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 CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional TribunalPolandjudgesdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroCourt of Justice of the EUNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionMałgorzata ManowskaAndrzej DudaCourt of JusticeIgor TuleyaEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary systemMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiMateusz MorawieckiCJEUmuzzle lawCommissioner for Human RightsNational Recovery PlanAdam BodnardemocracyWaldemar ŻurekPrzemysław Radzikcriminal lawpresidential electionselectionsKamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerPiotr Schabmedia freedomneo-judgeselections 2023judiciaryFirst President of the Supreme Courtpreliminary rulingsSupreme Administrative CourtHungaryelections 2020K 3/21Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaNational Council for JudiciaryharassmentJulia PrzyłębskaProsecutor GeneralprosecutorsŁukasz PiebiakMichał LasotaBeata MorawiecPaweł JuszczyszynCourt of Justice of the European UnionPrime MinisterPresidentConstitutionCOVID-19European Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiCriminal ChamberRegional Court in KrakówRecovery FundExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberEU budgetfreedom of expressiondisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanMałgorzata GersdorfSejmMaciej Ferekfreedom of assemblyconditionalityLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeJustice FundNational ProsecutorPiSStanisław PiotrowiczAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPresident of the Republic of PolandIustitiacourtsTHEMISimmunityAnna DalkowskaNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsStanisław Biernatconditionality mechanismWłodzimierz WróbelLabour and Social Security Chambercommission on Russian influence2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiNational Electoral CommissionJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsPresident of PolandLGBTXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. Polandmedia independenceKrystian MarkiewiczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczMichał WawrykiewiczArticle 6 ECHREAWUrsula von der LeyenTVPmediaLex Super OmniaLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationAndrzej StępkaPiotr GąciarekcorruptionP 7/20K 7/21Lex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanProfessional Liability ChambersuspensionparliamentJarosław DudziczChamber of Professional Liabilityelectoral codePiotr Prusinowskidemocratic backslidingdecommunizationLaw on the NCJrecommendationHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europepublic opinion pollreportEuropean ParliamentZiobrointimidation of dissenterstransferretirement agePiebiak gatehuman rightsEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawcoronavirusC-791/19Piotr PszczółkowskiGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaJarosław GowinLGBT ideology free zonescriminal codeSenateZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczMarcin WarchołdefamationFree CourtsEwa WrzosekEU law primacyAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej MiteraViktor OrbanOLAFNext Generation EUvetoabortionJózef IwulskiTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiMarek MazurkiewiczAndrzej MączyńskiJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław RymarFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskiBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersSLAPPOKO.pressDariusz ZawistowskiMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiMarian BanaśSupreme Audit OfficeAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyKrakówXero Flor v. PolandAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Civil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaPegasusMariusz KamińskisurveillanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraEdyta Barańskaright to fair trialUkraineKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecDariusz DrajewiczRafał Puchalskismear campaignmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentMarzanna Piekarska-Drążekelectoral processWojciech Maczugapublic medialexTuskcourt changeselections integrityelections fairnessabuse of state resourcesPATFoxpopulismequal treatmentfundamental rightsCT PresidentEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justice2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUStanisław ZabłockiLIBE CommitteeFrans TimmermansUS Department of StateSwieczkowskiadvocate generalpress releaseRights and Values ProgrammeC-619/18defamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardWojciech SadurskijudgePechKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakAmnesty Internationaltrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote billresolution of 23 January 2020Leon KieresPKWinfringment actionEU valuesENCJIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawPrzemysła RadzikElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsC-487/19Article 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentSimpson judgmentForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited NationsLeszek Mazurinterim measuresautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingproteststhe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europemedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióGazeta WyborczaPollitykaBrussels IRome IIArticle 2Forum shoppingtransparencyEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian KaletaC-156/21C-157/21Marek PiertuszyńskiNational Prosecutor’s OfficeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOlsztyn courtPrzemysła CzarnekEducation MinisterIpsosOlimpia Barańska-MałuszeHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr Burasauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258clientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's OfficePolish National FoundationLux VeritatisMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykTVNjournalistslexTVNPolish mediaRzeszówborderprimacyEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej RutkiewiczMirosław Wróblewskiright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMichał WośMinistry of FinanceJacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryMarek AstCourt of Appeal in KrakówPutinismKaczyńskiPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderekct on the Protection of the Populatiolegislationlex WośRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtAntykastaStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczKatarzyna ChmuraGrzegorz FurmankiewiczMarek JaskulskiJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaKasta/AntykastaAndrzej SkowronŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiEmilia SzmydtTomasz SzmydtE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał Dworczykmedia pluralism#RecoveryFilesrepairing the rule of lawBohdan BieniekMarcin KrajewskiMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsWiesław KozielewiczNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeGrzegorz PudaPiotr MazurekJerzy KwaśniewskiPetros Tovmasyancourt presidentsODIHRFull-Scale Election Observation MissionNGOKarolina MiklaszewskaRafał LisakMałgorzata FroncJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiSebastian MazurekElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikSzymon Szynkowski vel SękJoanna Scheuring-Wielgusinsulting religious feelingsoppositionAdam GendźwiłłDariusz Dończyktest of independenceTomasz KoszewskiJakub KwiecińskidiscriminationAct on the Supreme Courtelectoral commissionsEuropean Court of HuKrzysztof RączkaPoznańKoan LenaertsKarol WeitzKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiRThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFJustyna WydrzyńskaAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszJoanna KnobelCrimes of espionageextraordinary commissionZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaCourt of Appeal in WarsawOsiatyński'a ArchiveUS State DepartmentAssessment Actenvironmentinvestmentstrategic investmentgag lawsuitslex RaczkowskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActdisinformationNational Broadcasting Councilelection fairnessDobrochna Bach-GoleckaRafał WojciechowskiAleksandra RutkowskaGeneral Court of the EUArkadiusz RadwanLech WałęsaWałęsa v. Polandright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawpilot-judgmentDonald Tusk governmentSLAPPscivil lawRadosław Baszuk