Religious instruction in state kindergartens and schools U 10/24
The Constitutional Tribunal adjudicated that the Minister of Education’s Regulation of 26 July 2024 amending the Regulation on the terms and manner of organising religious instruction in state kindergartens and schools is, in its entirety, inconsistent with Article 12(2) of the Education System Act of 7 September 1991 (Journal of Laws – Dz. U. of 2024, item 750, as amended) in conjunction with Article 92(1) in conjunction with Article 25(3) in conjunction with Article 2 and Article 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland.
The Tribunal discontinued the proceedings as to the remainder.
The ruling was unanimous.
What the First President of the Supreme Court indicated as the subject matter of the constitutional review in the present case was the Minister of Education’s Regulation of 26 July 2024 amending the Regulation on the terms and manner of organising religious instruction in state kindergartens and schools (Journal of Laws – Dz. U., item 1158).
The applicant alleged that the Minister of Education had not adhered to the constitutional and statutory procedure required for issuing the said Regulation as well as that there had been non-conformity to the principle of a democratic state ruled by law and to the principle that public authorities function on the basis of, and within the limits of, the law.
With relation to the commenced formal review, the applicant indicated, as higher-level norms for the said review, the following provisions: Article 25(3) and Article 92(1) in conjunction with Article 2 and Article 7 of the Constitution as well as Article 12(2) of the Education System Act of 7 September 1991.
A detailed analysis of the substance of the higher-level norms for the review, indicated by the applicant, will be presented by the Tribunal in its written statement of reasons for the judgment.
The essence of the application in the present case amounts to challenging the conformity of the process of issuing the impugned Regulation with the Constitution and the other higher-level norms for the review, as well as to determining whether the issuance of the impugned Regulation by the Minister of Education occurred in breach of Article 25(3) of the Constitution and the statutory provision granting relevant authorisation as set forth in Article 12(2) of the Education System Act, which obliges the Minister of Education to act in collaboration with the authorities of churches and other religious organisations.
The Tribunal’s analysis carried out in the present case led to the conclusion that the Minister of Education’s Regulation of 26 March 2024 is, in its entirety, inconsistent with Article 12(2) of the Education System Act of 7 September 1991 in conjunction with Article 92(1) in conjunction with Article 25(3) in conjunction with Article 2 and Article 7 of the Constitution. Indeed, the process of issuing the impugned Regulation constitutes an infringement of Article 25(3) of the Constitution, i.e. the principle of the the principle of consensual manner of determining relations between the State and churches as well as other religious organisations. Moreover, what was infringed was the authorisation in Article 12(2) of the Education System Act, as the Minister of Education issued the said Regulation unilaterally, ignoring the opinions of the representatives of the Catholic Church, other churches, and other religious organisations. The Minister of Education did not meet the requirement of acting “in collaboration”, construing the said requirement solely as the necessity to notify about the draft Regulation.
In the light of the well-established jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal, if the subject of a constitutional review is inconsistent with at least one of the higher-level norms for the review, then adjudicating on the conformity to the other higher-level norms for the review is useless (see e.g. the judgments of: 22 June 2022, ref. no. SK 3/20, OTK ZU A/2022, item 46; 11 May 2023, ref. no. P 12/18, OTK ZU A/2023, item 46).
The effect of the Tribunal’s ruling in the present case is that the challenged Regulation will, in its entirety, cease to have effect. The Regulation of 14 April 1992 issued by the Minister of National Education with regard to the terms and manner of organising religious instruction in state kindergartens and schools, amended by the challenged Regulation, will have its previous wording restored. Once again the Tribunal indicates that, in accordance with Article 190(1) of the Constitution, the rulings of the Constitutional Tribunal are final and universally binding.
The adjudicating bench of the Constitutional Tribunal in the case was composed of: the President of the Constitutional Tribunal, Judge Julia Przyłębska – Presiding Judge; Judge Krystyna Pawłowicz – Judge Rapporteur; and Judge Bogdan Święczkowski.