Attack of the disciplinary commissioners on Judge Żurek. ‘They are ridiculing themselves’


Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland


Judge Waldemar Żurek heard as many as 64 disciplinary charges today from Disciplinary Commissioners Piotr Schab and Michał Lasota. They are also not ruling out notifying the public prosecutor’s office because they claim that Żurek committed a ‘falsification of judgments’. This applies to the dates on some of the court’s decisions being the same as the dates on which Żurek was present at NCJ meetings in Warsaw. Meanwhile, he adjudicates in Kraków.

by Magdalena Gałczyńska


  • ‘They are pursuing the classic Soviet principle: “we have Żurek, we just need to find a paragraph on him”,’ Judge Żurek himself tells Onet.
  • The commissioners charged Judge Żurek with 64 counts of disciplinary offences. However, during the conference, it transpired that this applied to only about 10 judgments; the remaining matters were court decisions, namely decisions of lesser importance.
  • The commissioners did not answer the question of whether the invalidity of a given judgment could arise from its incorrect date. They also did not state whether anyone was injured because of the entry of this potentially incorrect date.
  • The investigation is being handled by Deputy Disciplinary Commissioner Michał Lasota. According to Onet and, he was a member of the Kasta/Antykasta group on WhatsApp, where the participants of the discussions were, on several occasions, planning ways of harming Judge Żurek, who is fighting for the independence of the courts.
  • It was precisely Lasota who was supposed to have enthusiastically accepted Łukasz Piebiak’s order issued on the group, to ‘smash a Caste member’. The participants of Kasta/Antykasta referred to judges who are critical of the changes implemented by the United Right as ‘kaściak’ [caste member].


Judge Waldemar Żurek of the Regional Court in Kraków is a former press officer of the last National Council of the Judiciary, which was elected apolitically. The ruling party interrupted the term of office of this NCJ in 2018. Judge Żurek is one of the more widely known defenders of judicial independence. And it is precisely him that the authorities want to discredit at any cost. The judge already has around 20 disciplinary or clarification proceedings – including for teaching children about the Constitution, he has been investigated by the Central Anticorruption Bureau and the services have raided his wife’s and parents’ homes.


The campaign to find dirt on him in the files of old cases has been in progress since last year. It was then, in the spring of 2021, that Deputy Disciplinary Commissioner Michał Lasota requested files on 122 cases from 2012–2018, when Żurek was a member of the NCJ, from Żurek’s home court, namely the Regional Court in Kraków.


It was precisely on the basis of the analysis of these files that Deputy Commissioner Lasota and his superior, Schab, decided to charge Judge Żurek with 64 counts of disciplinary offences. They are also not ruling out notifying the public prosecutor’s office because they claim that the judge committed a ‘falsification of judgments’. This applies to the dates on some of the court’s decisions being the same as the dates on which Żurek was present at NCJ meetings in Warsaw. Meanwhile, he adjudicates in Kraków.


The commissioners therefore claim that Judge Żurek signed court decisions with incorrect dates. Only, as it transpired, in most cases, these were not judgments but decisions of a lower rank, i.e. court decisions.


The commissioners did not answer the question of whether anyone had suffered any injury as a result of these incorrect dates being entered. They also refused to answer the question of whether the validity of these erroneously dated judgments should be overturned.


Fair proceedings?


Commissioner Schab claimed that the objective of the conference – probably the first since June 2018 when the central disciplinary commissioners came to office – was to inform the public about such appalling action by the judge. The fact that it is precisely Judge Żurek, whom the commissioners have been pursuing for years, is, as Schab and Lasota asserted, a complete coincidence. Meanwhile, they made the assurance that the proceedings would be conducted by Lasota absolutely reliably.


Questions about the fairness of the proceedings arose in the context of the Kasta/Antykasta group on WhatsApp written up by Onet and Its members in 2018 were to have included both Deputy Disciplinary Commissioner Lasota and Przemysław Radzik. It was within this group, under the auspices of former Deputy Minister of Justice Łukasz Piebiak that plans appeared, among other things, in order to injure Judge Żurek. Radzik wrote, among other things, that: ‘Żur will crap himself at the hearing with Buddy Michał (Lasota – ed.)’. Radzik also ordered that Mała Emi [Little Emi], i.e. Emilia Szmydt, who had previously been an internet hater, followed by a whistleblower who helped to expose the hate scandal, ‘anonymously’ reports Judge Żurek.


Meanwhile, in the Kasta/Antykasta group, Lasota enthusiastically accepted Piebiak’s order to ‘smash some Caste member’. People in the group referred to judges defending the independence of the courts as ‘kaściak’ [caste member]. In response to Piebiak’s post about ‘smashing a caste member’, Lasota wrote back that he already had several candidates for being charged. He also emphasised that – in line with the example of his colleague, Przemysław Radzik, the second deputy disciplinary commissioner – he would like to declare ‘today, tomorrow and Monday a day of the sad caste member’. As he added: ‘Let every day be a sad caste member day.’


We should emphasise that the prosecutor’s office, which is conducting proceedings to clarify the hate scandal – the third unit to handle this matter – has not come up with any results for almost three years.

Judge Zurek: It was the duty of the commissioners to demonstrate whether there was any damage. They did not prove it, because no one suffered any damage


‘Behind the scenes, everyone in the court knows that, before a ruling is finally issued and signed by judges from the bench – if a three-judge bench is adjudicating – a draft is first prepared. When a decision is being issued by a single judge, the judge also often prepares a draft and writes the date on it,’ Judge Żurek tells Onet. ‘And sometimes, this date is not changed, even if the decision is actually made later. This is a simple oversight, a clerical error, which is of absolutely no significance to the parties to the proceedings. Potentially, it could have if I were a judge in the criminal division, but I have always adjudicated in the civil division. Here, timing for the parties is measured from the moment they physically receive the court’s decision,’ he explains.


Judge Żurek points out that if the commissioners are pressing charges against him, they were required to specify whether anyone suffered any injury as a result of potentially erroneous dates on the court decisions. ‘Meanwhile, they have not mentioned anything of the kind, because no one has suffered any injury,’ he emphasises. ‘They should also specify any culpable actions on the part of all the judges who adjudicated with me in three-judge benches. They didn’t do this either,’ the judge points out. ‘I would also like to emphasise that, in such a three-judge bench, it is the clerk who enters the date on the draft decision. I cannot change the date, I only sign it,’ says Judge Żurek.


He emphasises that, after many years (the cases analysed by the commissioners apply to the years 2012–2018 – ed.), he is unable to check on which days he was at a meeting of the NCJ in the morning and in the courtroom in Kraków in the afternoon. ‘And there were a lot of such days, because I was working 24 hours a day then,’ he emphasises.


‘This is all about the media which are sympathetic to the government machinating against me. The commissioners are ridiculing themselves’.


‘It can now be plainly seen that the commissioners, who are involved in the hate scandal, not having been held accountable by the appropriate state authorities, are using the classic Soviet-era method against me: we have Żurek, we need to find a paragraph on him,’ the judge points out. ‘Only my files are being trawled so that the objective of this whole matter today is to bring about the media that are favourable to the government machinating against me,’ he says. ‘I will state clearly – anyone taking part in this legal banditry will one day have to face the public prosecutor. I will fight for their right to a defence, as well as to an impartial and fair court,’ he emphasises.


The judge recalls that there are serious doubts about the impartiality of the person handling the proceedings in his case. ‘We recently saw screenshots of discussions within the organised Kasta/Antykasta group, in which both deputy commissioners were active, including Mr Lasota, who is trawling my files,’ says Judge Żurek. ‘It can be clearly seen that they had plans to destroy me and drag me through the mud, so it’s no surprise to me what they are doing now – this matter will show what the “hunt for Żurek” looks like, and expose these inept hunters not only to criminal charges in the future, but also to ridicule,’ the judge concludes.


Translated by Roman Wojtasz


The article was published in Polish on


Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland



June 1, 2022


Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandZbigniew ZiobrojudgesCourt of Justice of the EUrule of lawEuropean CommissionNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceMałgorzata ManowskaEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaCourt of JusticeIgor TuleyaEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary systemMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiWaldemar Żurekmuzzle lawKamil ZaradkiewiczNational Recovery Plandemocracypresidential electionsdisciplinary commissionerPiotr SchabPrzemysław RadzikjudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme CourtAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsSupreme Administrative CourtK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020neo-judgeselectionsBeata MorawiecJulia PrzyłębskaprosecutorsŁukasz PiebiakNational Council for JudiciaryMichał LasotaEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiPrime MinisterPresidentmedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawCOVID-19Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaMałgorzata GersdorfSejmharassmentPaweł JuszczyszynEU budgetfreedom of expressiondisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiStanisław PiotrowiczMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPresident of the Republic of PolandMaciej FerekimmunityAnna DalkowskaNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamberconditionality mechanismconditionalityWłodzimierz WróbelCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeRegional Court in KrakówprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisK 7/21May 10 2020 electionsLex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanProfessional Liability ChamberPresident of PolandLGBTXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. Polandparliamentmedia independenceIustitiaJarosław DudziczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczArticle 6 ECHRTHEMISEAWUrsula von der LeyenChamber of Professional LiabilityTVPmediaelections 2023Labour and Social Security Chamber2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaPiotr GąciarekcorruptionRecovery FundP 7/20Justice FundPiSC-791/19National Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Piotr PszczółkowskiJoanna Misztal-KoneckaPegasusMariusz KamińskisurveillanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikorasuspensionJarosław GowinLGBT ideology free zonesUkraineKrystian MarkiewiczKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecSenateZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczDariusz DrajewiczRafał PuchalskidefamationcourtsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsConstitutional Tribunal PresidentMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekEwa WrzosekEU law primacyLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej Miterademocratic backslidingPiotr PrusinowskiViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetoabortionJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJrecommendationTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta 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 WróblewskiCivil ChamberLeon 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 VerificationEdyta Barańskahate crimesCourt of Appeal in Krakówhate speechPutinismcriminal codeKaczyńskiGrzęda 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-FryźlewiczMarcin WarchołKatarzyna ChmuraElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiGrzegorz FurmankiewiczJacek CzaputowiczMarek JaskulskiPrzemysław CzarnekJoanna Kołodziej-Michałowiczlegislative practiceEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaENAPaweł StyrnaZbigniew BoniekKasta/AntykastaAndrzej SkowronŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoOmbudsmanMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiKraśnikEmilia SzmydtNorwayTomasz SzmydtNorwegian fundssmear campaignNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał DworczykC-487/19media pluralism#RecoveryFilesArticle 10 ECHRmilestonesRegional Court in Amsterdamrepairing the rule of lawOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentBohdan BieniekSimpson judgmentMarcin KrajewskiForum Współpracy SędziówMałgorzata Dobiecka-Woźniakelectoral processChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairspublic broadcasterWiesław KozielewiczNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeGrzegorz PudaPiotr MazurekJerzy Kwaśniewskimutual trustPetros Tovmasyancourt presidentsLMODIHRIrelandFull-Scale Election Observation MissionNGOIrena MajcherWojciech MaczugaAmsterdamKarolina 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 misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justice2018Nations 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