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 CourtPolandDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaljudgesrule 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 RightsIgor TuleyaAdam Bodnardisciplinary systemCJEUmuzzle lawJarosław Kaczyńskineo-judgesNational Recovery PlanMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European UniondemocracyNational Council for JudiciaryPrzemysław RadzikWaldemar Żurekdisciplinary commissionermedia freedomKamil Zaradkiewiczcriminal lawelectionspresidential electionsPiotr Schabelections 2023judiciaryJulia PrzyłębskaharassmentK 3/21First President of the Supreme CourtprosecutionSupreme Administrative Courtpreliminary rulingsHungaryDagmara Pawełczyk-Woickaelections 2020Michał LasotaŁukasz PiebiakNational ProsecutorBeata MorawiecPresidentProsecutor GeneralPaweł JuszczyszynRecovery FundprosecutorsRegional Court in KrakówConstitutionfreedom of expressionimmunityEuropean Arrest WarrantIustitiaMaciej NawackiPrime MinisterSejmCriminal ChamberMarek SafjanCOVID-19Venice CommissionExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberWojciech HermelińskiMałgorzata GersdorfMinistry of Justicedisciplinary liability for judgesreformMaciej FerekOSCEEU budgetcourtsStanisław Biernatcommission on Russian influenceAnna DalkowskacorruptionLGBTcriminal proceedingsStanisław PiotrowiczconditionalityJustice Fundconditionality mechanismWłodzimierz WróbelCouncil of EuropeNational Public ProsecutorPiSreformsNCJfreedom of assemblyLaw and JusticeAleksander StepkowskiJarosław DudziczKrystian MarkiewiczTHEMISLabour and Social Security ChamberPresident of the Republic of PolandPiotr GąciarekMay 10 2020 electionsOrdo IurisLex DudaPresident of Poland2017Lex Super OmniaAndrzej StępkaEwa ŁętowskaMichał WawrykiewiczArticle 6 ECHREAWUrsula von der LeyenParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeLech GarlickiTVPmediaabortionKrzysztof ParchimowiczdefamationAmsterdam District CourtStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationSLAPPXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandDidier ReyndersReczkowicz and Others v. Polandmedia independenceSenateSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramMarcin RomanowskiNext Generation EUacting first president of the Supreme CourtsuspensionPiotr PrusinowskiChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsJustice Defence Committee – KOSChamber of Professional LiabilityCivil ChamberFreedom HouseConstitutional Tribunal PresidentNational Reconstruction PlanPM Mateusz MorawieckiK 7/21Professional Liability ChamberparliamentSupreme Court PresidentNational Electoral CommissionArticle 7policeP 7/20Andrzej ZollJarosław Wyrembakelectoral codeelectoral processStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaSzymon Szynkowski vel SękKonrad WytrykowskiWojciech ŁączkowskiInternational Criminal CourtMarek MazurkiewiczAndrzej MączyńskiOLAFUkraineJanusz NiemcewiczAdam Jamrózright to fair trialEdyta BarańskaJakub IwaniecDariusz Drajewiczrestoration of the rule of lawMaciej Miterapublic mediaJózef IwulskiMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekViktor Orbanjudcial independencevetomilestonesTeresa Dębowska-Romanowskasmear campaignKazimierz DziałochaWojciech Maczugacourt presidentsRafał PuchalskiMirosław GranatMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaPaweł Filipekstate of emergencySLAPPsXero Flor v. PolandAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21transparencyDariusz ZawistowskiOKO.pressBelarusPATFoxMichał LaskowskiMaciej TaborowskiMariusz MuszyńskiKrystyna PawłowiczMarian BanaśSupreme Audit OfficeAdam SynakiewiczMarek PietruszyńskiDariusz Kornelukabuse of state resourceselections fairnessJoanna Misztal-KoneckaMirosław Wyrzykowskiinsulting religious feelingsSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczPiotr TulejaJerzy StępieńAndrzej RzeplińskiFerdynand RymarzJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoralexTuskBohdan ZdziennickiaccountabilityKrakówPegasuselections integrityMariusz KamińskisurveillanceMarek ZubikCentral Anti-Corruption Bureaucourt changesStanisław RymarrecommendationMarcin WarchołHuman Rights CommissionerLGBT ideology free zonesEwa WrzosekreportEU law primacyPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław Gowinhuman rightsFree Courtscivil societyZiobrocriminal codeZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczcoronavirusEuropean ParliamentC-791/1911 January March in WarsawEuropean Association of JudgesLaw on the NCJPiebiak gateretirement ageAdam TomczyńskiCCBEdecommunizationpublic opinion polllex NGOThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropetransferNetherlandsBelgiumintimidation of dissentersdemocratic backslidingRussiaBogdan ŚwięczkowskiGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesJerzy KwaśniewskiLIBE CommitteeWiesław KozielewiczNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeNGOGrzegorz PudaPetros TovmasyanPiotr Mazurektest of independenceCouncil of the EUStanisław ZabłockiODIHRJoanna Scheuring-WielgusNations in TransitElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikSebastian MazurekJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiMałgorzata Froncopposition2018Karolina MiklaszewskaAdam GendźwiłłDariusz DończykRafał LisakFull-Scale Election Observation MissionFrans TimmermanslegislationMarek JaskulskiJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczEwa ŁąpińskaIrena BochniakZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaC-619/18Kasta/AntykastaGrzegorz Furmankiewiczdefamatory statementsKatarzyna Chmuralex WośPechRome StatutejudgeWorld Justice Project awardAntykastaStanisław ZdunKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczAndrzej SkowronŁukasz Bilińskipress releaseTomasz Szmydtadvocate generalrepairing the rule of lawSwieczkowskiBohdan BieniekMarcin KrajewskiUS Department of State#RecoveryFilesmedia pluralismIvan MischenkoMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiEmilia SzmydtRights and Values ProgrammeE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał DworczykMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakGeneral Court of the EUVěra JourováDonald Tuskjustice system reformAnti-SLAPP DirectiveinsultState Tribunalfundamental rightsMarcin MatczakJustice MinistryAction PlanRadosław BaszukArkadiusz RadwanLech WałęsaWałęsa v. Polandright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawpilot-judgmentDonald Tusk governmentCT Presidentcivil lawequal treatmentNational School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (KSSiP)preliminary referenceEU lawethicsChamber of Professional ResponsibilityThe Codification Committee of Civil Lawcivil partnershipsKatarzyna Kotulasame-sex unionsC‑718/21Piotr HofmańskiHelsinki Foundation for Human Rightscodification commissiondelegationsWatchdog PolskaDariusz BarskiLasotaHater ScandalpopulismNational Council for the Judiciarycivil partnerships billAleksandra RutkowskaTomasz KoszewskiNCBiRThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFJustyna WydrzyńskaAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszJoanna KnobelCrimes of espionageextraordinary commissionNCR&DKaspryszyn v PolandKarol WeitzJakub KwiecińskidiscriminationAct on the Supreme Courtelectoral commissionsEuropean Court of HuKrzysztof RączkaPoznańKoan LenaertsZbigniew KapińskiAnna Głowackathe Spy ActdisinformationlustrationWhite PaperEUNational Broadcasting Councilelection fairnessDobrochna Bach-GoleckaPiotr Raczkowskilex Raczkowskigag lawsuitsCourt of Appeal in WarsawOsiatyński'a Archivetransitional justiceUS State DepartmentAssessment Actenvironmentinvestmentstrategic investmentRafał WojciechowskiKochenovPrzemysław CzarnekIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerŻurek v PolandKlubrádióGrzęda v PolandGazeta WyborczaKESMAJacek KurskiJacek CzaputowiczElżbieta KarskaPrzemysła Radzikmedia lawRafał Trzaskowskimedia taxadvertising taxSobczyńska and Others v Polandhate speechPollitykaBrussels IMarek PiertuszyńskiLGBT free zonesNational Prosecutor’s OfficeFirst President of the Suprme CourtOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateequalityC-157/21Rome IIArticle 2Forum shoppinghate crimesChamber of Extraordinary VerificationEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian KaletaC-156/21Wojciech Sadurskilegislative practicethe Regional Court in Warsawabortion rulingpublic broadcasterproteststhe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz Krasońmutual trustMultiannual Financial FrameworkAmsterdamUnited NationsIrena MajcherLeszek MazurIrelandinterim measuresLMautocratizationForum Współpracy SędziówGermanyCelmerArticle 10 ECHRC-487/19Norwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsNorwegian fundsNorwayKraśnikOmbudsmanZbigniew BoniekRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActSimpson judgmentAK judgmentENAAlina CzubieniakAct of 20 December 2019Jacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitMinistry of FinanceMichał WośMirosław WróblewskiharrassmentKoen Lenaertsright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman Giertychrepressive actlawyersLSODolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandFreedom in the WorldCourt of Appeal in KrakówPutinismKaczyńskiEvgeni TanchevPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-WiaderekECJMarek Asttrans-Atlantic valuesAmnesty InternationalPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryFrackowiakct on the Protection of the PopulatioMaciej RutkiewiczOlsztyn courtauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258clientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's OfficeENCJPolish National FoundationLux VeritatisPiotr BurasPiotr BogdanowiczPrzemysła CzarnekEducation Ministerforeign agents lawIsraelIpsosOlimpia Barańska-MałuszeHudocKonrad SzymańskiEU valuesMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykRzeszówpostal voteborderprimacyEwa MaciejewskaEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional Courtmediabezwyborupostal vote billinfringment actionPKWLeon KieresTVNjournalistslexTVNresolution of 23 January 2020Polish mediaGerard Birgfeller