An interview with Judge Anna Bator-Ciesielska, who refuses to adjudicate with Radzik. “I’m not afraid. My oath is to the Republic.”

Share

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

More

Judge Anna Bator-Ciesielska was the first justice in Poland to adjudicate with a judge whose name arose in conjunction with a smear campaign against independent judges. Bator-Ciesielska is already being prosecuted by the disciplinary spokesman, but in an interview with Mariusz Jałoszewski of OKO.press she says that judges must have a conscience, and that she is not afraid because judges cannot be afraid.



“When I was training to become a judge, I was taught that a judge is not there to please anyone. Courts are to operate according to the rules and the law, it cannot favour anyone. Neither I nor my decisions and the rulings I issue as a judge on behalf of the Republic of Poland have to please anyone. This isn’t what courts are for,” says Judge Anna Bator-Ciesielska.

 

“Am I destabilizing the legal order in Poland? I’m not that influential. I haven’t even read Radzik’s statement because I’m overwhelmed with work,” she adds (the entire interview is published below).

 

On Friday, 30 August 2019, Judge Bator-Ciesielska from the 10th Criminal Division of the District Court in Warsaw made a landmark decision. As the head of a three-judge panel, she declared that there were formal barriers to Judge Przemysław Radzik sitting in the panel.

 

He is a regional court judge from Krosno Odrzańskie, delegated by the Ministry of Justice to adjudicate in Warsaw, in the largest court in Poland. Radzik is also the deputy disciplinary spokesman and is known for persecuting independent judges for even the most innocuous public statements.

 

But this was not the reason behind Bator-Ciesielska’s decision.

 

She determined that she could not adjudicate together with him in a case involving robbery because of doubts concerning his independence and the unimpeachable character that a judge is required to possess.

 

Bator-Ciesielska’s doubts about Radzik arose following his name appearing in the media. According to Gazeta Wyborcza, Radzik and the second deputy disciplinary spokesman Michał Lasota (himself delegated to the Warsaw court) allegedly participated in a group called “Kasta” that communicated via a popular internet messenger application.

 

This group has also been alleged to include judges from the Ministry of Justice and the new National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ). Some participants in the group supposedly discussed smear campaigns against independent judges. Radzik himself denies taking part in the slandering of judges and has said he is considering taking legal action.

 

However, Bator-Ciesielska decided that until those doubts were resolved, Radzik should not perform his office as a judge. Radzik replied to this on Monday 2 September with a sharp statement in which he called on the new NCJ, the Minister of Justice and Prosecutor General Zbigniew Ziobro and the disciplinary spokesman to help. He demanded that proceedings be initiated against Bator-Ciesielska.

 

The reaction was not long in coming. The next day, Tuesday 3 September, Radzik’s superior – the chief disciplinary spokesman Piotr Schab – reacted by initiating an investigation. He will examine the decisions taken by Bator-Ciesielska, and if he considers them inappropriate, he may bring disciplinary charges against her.

 

Full interview: “I’m not afraid, a judge can’t be afraid”

 

Mariusz Jałoszewski: Why do you refuse to adjudicate with justice Przemysław Radzik, who was delegated by the Ministry of Justice to the Warsaw court together with the second deputy disciplinary spokesman, Michał Lasota?

 

Judge Anna Bator-Ciesielska: A few days ago, I watched an interview on television with First President of the Supreme Court Małgorzata Gersdorf. She said that judges whose names appear in the media in the context of a smear campaign against judges should not be allowed to adjudicate on behalf of the Republic of Poland until matters are clarified. Last Friday, I was supposed to adjudicate in a robbery case with Przemysław Radzik.

 

Formally, we have postponed this case due to suspicion that one of the defendants is in hiding. However, I later informed the parties present at the court that there were other obstacles. Namely, there are doubts as to the independence of one of the judges [Radzik – ed.].

 

I’m not deciding whether Radzik can adjudicate. I’m not judging anybody, but after what the media wrote and what allegedly went on in the Ministry of Justice, there was no other decision I could take.

 

Why not?

 

When I was appointed to the bench, I took a vow of conscience.

 

And my conscience does not allow me to issue a ruling in such a panel.

 

Because it may impact the defendants, who have the right to a trial before an impartial and independent court.

 

I’m not only interested in what’s in the files of cases that I’m hearing. And if what the media are writing is true about the smear campaign against judges, then every line has been crossed.

 

You filed a request with the departmental secretariat to ask other judges from your department whether they want to adjudicate with Przemyslaw Radzik and Michal Lasota.

 

In my application, I requested the head of the secretariat to ask other judges for their opinion. If they do not want to adjudicate, the matter will be referred to the head of the department. And the chief justice, if he considers it appropriate, may request the president of the District Court in Warsaw to consider submitting a motion to the Ministry of Justice to withdraw the delegation [of Radzik and Lasota] to adjudicate in our court.

 

And on Monday 2 September, you forwarded a prejudicial question to the CJEU concerning the Radzik matter.

 

Yes, the question is whether the provisions, in particular those of the Common Courts Act, concerning the delegation of judges to higher courts are compatible with EU law. Because the Ministry of Justice makes such decisions without oversight and the decisions themselves may be arbitrary. There are concerns that such regulations may impact judicial independence.

 

Przemysław Radzik didn’t like your decision. He accused you of abusing your office and even destabilising the legal order of the Republic.

 

When I was training to become a judge, I was taught that a judge is not there to please anyone. Courts are to operate according to the rules and the law, it cannot favour anyone. Neither I nor my decisions and the rulings I issue as a judge on behalf of the Republic of Poland have to please anyone. This isn’t what courts are for.

 

Am I destabilizing the legal order in Poland? I’m not that influential. I haven’t even read Radzik’s statement because I’m overwhelmed with work.

 

Aren’t you afraid of the consequences? First, on Monday, Radzik, formally as a judge, but on the letterhead of the deputy disciplinary spokesman, calls on the new NCJ, Minister Ziobro and the disciplinary spokesman to help him. And on Tuesday, Radzik’s boss, the chief disciplinary spokesman Piotr Schab, starts an investigation against you, which may result in disciplinary charges being filed. Schab, Radzik and Lasota were appointed as spokesmen by Minister Ziobro.

 

I’m not afraid, a judge can’t be afraid. My decisions speak for themselves. I can’t be afraid now that someone might try and punish me. If the need arises, I’ll be happy to explain my rulings to the disciplinary spokesman.

 

If there’s anything I’m afraid of, honestly speaking, it’s that some false information about my family will suddenly find its way onto the internet.

 

Have you ever been involved in defending free courts before? Many judges are now paying a high price for this. The organized smear campaign against them was a sort of retaliation for defending the courts against the rule of the Law and Justice party.

 

Like many judges, I belong to Iustitia. I also stood holding a candle in front of the Supreme Court when the time came to do so. I didn’t get more deeply involved.

 

Until the end of 2017, I was the president of the District Court for Warsaw-Żoliborz. My term of office expired; in other circumstances I might have stayed for a second term. I have been a judge for 22 years. I have tried criminal cases, including against gangsters.

 

I will celebrate the anniversary of passing the examination to become a judge on 17 September. Paradoxically, that same day I am scheduled to adjudicate in a panel with the second deputy disciplinary spokesman, Michał Lasota.

 

[translated by: Matthew La Fontaine]



Author


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


More

Published

September 6, 2019

Tags

Supreme CourtConstitutional TribunalDisciplinary ChamberPolandjudgesdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of Justice of the EUjudicial independenceEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaCourt of JusticeEuropean Court of Human RightsMinister of JusticeIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemAdam Bodnarmuzzle lawJarosław KaczyńskiNational Recovery PlanCJEUMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human Rightsneo-judgesCourt of Justice of the European UniondemocracyPrzemysław RadzikWaldemar ŻurekNational Council for Judiciarypresidential electionselectionselections 2023disciplinary commissionercriminal lawJulia PrzyłębskaPiotr SchabKamil Zaradkiewiczmedia freedomharassmentpreliminary rulingsHungarySupreme Administrative Courtelections 2020K 3/21Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickajudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme CourtŁukasz PiebiakprosecutorsPresidentRecovery FundBeata MorawiecPaweł JuszczyszynProsecutor GeneralMichał Lasotafreedom of expressionMaciej NawackiEuropean Arrest WarrantSejmprosecutionCOVID-19Regional Court in KrakówCriminal ChamberNational ProsecutorConstitutionPrime MinisterMinistry of JusticecourtsMałgorzata GersdorfMarek SafjanEU budgetdisciplinary liability for judgesMaciej FerekOSCEWojciech HermelińskiExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberIustitiacriminal proceedingsWłodzimierz WróbelVenice Commissionconditionality mechanismAleksander StepkowskiTHEMISLabour and Social Security ChamberStanisław BiernatPiScommission on Russian influenceStanisław PiotrowiczPresident of the Republic of PolandNCJimmunityconditionalityAnna DalkowskaJustice FundcorruptionLaw and JusticeNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europefreedom of assemblyKrystian MarkiewiczreformsReczkowicz and Others v. PolandKrzysztof Parchimowiczacting first president of the Supreme Court2017policeSenateAndrzej Zollmedia independenceSLAPPdefamationStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationLGBTJustice Defence Committee – KOSEwa ŁętowskaDidier ReyndersFreedom HouseAmsterdam District CourtMay 10 2020 electionsXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandOrdo IurisPresident of PolandAndrzej StępkaBroda and Bojara v PolandSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramPiotr GąciarekJarosław WyrembakPM Mateusz MorawieckiArticle 7Next Generation EUConstitutional Tribunal PresidentUrsula von der LeyenLex DudaTVPmediaLex Super OmniaProfessional Liability ChamberreformJarosław DudziczK 7/21National Reconstruction PlansuspensionparliamentChamber of Professional LiabilityEAWArticle 6 ECHRP 7/20Supreme Court PresidentLech GarlickiMichał WawrykiewiczabortionPiotr PrusinowskiNational Electoral Commissionelectoral codeJanusz NiemcewiczTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaStanisław RymarMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaKazimierz DziałochaBogdan ŚwięczkowskiNetherlandsAndrzej MączyńskiMarek MazurkiewiczvetoStefan JaworskiMirosław GranatOLAFBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaViktor OrbanJózef IwulskiMaciej MiteraSLAPPsjudcial independenceWojciech ŁączkowskiAdam JamrózPATFoxFerdynand RymarzKonrad WytrykowskiRafał Puchalskismear campaignmilestonesKrakówMarzanna Piekarska-Drążekstate of emergencyUkraineelectoral processBelaruscourt presidentsAdam SynakiewiczXero Flor v. PolandAstradsson v Icelandright to fair trialEdyta BarańskaJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraCentral Anti-Corruption BureauJakub IwaniecsurveillancePegasusDariusz DrajewiczJoanna Misztal-KoneckaCivil ChamberK 6/21Wojciech MaczugaSzymon Szynkowski vel SękDariusz ZawistowskiOKO.presselections integrityelections fairnessMarek ZubikBohdan ZdziennickiMirosław WyrzykowskiSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczPiotr TulejaJerzy StępieńAndrzej RzeplińskitransparencyMariusz KamińskiMaciej Taborowskiinsulting religious feelingsPaweł Filipekpublic mediaMariusz MuszyńskiKrystyna PawłowiczlexTuskcourt changesMarek PietruszyńskiMichał LaskowskiSupreme Audit Officeabuse of state resourcesLaw on the NCJEuropean ParliamentJarosław GowincoronavirusRussiaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczFree Courts11 January March in WarsawCCBEPiebiak gatehuman rightsrecommendationC-791/19Human Rights CommissionerMarcin WarchołLGBT ideology free zonesreportEuropean Association of JudgesPiotr Pszczółkowskiretirement agedecommunizationGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgesintimidation of dissentersdemocratic backslidingpublic opinion pollZiobroEU law primacyMarian BanaśThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europecriminal codeBelgiumlex NGOEwa Wrzosekcivil societytransferAdam Tomczyńskimedia pluralismBohdan Bieniek#RecoveryFilesFrans TimmermansLIBE Committeerepairing the rule of lawUS Department of StateMarcin KrajewskiKarolina Miklaszewska2018NGOFull-Scale Election Observation MissionODIHRNations in TransitStanisław ZabłockiPetros TovmasyanJerzy KwaśniewskiPiotr MazurekGrzegorz PudaNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeWiesław KozielewiczChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakCouncil of the EURafał LisakMichał DworczykWojciech Sadurskidefamatory statementsRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtC-619/18Rights and Values Programmejudgepress releaseAntykastalex WoślegislationCourt of Appeal in KrakówPutinismKaczyńskiPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderekct on the Protection of the PopulatioWorld Justice Project awardStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiEmilia SzmydtTomasz SzmydtE-mail scandalAndrzej SkowronKasta/AntykastaKatarzyna Chmuraadvocate generalGrzegorz FurmankiewiczMarek JaskulskiEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaSwieczkowskiDworczyk leaksMałgorzata FroncHater ScandalAleksandra RutkowskaGeneral Court of the EUArkadiusz RadwanLech WałęsaWałęsa v. Polandright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawpilot-judgmentDonald Tusk governmentRafał WojciechowskiDobrochna Bach-Goleckalex RaczkowskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActdisinformationCT Presidentfundamental rightsNational Broadcasting Councilelection fairnessequal treatmentcivil lawMarcin MatczakDariusz KornelukNational School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (KSSiP)codification commissiondelegationsWatchdog PolskaDariusz BarskiLasotapopulismState TribunalRadosław BaszukAction PlanJustice MinistryVěra JourováDonald Tuskjustice system reformAnti-SLAPP Directiveinsultgag lawsuitsstrategic investmentinvestmentlustrationJakub KwiecińskidiscriminationAct on the Supreme Courtelectoral commissionsEuropean Court of HuKrzysztof RączkaPoznańTomasz Koszewskitest of independenceSebastian MazurekElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikJoanna Scheuring-WielgusoppositionThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentAdam Gendźwiłłtransitional justiceDariusz DończykKoan LenaertsKarol WeitzZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaCourt of Appeal in WarsawOsiatyński'a ArchiveEUUS State DepartmentAssessment Actenvironmentextraordinary commissionWhite PaperKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiREuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFJustyna WydrzyńskaAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszJoanna KnobelCrimes of espionageJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiMarek Piertuszyńskihate speechhate crimesmedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandPrzemysław CzarnekJacek CzaputowiczMarcin RomanowskiElżbieta KarskaPrzemysła Radzikmedia lawRafał TrzaskowskiSobczyńska and Others v PolandTelex.huJelenForum shoppingFirst President of the Suprme CourtEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian KaletaOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeC-156/21C-157/21foreign agents lawArticle 2Rome IIJózsef SzájerChamber of Extraordinary VerificationKlubrádióequalityGazeta WyborczaLGBT free zonesPollitykaBrussels Ilegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekAK judgmentautocratizationMultiannual Financial FrameworkOpenbaar MinisterieRegional Court in Amsterdamabortion rulingArticle 10 ECHRprotestsinterim measuresLeszek MazurIrena MajcherAmsterdamLMmutual trustthe Regional Court in Warsawpublic broadcasterUnited NationsForum Współpracy Sędziówthe NetherlandsDenmarkact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsNorwegian fundsNorwayKraśnikOmbudsmanKarlsruheAusl 301 AR 104/19SwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońC-487/19GermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUIrelandMarek AstLSOright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman Giertychtrans-Atlantic valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinancelawyersMirosław Wróblewskirepressive actborderprimacyEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej RutkiewiczAct of 20 December 2019Amnesty InternationalJacek SasinEvgeni TanchevKochenovPechPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryFreedom in the WorldECJErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitFrackowiakDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandRzeszówKoen LenaertsharrassmentOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeinfringment actionHudocPKWKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr BurasLeon KieresIpsosEU valuesNational Prosecutor’s OfficeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOlsztyn courtPrzemysła CzarnekEducation MinisterENCJauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258postal voteTVNjournalistslexTVNEwa MaciejewskaGerard BirgfellerPolish mediaAlina CzubieniakSimpson judgmentpostal vote billclientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officeresolution of 23 January 2020Polish National FoundationLux VeritatisMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykIsrael