As many as 1759 judges and prosecutors are defending Judge Knobel, who is being attacked for her judgment regarding the protest in the church


Journalist covering law and politics for Previously journalist at Gazeta Wyborcza, Rzeczpospolita, Polska The Times, Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.


This is a great campaign in defence of Judge Joanna Knobel, who acquitted 32 people protesting in Poznań cathedral. The right wing, Minister Ziobro and the neo-NCJ attacked the judge for this judgment. But she is being fully backed by judges and lawyers throughout Poland, who signed a letter in her defence.

This is one of the biggest campaigns by Polish judges and prosecutors, and a strong voice from this community against the smear campaign against Judge Joanna Knobel of the District Court in Poznań-Nowe Miasto and Wilda (pictured above). The letter in her defence was signed in less than two days by 111 judges of the Regional Court in Poznań, 1,425 judges from the whole of Poland, including several dozen Supreme Court judges and Supreme Administrative Court judges, 224 prosecutors and 59 lawyers, mainly from Poznań. A total of 1818 people signed the letter. All the signatures, together with the letter in defence of the judge, are presented in the article below.


On Monday, 13 March 2023, Judge Joanna Knobel acquitted the people who protested in October 2020 in Poznań Cathedral against the ruling of Przyłębska’s Constitutional Tribunal tightening the abortion law. The protesters stood in front of the altar. They held banners, scattered leaflets and clapped. The priest stopped the mass, the police stepped in.


The prosecutor’s office filed an indictment for the obstruction of the performance of a religious act. Thirty-two people were sitting on the defendant’s bench and, as Journalist Piotr Żytnicki of Gazeta Wyborcza wrote, this was the largest trial for peaceful protests under the PiS government.


On Monday, 13 March, Judge Knobel passed judgment acquitting the protesters. She ruled that they had disrupted the mass, but that they had valid reasons and were not acting maliciously. The court ruled that this was their protest against the Church’s interference in their lives and against the ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal.


The judge was attacked for this by right-wing columnists and Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro, while the chair of the neo-NCJ, Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woicka, attacked the judge on Wednesday, 15 March. Although this body is supposed to defend judges, its head posted a letter online to the president of the Regional Court in Poznań. She suggested that he should send Judge Knobel for training on the Constitution, in particular on the protection of a religious cult.


This letter outraged judges throughout Poland. Because Pawelczyk-Woicka, whose career is blooming under the current government, encroached on the judge’s independence and impartiality. That same day, the idea of a letter in defence of Joanna Knobel was raised at the Regional Court in Poznań. ‘The position of the NCJ caused a great deal of agitation and we started to think about what we could do. And that’s how the idea of a letter in defence of Judge Knobel arose,’ Judge Małgorzata Wiśniewska of the Regional Court in Poznań tells us.


Signatures were being collected up to 12 noon on Friday 17 March, namely in less than two days. And 1817 judges, prosecutors, academics and other lawyers signed the letter. Importantly, the president of the Regional Court in Poznań, Krzysztof Lewandowski, to whom the head of the neo-NCJ had made the appeal for training, also signed the letter in defence of the judge. It was also signed, among others, by:


  • Former president of the legal Constitutional Tribunal and CJEU, Judge Professor Marek Safjan, retired judge of the legal Constitutional Tribunal, Professor Ewa Łętowska and retired judge of the Constitutional Tribunal and former head of the National Electoral Commission, Wojciech Hermeliński.
  • 35 Supreme Court judges, including the president of the Labour and Social Insurance Chamber of the Supreme Court, Piotr Prusinowski, the president of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, Michał Laskowski and Professor Włodzimierz Wróbel.
  • The president of the association of independent prosecutors, Lex Super Omnia, Katarzyna Kwiatkowska.


We have posted all the signatures at the end of the article.


How the judges stand up for the rule of law and the repressed

The support for Judge Knobel is huge, all the more so that such a number of signatures were collected in less than two days. This shows that judges and a large group of independent prosecutors will defend the independence of the courts. Furthermore, this is already another major campaign by the judges – with the support of the prosecutors – in connection with the defence of the rule of law and repressed judges.


The biggest was the historic appeal to the authorities to implement the CJEU rulings of 14 and 15 July 2021, in which the legality of the Disciplinary Chamber was contested. That appeal was signed by 3843 judges and 376 prosecutors. posted all the names.


In turn, 1278 judges signed a letter to the OSCE in April 2020 to monitor the postal presidential elections, which were to be held in the middle of the epidemic. All the signatures are here:


A letter in defence of three appeal court judges in Warsaw who were transferred on disciplinary charges also received a huge amount of support. They are Marzanna Piekarska-Drążek, Ewa Gregajtys and Ewa Leszczyńska-Furtak. The court president, Piotr Schab, and his deputy, Przemyslaw Radzik, transferred the judges from the criminal division to the labour division in August 2022 for enforcing the rulings of the ECtHR and the CJEU.


1507 judges and 159 prosecutors signed a letter in their defence. All the signatures are here:


The Themis association of judges and the Presidium of the Forum for Cooperation of Judges have also taken stances in defence of Judge Knobel. They can be found here:


Appeal in defence of Judge Joanna Knobel


Below is the letter in defence of Judge Knobel and all the signatures of judges, prosecutors and other lawyers. The list is arranged in the order in which they were submitted.




‘The judges of the Regional Court in Poznań express their adamant protest against the illegal attempts to put pressure on the Regional Court contained in the letter of ref. no. WO 072.9.2023 of the National Council of the Judiciary, addressed to the President of the Regional Court in Poznań, containing suggestions to ‘retrain’ District Court Judge Joanna Knobel from the District Court for Poznań-Nowe Miasto and Wilda in Poznań in connection with her judgment regarding the events in Poznań Cathedral.


The arrogant tone of that letter, which was addressed to a person who is not Judge Joanna Knobel’s direct superior, but who is in charge of a court with geographical and substantive jurisdiction to hear appeals against judgments made in the District Court in which Ms Knobel adjudicates, which has the jurisdiction to hear a possible appeal against the said judgment, clearly indicates that the body headed by the author of the letter has nothing to do with the institution referred to in Article 186, para. 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland [the provision states that the NCJ safeguards the independence of the courts and judges – ed.].


Simultaneously, further to the unprecedented campaign of hate speech pursued by some media – which are also financed with our taxes – which are targeted personally at the Judge in connection with her judgment and fuelled by the Minister of Justice, we want to assure her of our support in this difficult time for her. 


We would like to strongly emphasise that, regardless of how anyone assesses the judgment in this or any other case, which will be reviewed by the court of appeal and which, like any other, may be subject to public judgment, it was nevertheless passed by an independent court, while judicial independence, understood as a state in which the judge decides on the case being subject exclusively to the law and not to any pressure, especially from the executive, is the last element that distinguishes our country from a dictatorship. We appeal for this value, which the Judge has guarded in the performance of her duties, to be respected.’


List of signatures


A. Judges of the Regional Court in Poznań 

111 judges and retired judges


B. The position of the Judges of the Regional Court in Poznań is also supported by the following judges:  

1424 judges and retired judges from the whole of Poland


C. The position of the Judges of the Regional Court in Poznań is also supported by the following Prosecutors:  

224 prosecutors from the whole of Poland


D. The position of the Judges of the Regional Court in Poznań is also supported by:

59 lawyers and other people from the whole of Poland and abroad 


Translated by Roman Wojtasz


The article was published on March 17, 2023 in Polish in and The Wiktor Osiatyński Archive.


Działania organizacji w latach 2022-24 dofinansowane z Funduszy Norweskich w ramach Programu Aktywni Obywatele – Fundusz Krajowy.


The organisation’s activities in 2022-24 with funding from the Norwegian Funds under the Active Citizens Programme – National Fund.


Aktywni Obywatele Fundusz Krajowy


Journalist covering law and politics for Previously journalist at Gazeta Wyborcza, Rzeczpospolita, Polska The Times, Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.



March 21, 2023


Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsjudgesZbigniew ZiobroPolandCourt of Justice of the EUrule of lawEuropean CommissionNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceMałgorzata ManowskaAndrzej DudaEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemEuropean Court of Human RightsMateusz MorawieckiMinister of Justicemuzzle lawCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUJarosław KaczyńskiNational Recovery PlanWaldemar ŻurekPrzemysław RadzikKamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerPiotr Schabdemocracyneo-judgespresidential electionselectionsharassmentjudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme CourtAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsSupreme Administrative CourtK 3/21Hungarycriminal lawelections 2020National Council for JudiciaryMichał LasotaBeata MorawiecJulia PrzyłębskaprosecutorsŁukasz PiebiakDagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiPaweł JuszczyszynPrime MinisterPresidentmedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCriminal ChamberRegional Court in KrakówCourt of Justice of the European UnionCOVID-19disciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMałgorzata GersdorfSejmMaciej Ferekelections 2023Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberEU budgetfreedom of expressionRecovery FundStanisław PiotrowiczMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPresident of the Republic of PolandimmunityAnna DalkowskaNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsLabour and Social Security Chamberfreedom of assemblycommission on Russian influenceStanisław Biernatconditionality mechanismconditionalityWłodzimierz WróbelLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorNational Electoral CommissionJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisK 7/21May 10 2020 electionsLex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanProfessional Liability ChamberPresident of PolandsuspensionLGBTXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. Polandparliamentmedia independenceIustitiaKrystian MarkiewiczJarosław DudziczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczMichał WawrykiewiczArticle 6 ECHRTHEMISEAWUrsula von der LeyenChamber of Professional LiabilityTVPmediaPiotr Prusinowski2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaPiotr GąciarekcorruptionP 7/20Justice FundPiSC-791/19Astradsson v IcelandK 6/21Piotr PszczółkowskiCivil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaPegasusMariusz KamińskisurveillanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraJarosław GowinLGBT ideology free zonesEdyta Barańskacriminal codeUkraineKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecSenateZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczMarcin WarchołDariusz DrajewiczRafał Puchalskidefamationcourtssmear campaignFree CourtsmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekEwa WrzosekEU law primacyelectoral processLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsWojciech MaczugaBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej Miterademocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetoabortionJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJrecommendationTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskilexTuskBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiHuman Rights CommissionerMarek MazurkiewiczCCBEAndrzej MączyńskiThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław Rymarpublic opinion pollFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskireportBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersEuropean ParliamentOKO.pressZiobroDariusz ZawistowskiMichał Laskowskiintimidation of dissentersMarek PietruszyńskitransferKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiPiebiak gatehuman rightsEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiMarian BanaśSupreme Audit OfficeAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyKrakówcoronavirusXero Flor v. PolandEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej Rutkiewiczresolution of 23 January 2020Mirosław WróblewskiLeon Kieresright to protestSławomir JęksaPKWWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman Giertychinfringment actionEU valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinanceENCJJacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiIsraelŁukasz Radkeforeign agents lawpolexitDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościLGBT free zonesAct sanitising the judiciaryequalityMarek AstChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimesCourt of Appeal in Krakówhate speechPutinismKaczyńskiGrzęda v Polandright to fair trialPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasŻurek v PolandMałgorzata Wąsek-WiaderekSobczyńska and Others v Polandct on the Protection of the PopulatiolegislationRafał Trzaskowskilex Wośmedia lawRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtPrzemysła RadzikAntykastaStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczKatarzyna ChmuraElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiGrzegorz FurmankiewiczJacek CzaputowiczMarek JaskulskiPrzemysław CzarnekJoanna Kołodziej-Michałowiczlegislative practiceEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaENAPaweł StyrnaZbigniew BoniekKasta/AntykastaAndrzej SkowronŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoOmbudsmanMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiKraśnikEmilia SzmydtNorwayTomasz SzmydtNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał DworczykC-487/19media pluralism#RecoveryFilesArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in Amsterdamrepairing the rule of lawOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentBohdan BieniekSimpson judgmentMarcin KrajewskiForum Współpracy SędziówMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairspublic broadcasterWiesław KozielewiczNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeGrzegorz PudaPiotr MazurekJerzy Kwaśniewskimutual trustPetros Tovmasyancourt presidentsLMODIHRIrelandFull-Scale Election Observation MissionNGOIrena MajcherAmsterdamKarolina MiklaszewskaRafał LisakMałgorzata FroncJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiSebastian Mazurekthe Regional Court in WarsawElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikSzymon Szynkowski vel SękUnited NationsJoanna Scheuring-Wielgusinsulting religious feelingsLeszek Mazuroppositionelectoral codeAdam Gendźwiłłpopulisminterim measuresDariusz Dończykautocratizationtest of independenceMultiannual Financial FrameworkTomasz Koszewskipublic mediaJakub Kwiecińskiabortion rulingdiscriminationequal treatmentAct on the Supreme Courtprotestselectoral commissionsfundamental rightsthe NetherlandsEuropean Court of HuDenmarkKrzysztof RączkaSwedenPoznańFinlandKoan LenaertsMariusz KrasońKarol WeitzCT PresidentKaspryszyn v PolandGermanyNCR&DCelmerNCBiRC354/20 PPUThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentC412/20 PPUEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFAusl 301 AR 104/19Justyna WydrzyńskaKarlsruheAgnieszka Brygidyr-Doroszact on misdemeanoursJoanna KnobelCivil Service ActCrimes of espionageParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeEUextraordinary commissionZbigniew KapińskiWhite PaperAnna GłowackalustrationCourt of Appeal in Warsawtransitional justiceOsiatyński'a ArchiveUS State Department2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUmedia taxStanisław Zabłockiadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióSLAPPLIBE CommitteeStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationFrans TimmermansGazeta WyborczaUS Department of StatePollitykaBrussels IRome IISwieczkowskiArticle 2Forum shoppingadvocate generaltransparencyEuropean Economic and Social Committeepress releaseSebastian KaletaRights and Values ProgrammeC-156/21C-157/21C-619/18Marek Piertuszyńskidefamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardNational Prosecutor’s OfficeWojciech SadurskiBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberjudgeTribunal of StatePechOlsztyn courtKochenovPrzemysła CzarnekEvgeni TanchevEducation MinisterFreedom in the WorldECJIpsosFrackowiakOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeretirement ageAmnesty InternationalHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr Bogdanowicztrans-Atlantic valuesPiotr BurasLSOauthoritarian equilibriumlawyersArticle 258Act of 20 December 2019clientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officerepressive actPolish National FoundationLux VeritatisKoen LenaertsMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykharrassmentAlina CzubieniakTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediapostal voteRzeszówborderpostal vote billprimacy