Disciplinary commissioner attacks a group of 14 judges organizing help for harassed judges

Share

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

More

Disciplinary Commissioner Przemysław Radzik attacks the authorities of an informal group of judges, which helps defend the independence of the courts and provides support to repressed judges. The commissioner pressed disciplinary charges against them, including the chairperson of this group, Bartłomiej Starosta, and Judge Waldemar Żurek



Disciplinary charges were pressed against 14 judges from the Judges’ Cooperation Forum (Forum Współpracy Sędziów).

 

Deputy Disciplinary Commissioner for Judges Przemysław Radzik announced this in a press release on Wednesday, 22 July 2020.

 

The charges were pressed against five appellate judges, five regional court judges, and four district court judges.

 

All of them are associated with the Judges’ Cooperation Forum, an informal agreement of independent judges, which substitutes the association of judges that was heavily restricted by the Law and Justice (PiS) government and the National Council of the Judiciary accepted by PiS.

 

The forum protects the independence of judges, passes resolutions to defend the free courts and primarily helps repressed, rebellious judges. All the signs are that all the judges in the governing bodies of the Judges’ Cooperation Forum have been charged.

 

Radzik demands that the judges comply with the muzzle act

Disciplinary Commissioner Przemysław Radzik accuses 14 judges of concealing their membership of the Judges’ Cooperation Forum and concealing their involvement in its authorities, i.e. in the Standing Presidium of the Judges’ Cooperation Forum. In his opinion, they should disclose this in their declarations of membership of associations – including associations and foundations – which judges are required to submit from 2020.

 

The obligation to disclose the public activities of judges was introduced by the so-called muzzle act. It was enacted to intimidate independent judges with draconian penalties (including dismissal) and to discourage them from criticizing changes in the courts by inciting a chilling effect.

 

The objective was also to discourage judges from questioning the legality of the new NCJ and the new Chambers of the Supreme Court appointed by PiS, as well as the legality of the judges promoted by the new NCJ, under the threat of penalties.

 

Now, Commissioner Radzik believes this group of 14 judges committed a disciplinary offence of an “obvious and gross breach of the law.”

 

That is why he instituted disciplinary proceedings and charged them. Radzik believes that, by not providing information about their membership of the Forum in their declarations, the judges also breached the dignity of the judicial office, because they are not respecting the law passed by PiS.

 

Radzik attacks the authorities of the Judges’ Cooperation Forum

 

Radzik’s attack on the authorities and members of the Judges’ Cooperation Forum is no accident.

 

The forum was established in 2017, when it was already known that PiS would breach the Constitution and dissolve the old and legal National Council of the Judiciary, which has the task of protecting the independence of judges. The current NCJ, which is staffed mainly by judges who chose to cooperate with the Minister Ziobro’s ministry, is not fulfilling this role. This is why the Judges’ Cooperation Forum was established. The Forum associates judges from all over Poland and is not under the control of the current authorities.

 

The Forum is informal. It is not a registered organization, but a loose agreement of several hundred judges who exchange opinions and develop positions on matters regarding free courts. The Forum is also a substitute of the independent association of judges, which has almost been abolished by the muzzle act.

 

The Forum passes resolutions and has an intervention team that provides support – mainly legal – to judges who are being harassed with disciplinary action by Ziobro’s disciplinary commissioners and to judges against whom Ziobro’s prosecution office wants to press criminal charges for their judicial work. Despite being without legal personality, over several years, the JCF has developed into an important element of the defence of judicial independence.

 

Therefore, the current strike at the JCF by Ziobro’s disciplinary commissioner is no accident and could create a chilling effect on other judges involved in the JCF.

 

The names of the judges against whom disciplinary charges were pressed are not known because the disciplinary commissioner has not disclosed them.

 

The pro-government portal, wPolityce, writes that charges were pressed against the chairperson of the JCF, Bartłomiej Starosta, a member of the largest association of judges, Iustitia, and judge, Waldemar Żurek, former press officer of the legal NCJ, member of the management board of the Themis association of judges, who has great merits for defending the free courts.

 

However, the content of the disciplinary commissioner’s statement and the publication in wPolityce suggest that almost all judges in the Standing Presidium of the Judges’ Cooperation Forum, namely in the Forum’s authorities, were charged.

 

Three people from the JCF’s top authorities have been charged: Bartłomiej Starosta, chairperson of the JCF from the District Court in Sulęcin, Agnieszka Niklas-Bibik, deputy chairperson of the JCF from the Regional Court in Słupsk and Waldemar Żurek, deputy chairperson of the JCF from the District Court in Kraków.

 

11 members of the Presidium of the JCF were also charged. They were Michał Bober from the Court of Appeal in Gdańsk, Jerzy Geisler from the Court of Appeal in Poznań, Aleksandra Janas from the Court of Appeal in Katowice, Rafał Jerka from the Court of Appeal in Olsztyn, Grzegorz Kasicki from the Court of Appeal in Szczecin, Robert Kirejew from the Court of Appeal in Katowice, Krzysztof Kozłowski from the District Court in Wysokie Mazowieckie, Tomasz Marczyński from the District Court in Bełchatów, vice-president of Iustita, Justyna Małłek – Napierała from the District Court in Leszno, Jerzy Nawrocki from the Court of Appeal in Lublin and Katarzyna Wesołowska–Zbudniewek from the Regional Court in Łódź.

 

JCF Chairperson: disciplinary charges are a further form of harassment of judges

The JCF Presidium consists of 15 people, but 14 judges have been charged because one of the Presidium members, Judge Jacek Niedzielski, is a judge of the Voivodship Administrative Court in Gorzów Wielkopolski and the disciplinary commissioner for the judges of the ordinary courts cannot prosecute him.

 

Besides, the obligation to submit declarations of membership of associations applies to judges of the ordinary courts.

 

Interestingly, Michał Lasota, the other deputy disciplinary commissioner of judges, is a member of the Forum (a delegate). He was elected to it by judges from the home court in Nowe Miasto Lubawskie. Lasota was elected to the Forum before becoming a disciplinary commissioner in mid-2018 and before he started to prosecute independent judges. He even ran for membership of the Presidium of the Forum itself, but did not receive support.

 

Lasota is still with the JCF and did not disclose this in his declaration regarding his activities in associations. Will his colleague, Przemysław Radzik, or the chief disciplinary commissioner, Piotr Schab, now press disciplinary charges against him for this?

 

These are further disciplinary charges for rebellious judges

Durther disciplinary cases have been brought against some judges from the JCF’s authorities by minister Ziobro’s disciplinary commissioners through disciplinary charges. The following have previously been charged:

– Bartłomiej Starosta, JCF chairperson. He has several disciplinary cases, mainly because he did not consider the proceedings initiated by Ziobro’s disciplinary commissioner to be legal and refused to attend a hearing to provide explanations.

– Waldemar Żurek, who is being harassed for his tough line in defence of the courts when he was the press officer of the old, legal NCJ. Now he has several disciplinary cases, including two for contesting the legality of electing Kamil Zaradkiewicz to the office of judge of the Supreme Court.

Aleksandra Janas has a disciplinary case together with Judge Irena Piotrowska for asking legal questions of the Supreme Court about the status of a judge promoted by the new NCJ.

Tomasz Marczyński may be charged, together with a group of 14 other district court judges from the region of the Regional Court in Piotrków Trybunalski. They are being prosecuted by the local disciplinary commissioner for signing a letter to the OSCE requesting it to monitor the presidential elections by correspondence, which were planned for 10 May. The case is currently in the investigation phase. It may end with charges being pressed or the case being discontinued.



Author


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


More

Published

July 24, 2020

Tags

Supreme CourtPolandConstitutional TribunalDisciplinary Chamberjudgesrule of lawdisciplinary proceedingsZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaCourt of JusticeMinister of JusticeEuropean Court of Human RightsAdam BodnarIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemneo-judgesmuzzle lawCJEUJarosław KaczyńskiNational Recovery PlanMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsWaldemar ŻurekCourt of Justice of the European UnionNational Council for JudiciaryPrzemysław RadzikdemocracyPiotr Schabjudiciarypresidential electionselectionscriminal lawKamil Zaradkiewiczelections 2023disciplinary commissionermedia freedomJulia PrzyłębskaK 3/21First President of the Supreme Courtelections 2020harassmentSupreme Administrative Courtpreliminary rulingsDagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaprosecutionHungaryMichał LasotaprosecutorsBeata MorawiecRecovery FundPresidentProsecutor GeneralPaweł JuszczyszynNational ProsecutorŁukasz PiebiakConstitutionEuropean Arrest WarrantPrime Ministerfreedom of expressionMaciej NawackiCOVID-19Marek SafjanVenice CommissionSejmimmunityCriminal ChamberRegional Court in KrakówIustitiaMaciej FerekMałgorzata GersdorfreformMinistry of JusticeNCJExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberOSCEcourtsWojciech Hermelińskidisciplinary liability for judgesEU budgetcorruptionStanisław PiotrowiczNational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsCouncil of EuropeAnna DalkowskaLGBTJustice FundPresident of the Republic of PolandWłodzimierz Wróbelconditionality mechanismTHEMISKrystian MarkiewiczAleksander StepkowskiStanisław BiernatPiSreformsLaw and Justicecommission on Russian influenceLabour and Social Security ChamberJarosław Dudziczconditionalityfreedom of assemblyPresident of PolandChamber of Professional LiabilityOrdo Iurismedia independenceDidier ReyndersReczkowicz and Others v. PolandSLAPPStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationBroda and Bojara v PolandXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsSupreme Court PresidentMarcin Romanowskielectoral codeAndrzej StępkaArticle 7Piotr PrusinowskiSenateSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeTVPmediaLech GarlickiLex Super OmniapoliceabortionNext Generation EUUrsula von der LeyenEAWJustice Defence Committee – KOSAmsterdam District CourtdefamationKrzysztof ParchimowiczFreedom HouseMichał WawrykiewiczEwa ŁętowskaArticle 6 ECHRMay 10 2020 elections2017Piotr GąciarekPegasussuspensionP 7/20acting first president of the Supreme CourtNational Electoral CommissionK 7/21PM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej ZollJarosław WyrembakLex DudaProfessional Liability ChamberCivil Chamberparliamentcivil societyNational Reconstruction PlanConstitutional Tribunal PresidentAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraKrakówBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaStanisław RymarMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaJanusz NiemcewiczAndrzej MączyńskiMarek MazurkiewiczAdam Synakiewiczstate of emergencyWojciech ŁączkowskiEdyta BarańskaMirosław GranatKazimierz DziałochaJoanna Misztal-Koneckajudcial independenceMaciej MiteraDariusz KornelukViktor OrbanOLAFrestoration of the rule of lawvetoMariusz KamińskisurveillanceK 6/21Józef IwulskiAstradsson v IcelandCentral Anti-Corruption BureauPATFoxSLAPPsTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaaccountabilityUkraineKrystyna PawłowiczRafał PuchalskitransparencyDariusz ZawistowskiOKO.pressright to fair trialDariusz DrajewiczPaweł FilipekMaciej Taborowskismear campaigninsulting religious feelingsNational Prosecutor’s OfficeMariusz MuszyńskiBelaruselectoral processcourt presidentsMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekmilestonesWojciech MaczugaMichał LaskowskiMarian BanaśJakub IwaniecSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczPiotr TulejaJerzy Stępieńelections fairnessAndrzej RzeplińskiSzymon Szynkowski vel SękFerdynand RymarzInternational Criminal CourtMarek PietruszyńskiMirosław WyrzykowskiBohdan ZdziennickiXero Flor v. Polandpublic mediaSupreme Audit OfficelexTuskcourt changeselections integrityMarek ZubikKonrad Wytrykowskiabuse of state resourcesGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesEuropean ParliamentZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczMarcin Warchoł11 January March in WarsawEuropean Association of JudgesZiobroFree CourtsdecommunizationEwa WrzosekEU law primacyhuman rightsPiebiak gaterecommendationreportLaw on the NCJlex NGORussiaCCBEpublic opinion pollHuman Rights CommissionerJarosław GowinPiotr PszczółkowskiLGBT ideology free zonesC-791/19coronaviruscriminal coderetirement ageNetherlandsAdam Tomczyńskidemocratic backslidingintimidation of dissentersThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeBogdan ŚwięczkowskitransferBelgiumJoanna Scheuring-WielgusNations in TransitCouncil of the EUElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikKatarzyna ChmuraSebastian MazurekJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiLIBE Committeedefamatory statementsMałgorzata FroncRafał LisakKarolina MiklaszewskaNGOKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczIrena BochniakoppositionEuropean Court of Huelectoral commissionsAct on the Supreme CourtdiscriminationJakub KwiecińskiWorld Justice Project awardTomasz Koszewskitest of independenceDariusz DończykGrzegorz FurmankiewiczAntykastaStanisław ZdunAdam Gendźwiłł2018Wojciech SadurskiFull-Scale Election Observation MissionODIHRMarek Jaskulskirepairing the rule of lawadvocate generalpress release#RecoveryFilesmedia pluralismMichał DworczykDworczyk leaksE-mail scandalAndrzej SkowronRights and Values ProgrammeTomasz SzmydtŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoMonika FrąckowiakEmilia SzmydtSwieczkowskiKasta/AntykastaBohdan BieniekStanisław ZabłockiJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczPetros TovmasyanJerzy KwaśniewskiPiotr MazurekGrzegorz PudaNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeWiesław KozielewiczFrans TimmermansMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakUS Department of StateMarcin KrajewskiEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaC-619/18Arkadiusz CichockiCT PresidentMarcin Matczakequal treatmentNational School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (KSSiP)codification commissiondelegationsWatchdog PolskaDariusz BarskiLasotafundamental rightsState Tribunalinsultcivil lawRadosław BaszukAction PlanJustice MinistryVěra JourováDonald Tuskjustice system reformAnti-SLAPP DirectiveHater ScandalpopulismNational Council for the Judiciarycivil partnerships billKRSJudicial Reformsmigration strategyPenal CodeLGBTQ+NIKProfetosame-sex unionsKatarzyna Kotulacivil partnershipsHelsinki Foundation for Human RightsPiotr HofmańskiC‑718/21preliminary referenceEU lawethicsChamber of Professional ResponsibilityThe Codification Committee of Civil LawInvestigationPoznańKrzysztof Rączkaextraordinary commissionZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaCourt of Appeal in WarsawOsiatyński'a Archivetransitional justiceUS State DepartmentAssessment ActCrimes of espionageJoanna KnobelAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszKoan LenaertsKarol WeitzKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiRThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFJustyna Wydrzyńskaenvironmentinvestmentstrategic investmentRafał WojciechowskiAleksandra RutkowskaGeneral Court of the EUArkadiusz RadwanLech WałęsaWałęsa v. Polandright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawpilot-judgmentDobrochna Bach-Goleckaelection fairnessNational Broadcasting Councilgag lawsuitslex RaczkowskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActdisinformationlustrationWhite PaperEUDonald Tusk governmentjudgePrzemysław CzarnekJózsef SzájerRafał TrzaskowskiKlubrádióSobczyńska and Others v PolandŻurek v PolandGazeta WyborczaGrzęda v PolandPollitykaJelenmedia lawIndex.huJacek CzaputowiczElżbieta KarskaPrzemysła Radzikmedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMABrussels IRome IILGBT free zonesFirst President of the Suprme CourtBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeOlsztyn courtPrzemysła CzarnekequalityMarek PiertuszyńskiChamber of Extraordinary VerificationArticle 2Forum shoppinghate speechEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian Kaletahate crimesC-156/21C-157/21Education Ministerthe Regional Court in Warsawproteststhe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońGermanyCelmermutual trustabortion rulingLMUnited NationsLeszek MazurAmsterdamIrena Majcherinterim measuresIrelandautocratizationMultiannual Financial FrameworkC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUC-487/19Norwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsNorwegian fundsNorwayKraśnikOmbudsmanZbigniew BoniekENAArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service Actpublic broadcasterForum Współpracy SędziówSimpson judgmentAK judgmentlegislative practiceforeign agents lawrepressive actMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitLSOtrans-Atlantic valuesDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandAmnesty InternationalThe First President of the Supreme CourtErnest BejdaJacek Sasinright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychAct of 20 December 2019Michał WośMinistry of FinancelawyersFrackowiakPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikKochenovPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderekct on the Protection of the PopulatioPechlegislationlex WośKaczyńskiPutinismCourt of Appeal in KrakówMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryECJMarek AstFreedom in the WorldEvgeni TanchevRome StatuteIsraelEuropean Public Prosecutor's OfficeEU valuesPolish National FoundationLux Veritatisinfringment actionMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykPKWENCJoligarchic systemclientelismIpsosOlimpia Barańska-MałuszeHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr Burasauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258Leon Kieresresolution of 23 January 2020Telex.huEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtAlina CzubieniakMaciej RutkiewiczharrassmentMirosław WróblewskiprimacyborderGerard BirgfellerTVNjournalistslexTVNpostal vote billPolish mediapostal voteEwa MaciejewskaRzeszówKoen Lenaerts