament Europejski potwierdza, że jego rezolucje nie mają charakteru wiążącego

Adobe Stock

· The European Parliament presented its position in the proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the EP resolution "on the first anniversary of the effective ban on abortion in Poland".

· Proceedings were initiated following a complaint by the Ordo Iuris Institute.

The resolution contained a number of untrue theses about Poland, incl. about the alleged existence of "LGBT-free zones" or the existence of a law that threatens the lives of women.

· The European Parliament considered that its resolutions were not intended to "shape anyone's legal position" and that the contribution they made to the discussion need not "lead to concrete action".

· According to the European Parliament, this body is merely a "forum for exchange".

In its resolution of November 11, 2021, the European Parliament made false statements about Poland for the second time. The document renews the theses about the alleged existence of "LGBT-free zones" and calls for the legalization of abortion, groundlessly referred to as a "human right". The lack of free access to the possibility of killing unborn children was also considered a violation of the rule of law.

In this resolution, as in the previous one of November 26, 2020, "on the de facto ban on abortion in Poland", there was also an item devoted to the Ordo Iuris Institute, containing content that violates the rights and personal rights of the Institute. Therefore, the Institute appealed against both resolutions under Art. 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, applying for annulment.

Both proceedings are pending. In the proceedings on the resolution of 11 November 2021, the European Parliament has just sent its position. However, it did not substantially refer to the charges against the contested act, but merely stated that the complaint was inadmissible.

In the explanatory memorandum, the European Parliament considered its resolution not intended to produce legal effects at all. It is supposed to be only "an expression of the political position adopted at the end of the debate", it is to be purely "political", and the phrases "calls", "recalls", "condemns" etc. used in it are not "binding or binding" ". This is because the EP, when it does not act as the EU legislator or budgetary authority, is merely "a forum for exchanging views where Members from all Member States meet to discuss and adopt purely political positions". Accordingly, EP resolutions "are not intended to shape anyone's legal situation but, more broadly, contribute to the public political discourse on a given issue, which may or may not lead to any concrete action".

- It can therefore be assumed that the European Parliament is officially withdrawing from the position of usurping the quasi-legal meaning of its resolutions, by means of which it tries to shape the norms of international law and exert pressure on the Member States to adapt their legal orders to the expectations of MEPs and their understanding of the rule of law, he emphasized Jakub Słoniowski from the Ordo Iuris Litigation Center.