The decision of the head of the Military Counterintelligence Service and the decision of the Prime Minister have been legally and finally removed from the legal circulation. From a legal standpoint, Sławomir Cenckiewicz has access to classified information, the association Lawyers for Poland wrote in a legal analysis.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Administrative Court (NSA) dismissed cassation appeals filed by the Chancellery of the Prime Minister (KPRM) against rulings of the Voivodeship Administrative Court (WSA), which had overturned the revocation of the security clearance of the current head of the National Security Bureau (BBN), Prof. Sławomir Cenckiewicz. With its decision, the court brought the legal dispute to a close and confirmed that Prof. Cenckiewicz has access to classified information.
The ruling is interpreted differently by the government side. “Attempting to interpret the NSA judgment as an automatic restoration of access to classified information for Mr. Cenckiewicz is completely unjustified,” argued Jacek Dobrzyński, spokesperson for the Minister-Coordinator of Special Services, arbitrarily claiming that Cenckiewicz does not have access to classified information.
Lawyers from the association Lawyers for Poland examined the status of the head of the National Security Bureau.
“Political stage directions”
The lawyers clearly argue that Dobrzyński is wrong in his dispute with Cenckiewicz.
They note that, by an administrative decision of the head of the Military Counterintelligence Service, access to classified information was revoked (not refused). Crucially, the access had been withdrawn, not denied at the outset.
According to the association, the rulings of both administrative courts have legally and finally removed from circulation the decisions of the head of the Military Counterintelligence Service and the Prime Minister.
“From a legal standpoint, Cenckiewicz has access to classified information,” they wrote.
“Dobrzyński fails to distinguish between civil/criminal proceedings before common courts (where a first-instance judgment may be overturned and the case returned for reconsideration) and proceedings before administrative courts—we will not speculate whether this is intentional or due to ignorance (lack of legal knowledge),” they pointed out.
“The rest is merely political stage directions,” the statement concluded.