Defiant judges under fire for not following the party line

Share

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

More

Disciplinary officer Michał Lasota is prosecuting three judges from Gdańsk for a verdict they issued. This is yet another disciplinary case initiated against judges for performing their judicial duties. Disciplinary proceedings for verdicts not only serve to intimidate judges, but also violate their independence.



Deputy disciplinary officer Michał Lasota has just demanded explanations from three judges of the Court of Appeal in Gdańsk. Among them is Włodzimierz Brazewicz, who is involved in defending the independence of courts and in educational activities for youngsters. Officer Lasota wants them to account for a verdict they issued in March 2018.

 

Judges to account for overturned verdict

 

In 2018, a three-judge panel including Brazewicz overturned a ruling of the District Court in Elbląg. The case concerned charges in an embezzlement case brought by the prosecutor’s office. The District Court in Elbląg gave the defendants a suspended sentence. However, the Court of Appeal in Gdańsk overturned the verdict after it ruled that there were deficiencies in the evidence. The court questioned the calculations of the damage that the company was said to suffer as a result of the defendant’s actions. The value of the damage is of significance for the classification of the act.

 

The Court of Appeal found that the lack of evidence was so significant that it would take a long time to remedy. Therefore, it returned the case to the District Court for it to complete the evidence acting as the court of the first instance (the stage at which evidentiary proceedings are conducted; during appeals, evidence can only be supplemented) or to refer the case back to the public prosecutor’s office.

 

However, a cassation appeal against the judgment was lodged by the public prosecutor’s office, which believes that the Court of Appeal should not overturn the judgment, but rather calculate the damage itself and admit the opinion of court experts. The prosecutor’s office stated that the Court of Appeal should carry out supplemental evidentiary proceedings.

 

The Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the Court of Appeal from March 2018. The Supreme Court determined that the case does not need to be referred to the court of the first instance, because this is done when the entirety of the evidentiary material requires additions. The Supreme Court decided that in this particular case it would be possible to use some of the documents already collected during the trial.

 

The case was returned to the Court of Appeal in Gdańsk and another panel completed the missing evidence and issued a final verdict. Now, the deputy disciplinary ombudsman Michał Lasota concludes from the ruling of the Supreme Court that the judges from Gdańsk, in referring the case to the court of first instance, misapplied the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. This qualifies as a possible disciplinary offence in the form of “obvious and blatant breach of the law”.

 

Judge Brazewicz targeted by the disciplinary officer

 

It is normal practice for higher courts to set aside judgments. That is why there are higher instances, to control the correctness of judgments and their validity. This has never been questioned before.

 

But things have changed under the current government. Appointed a year ago by Zbigniew Ziobro, the chief disciplinary officer Piotr Schab and his two deputies, Michał Lasota and Przemysław Radzik, began prosecuting judges for their rulings. This has been done to judges known for defending the independence of courts.

 

It is no coincidence that the officer is now attacking the judgment of the Gdansk court, because judge Vladimir Brazewicz, who issued it, had previously been called to the carpet by the disciplinary ombudsman.

 

First, he was summoned to give explanations for the fact that he led a meeting in Gdańsk between judge Igor Tuleya and local residents. Then, the disciplinary officer reviewed the quality of Brazewicz’s work, including whether he had drafted written justifications for verdicts after the deadline. And now he is threatened with disciplinary proceedings for this verdict.

 

Interestingly, this is the only verdict in recent years that has been overturned by the Supreme Court in which Brazewicz was involved. And it seems as if officer Lasota is now grasping at this verdict as an opportunity to bring charges against a defiant judge.

 

Also significant is the fact that, in several cases, Judge Brazewicz is acting as a defender of other defiant judges being prosecuted by Ziobro’s officer, including Judge Dorota Zabłudowska from Gdańsk, known for her defence of free courts.

 

Brazewicz is also involved in educational activities. For example, he took part in the trial of the Wolf from the fairy tale of Little Red Riding Hood. This was done as a lesson in the law for children organized in the Supreme Court.

 

Judges persecuted for rulings

 

Judge Brazewicz is not the first judge persecuted by the disciplinary officer for their rulings and verdicts. Three judges from the District Court in Kraków were summoned to provide explanations because they sought to check whether the magistrate whose verdict they were to assess in appeal proceedings had been properly appointed – in other words, whether he had been appointed by the legal, old National Council of the Judiciary (KRS), which PiS had dissolved in violation of the Constitution, or by the new KRS, appointed unconstitutionally by MPs of the PiS and Kukiz’15 parties.

 

Letters sent to the Kraków judges by the chief disciplinary officer, Piotr Schab, contained a warning of serious consequences for permissible judicial activity, as Schab claimed that in their conduct they had exceeded their powers.

 

Judge Sławomir Jęksa from Poznań, who acquitted Joanna Jaśkowiak, the wife of the Mayor of Poznań, is being pursued by disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary officer was displeased by the oral justification for this verdict, because the judge referred in it to changes in the judiciary introduced by PiS authorities.

 

Judge Ewa Mroczek from Działdowo is also being threatened with disciplinary action. She is also accused of improperly discontinuing a case owing to significant formal deficiencies in filings by the prosecution. This ruling was overruled by the Court of Appeal. Now she is being persecuted by the disciplinary officer.

 

The background to this case is the relationship between Judge Mroczek and Michał Lasota, who lives in Działdowo. During one meeting, Judge Mroczek did not shake his hand. She also gave a cold reception to the new president of the court in Działdowo nominated by Ziobro’s justice ministry.

 

So far, the most prominent case has been that of Judge Alina Czubieniak from Gorzów Wielkopolski, who is being pursued by the disciplinary officer for the fact that in one ruling she acted in defence of an intellectually disabled boy suspected of sexual harassing a girl.

 

The judge’s misfortune was due to the case being of interest to Ziobro’s justice ministry. Thus, the judge was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for fair ruling in which, in the opinion of the disciplinary officer, she had based her verdict on the wrong provision. Her punishment was a reprimand from the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court. This Chamber was established by the ruling PiS party to quickly remove from the profession insubordinate judges, prosecutors, and lawyers.

 

Judges chased for verdicts by the prosecutor

 

Judges are also being pursued by prosecutors for activities related to their mandate as judges. Charges have been filed against Igor Tuleya, who ordered an investigation into the voting on the budget by Law and Justice MPs in the Column Hall of the Sejm in December 2016. The justification given for ruling was devastating for PiS. And now, a special team for prosecuting judges and prosecutors National Prosecutor’s Office is reviewing whether he properly allowed journalists into the courtroom and whether he disclosed confidential information when issuing the oral justification for his ruling.

 

Charges are also looming over Judge Irena Majcher from Opole. She is a judge in the National Court Register. According to the National Prosecutor’s Office, she failed to perform her duties because she did not call on one particular company to re-register, despite the fact that the law imposes the obligation of re-registration on companies. Now the prosecutor is seeking to revoke the judge’s immunity in order to bring charges against her.

 

Lasota and Radzik with their own quality issues

 

Judges are being persecuted for their verdicts by two deputy disciplinary officer who themselves are having problems with the quality of their work as justices. These are Michał Lasota and Przemysław Radzik. Both of them were potentially at risk of disciplinary proceedings but will not face them because their boss Piotr Schab determined that there was no cause for objection to their work.

 

Reservations have been voiced about Radzik, who already has a disciplinary verdict in his file from years ago, regarding the fact that he issues his justification for verdicts after the deadline. Michał Lasota, on the other hand, has had his own judgments overturned by the Court of Appeal. Disciplinary officer Piotr Schab also reviewed whether he had correctly questioned a young girl in a criminal case.

 

In addition, as we revealed at OKO.press, Lasota has a stack of outstanding cases to deal with in his home court. In one of the cases, a ruling that proceedings were unreasonably protracted has been issued, resulting in a payment of PLN 2,000 in damages. Judges from Elbląg who ruled on the lengthiness of the case have already been summoned to explain themselves to the disciplinary spokseman.

 

Radzik and Lasota, however, benefit from cooperation with justice minister Ziobro. Radzik is President of the Regional Court in Krosno Odrzańskie, while Michał Lasota is the President of the Regional Court in Nowe Miasto Lubawskie. And under a decision issued by Ziobro’s justice ministry, they both also adjudicate in the District Court in Warsaw.



Author


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


More

Published

November 13, 2019

Tags

Supreme CourtPolandConstitutional TribunalDisciplinary Chamberjudgesrule of lawdisciplinary proceedingsZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of Justice of the EUjudicial independenceEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaCourt of JusticeMinister of JusticeEuropean Court of Human RightsAdam BodnarIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemmuzzle lawJarosław KaczyńskiNational Recovery PlanCJEUMateusz Morawieckineo-judgesCommissioner for Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European UnionPrzemysław RadzikWaldemar ŻurekdemocracyNational Council for JudiciaryPiotr Schabelectionspresidential electionsKamil ZaradkiewiczJulia Przyłębskamedia freedomcriminal lawelections 2023disciplinary commissionerharassmentprosecutionSupreme Administrative CourtHungaryelections 2020preliminary rulingsjudiciaryDagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaK 3/21First President of the Supreme CourtPaweł JuszczyszynNational ProsecutorRecovery FundPresidentMichał LasotaProsecutor GeneralŁukasz PiebiakBeata MorawiecprosecutorsEuropean Arrest Warrantfreedom of expressionConstitutionPrime MinisterSejmimmunityMaciej NawackiIustitiaRegional Court in KrakówCriminal ChamberCOVID-19Maciej FerekOSCEMałgorzata GersdorfcourtsVenice CommissionMarek SafjanMinistry of JusticeExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberEU budgetdisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiPiSNCJKrystian MarkiewiczStanisław PiotrowiczPresident of the Republic of PolandAleksander Stepkowskicommission on Russian influenceJustice FundTHEMISLabour and Social Security ChamberLaw and JusticeNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsconditionalitycorruptionStanisław BiernatreformsAnna Dalkowskafreedom of assemblyconditionality mechanismWłodzimierz WróbelsuspensionPiotr GąciarekOrdo IurisReczkowicz and Others v. PolandparliamentMarcin RomanowskiAndrzej Stępkamedia independenceChamber of Professional LiabilityBroda and Bojara v PolandXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandP 7/20K 7/21LGBTPresident of PolandNational Reconstruction PlanJarosław DudziczLex DudaProfessional Liability ChamberMay 10 2020 electionsStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationPiotr PrusinowskidefamationLex Super OmniamediaUrsula von der LeyenKrzysztof ParchimowiczEAWabortionMichał Wawrykiewiczelectoral codeAmsterdam District CourtNext Generation EUSLAPPConstitutional Tribunal PresidentDidier ReyndersTVPEwa ŁętowskaSenateParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeLech GarlickiSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramArticle 6 ECHRAndrzej ZollNational Electoral CommissionFreedom HouseJarosław WyrembakJustice Defence Committee – KOSreformArticle 7acting first president of the Supreme CourtSupreme Court President2017PM Mateusz MorawieckipolicePiotr TulejaJerzy StępieńAndrzej RzeplińskiFerdynand RymarzStanisław RymarMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaDariusz ZawistowskiOKO.pressreportSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskiMarek ZubikDariusz KornelukMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekEuropean Parliamentmilestoneselectoral processAndrzej MączyńskiJózef IwulskiWojciech MaczugavetoOLAFViktor OrbanSzymon Szynkowski vel SękMaciej Miterajudcial independencecourt presidentsJanusz NiemcewiczTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaMarek MazurkiewiczZiobroMirosław GranatWojciech ŁączkowskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaStefan JaworskiAdam JamrózKazimierz Działochainsulting religious feelingsrestoration of the rule of lawright to fair trialXero Flor v. PolandLaw on the NCJKrakówstate of emergencydecommunizationBelarusAdam SynakiewiczAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Joanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraCentral Anti-Corruption BureausurveillanceMariusz KamińskiPegasusEdyta BarańskaJoanna Misztal-KoneckaCivil ChamberUkraineSupreme Audit OfficeMarian BanaśKrystyna PawłowiczCCBERafał PuchalskiThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeMarek PietruszyńskiMichał Laskowskipublic opinion pollsmear campaignMariusz MuszyńskiHuman Rights CommissionerMaciej TaborowskiPaweł FilipekInternational Criminal CourtKonrad WytrykowskirecommendationaccountabilityJakub IwaniecDariusz DrajewicztransparencyFree CourtsBohdan Zdziennickiretirement ageSLAPPsPATFoxLGBT ideology free zoneslexTuskAdam Tomczyński11 January March in Warsawabuse of state resourcesEuropean Association of Judgespublic mediaEwa Wrzosekcourt changesC-791/19democratic backslidingcoronavirushuman rightscriminal codePiebiak gateelections fairnessZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczJarosław GowinEU law primacyPiotr PszczółkowskiBelgiumtransferNetherlandscivil societyRussiaBogdan Święczkowskielections integrityintimidation of dissentersMarcin Warchołlex NGOGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszCrimes of espionageNCBiRJoanna KnobelKasta/AntykastaThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentHater ScandalPaweł StyrnaGrzegorz FurmankiewiczDariusz BarskiJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczJustyna WydrzyńskaKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczEwa ŁąpińskaIrena BochniakZbigniew ŁupinaNational Broadcasting CouncilKatarzyna ChmuraStanisław ZdunLasotaAntykastaEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFMarek JaskulskiRome StatuteCourt of Appeal in Warsawlex RaczkowskiCourt of Appeal in KrakówNational Council for the JudiciaryMarek Astgag lawsuitsAssessment ActAct sanitising the judiciaryenvironmentPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAgreement for the Rule of LawMaria Ejchart-DuboisPaulina Kieszkowska-Knapikstrategic investmentPiotr HofmańskiUS State DepartmentPutinismKaczyńskilex Wośdisinformationextraordinary commissionlegislationthe Spy ActZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaHelsinki Foundation for Human RightsinvestmentMałgorzata Wąsek-WiaderekOsiatyński'a ArchiveJarosław MatrasPaulina AslanowiczPiotr Raczkowskict on the Protection of the PopulatioAndrzej SkowronoppositionDariusz DończykPetros TovmasyanJerzy KwaśniewskiPiotr MazurekGrzegorz PudaNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeinsultState TribunalDonald Tusk governmenttest of independencepilot-judgmentVěra JourováTomasz Koszewskiright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawJakub KwiecińskidiscriminationAnti-SLAPP DirectiveODIHRcivil lawDonald TuskJustice MinistryJoanna Scheuring-WielgusAction PlanAdam GendźwiłłElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikSebastian Mazurekjustice system reformJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiEuropean Court of HuMałgorzata FroncRafał LisakKarolina MiklaszewskaRadosław BaszukNGOFull-Scale Election Observation MissionWałęsa v. PolandAct on the Supreme CourtLech WałęsaMichał DworczykDworczyk leaksAleksandra RutkowskaE-mail scandalRafał WojciechowskidelegationsTomasz SzmydtEmilia SzmydtWatchdog PolskaArkadiusz CichockiKaspryszyn v PolandDobrochna Bach-GoleckaMonika FrąckowiakNCR&Delection fairnessIvan Mischenkomedia pluralism#RecoveryFilesWiesław Kozielewiczelectoral commissionsMarcin MatczakChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakArkadiusz RadwanMarcin KrajewskiBohdan BieniekGeneral Court of the EUKrzysztof Rączkarepairing the rule of lawPoznańNational School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (KSSiP)Koan Lenaertscodification commissionKarol WeitzŁukasz BilińskiPKWhate speechGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawPrzemysła RadzikElżbieta KarskaJacek Czaputowiczhate crimesChamber of Extraordinary Verificationinfringment actionEU valuesENCJIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceAK judgmentSimpson judgmentpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawOpenbaar MinisterieRegional Court in AmsterdamENAZbigniew BoniekOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsC-487/19Article 10 ECHRUnited NationsLeon KierespopulismLIBE CommitteeFrans TimmermansUS Department of StateSwieczkowskiadvocate generalpress releaseRights and Values ProgrammeC-619/18defamatory statementsStanisław ZabłockiCouncil of the EUequal treatmentfundamental rightsCT PresidentEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justice2018Nations in TransitWorld Justice Project awardWojciech SadurskiAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote billlawyersLSOjudgePechKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakAmnesty Internationaltrans-Atlantic valuesresolution of 23 January 2020Olsztyn courtoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's OfficePolish National FoundationLux VeritatisMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykTVNjournalistslexTVNclientelismArticle 258Przemysła CzarnekEducation MinisterIpsosOlimpia Barańska-MałuszeHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr Burasauthoritarian equilibriumPolish mediaRzeszówMichał WośMinistry of FinanceJacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitRoman GiertychWiktor JoachimkowskiborderprimacyEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej RutkiewiczMirosław Wróblewskiright to protestSławomir JęksaDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandTribunal of StateLeszek MazurCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActForum Współpracy Sędziówmedia taxGermanyMariusz Krasońinterim measuresautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingproteststhe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandadvertising taxmediabezwyboruArticle 2Forum shoppingEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian KaletaC-156/21C-157/21Marek PiertuszyńskiNational Prosecutor’s OfficeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiRome IIBrussels IJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióGazeta WyborczaPollitykaDisicplinary Chamber