- I would like to change that, but I also don't want to speak before acting. Because I must act strictly in accordance with the law. Only we have different understandings of this law here. And I would like to say literally two sentences about that, because everyone says: well yes, but we have a statute. I don't want to give an example that is difficult, but it must be spoken about. There were Nuremberg laws once adopted by fascist Germany, which were in accordance with the parliament's decision. At that time, even Germany did not have a Constitutional Tribunal - stated Waldemar Żurek in "Question of the Day" on TVP INFO.

- And in our case, there is the theory of statutory compliance, i.e., the presumption of statutory compliance with the Constitution. I spoke about this today at a press conference. Everyone believes that this is absolutely inviolable, that if there is a statute that has not yet been challenged in the tribunal or the tribunal has not ruled on it, then it is compliant with the Constitution, and we must apply it. I say that this theory of law appeals to me greatly, but only when there is a functioning Constitutional Tribunal, because it is written in the Constitution as the quality controller of law - he continued.

- But at the moment when this tribunal was shattered, and after the Xero Flor v. Poland case, we already know, we talked about it, now we know for sure, because we have jurisprudence that binds us, that judges are not sitting there who form a court, and therefore there is no ruling. So we do not have the presumption of statutory compliance with the Constitution, and therefore we must apply the Constitution directly - he emphasized.