Forced transfer as harassment and “disciplinary measure”

Share

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

More

The forced transfer of acclaimed prosecutor Mariusz Krasoń from the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Cracow to a lower-ranked office in Wroclaw has generated controversy among prosecutors and other legal professionals in Poland. The decision was issued after the prosecutor Krasoń participated in the drafting of a document highlighting defects in the current system earlier this year. A number of organizations and individuals, including the Polish Commissioner for Human Rights, have expressed their support for prosecutor Krasoń and criticized the decision of the National Prosecutor, Bogdan Święczkowski.



In a letterletter to the National Prosecutor, the Lex Super Omnia Association of Prosecutors called for a reversal of the decision to transfer prosecutor Krasoń against his will.

 

“The Lex Super Omnia Association of Prosecutors will not allow the case of prosecutor Mariusz Krasoń to pass by silently. We demand that you immediately cancel the decision you made, as it may incite negative consequences not only for Mariusz Krasoń, but also for his family. This is because posting our colleague is a further example of the nature of the harassment and a substitute of a disciplinary penalty for an independent stance”

 

Prosecutor Krasoń is known to have worked on a resolution adopted in May by the Prosecutorial Assembly in the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Cracow, which highlighted discontent with working conditions. It pointed to issues such as salaries, lack of action aimed at improving the staffing situation and restricting the independence of prosecutors both through changes in the law and by affecting their trial decisions outside of proper professional channels.

 

After the resolution was published, the management of the Prosecutor’s Office was summoned to Warsaw and the Disciplinary Spokesperson for the Prosecutor General investigated the case. Perhaps, despite the resolution passing unanimously, prosecutor Krasoń was chosen as a scapegoat to serve as a warning to his colleagues of the potential consequences of their activities.

 

Prosecutor Krasoń was first transferred to another division in the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Cracow, only to be later assigned to Wroclaw, being given only a weekend to move (the distance between the two cities is almost 300 km). The Prosecutor’s Office in Wroclaw is also two ranks lower in the hierarchical structure than the one in Cracow where he previously worked.

 

Moreover, prosecutor Krasoń is dealing with a difficult family situation, having to take care of two elderly parents, so the sudden transfer has affected both his career and his personal life. Overall, the forced transfer is seen as an attempt to intimidate and punish the prosecutor for partaking in the adoption of the resolution in May.

 

In the letter, the Lex Super Omnia Association of Prosecutors condemn the actions of the National Prosecutor. They argue that rather than being a means of maintaining the quality of the prosecutorial service, disciplinary proceedings as well as staffing decisions have been turned into ways of settling personal vendettas against prosecutors publicly defending the independence of courts or criticizing the current situation.

 

Adam Bodnar, the Polish Commissioner for Human Rights, remarked that “the prosecutor’s office has become a politicized structure with various mechanisms of degrading and internal disciplining of prosecutors, which do not correspond to the standards of a normally functioning state”.

 

In addition, the Justice Defence Committee in their opinion on the case of prosecutor Krasoń highlighted the fact that the practise of long-term delegation of prosecutors without taking into account their desires and personal situation is inconsistent with EU standards.

 

Moreover, in 2017 the Venice Commission issued a report on the Act on the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

 

The Venice Commission is of the opinion that it falls short of international standards and concentrates too much power in the hands of one person – namely the Minister of Justice and Prosecutor General Zbigniew Ziobro.

 

The case of prosecutor Krasoń is not the first one in which disciplinary proceedings or staffing decisions have been abused to pressure prosecutors openly speaking up in support of prosecutorial independence and condemning recent changes in the judicial system. The Justice Defence Committee’s report “A country that punishes” presented a number of such cases, including the one of prosecutor Wójtowicz, subject to disciplinary proceedings for his attendance at a demonstration defending free courts organized by the Committee for the Defence of Democracy and his unauthorized statement given to a local media outlet.

 

When asked by a journalist whether he was concerned with how his presence at the rally could be viewed by his supervisors, Wójtowicz allegedly said “I have nothing to lose. What will they do? Transfer me to Ełk [a small town in North-East Poland]?”

 

As we can see, maybe not to Ełk, but one can definitely be transferred from Cracow to Wroclaw.

 

[by Martyna Olejnik]



Author


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


More

Published

July 12, 2019

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandrule of lawZbigniew Ziobrojudicial independenceCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean CommissionNational Council of the JudiciaryjudgesEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeMałgorzata ManowskaAndrzej DudaIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemCommissioner for Human RightsEuropean Court of Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeMateusz MorawieckiJarosław Kaczyńskipresidential electionsjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsdemocracyK 3/21muzzle lawHungaryelections 2020Kamil ZaradkiewiczBeata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsWaldemar Żurekdisciplinary commissionerEuropean Arrest WarrantProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19Julia PrzyłębskaPresidentmedia freedomfreedom of expressionCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynNational Public ProsecutorPiotr SchabPrzemysław Radzikcriminal proceedingsPrime Ministerfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorelectionsWojciech HermelińskiStanisław PiotrowiczAndrzej ZollMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsBroda and Bojara v Polandmedia independenceAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczTHEMISMaciej NawackiEAWmediaimmunityAnna DalkowskaCouncil of Europe2017policeFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaArticle 7Venice CommissionWłodzimierz WróbelPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaP 7/20Justice FundPiSC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesSejmXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandReczkowicz and Others v. PolandIustitiaKrystian MarkiewiczMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramdefamationcourtsEwa WrzosekEU law primacyTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independencedemocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetoJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJJustice Defence Committee – KOSrecommendationTeresa 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 RzeplińskiSupreme Court PresidentJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskireportBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersEuropean ParliamentOKO.pressZiobroMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiPiotr Gąciarekhuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyneo-judgescoronavirusXero Flor v. PolandEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej Rutkiewiczresolution of 23 January 2020K 6/21Mirosław WróblewskiCivil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaLeon Kieresright to protestSławomir JęksaPKWWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMariusz Kamińskiinfringment actionsurveillanceEU valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauENCJJacek SasinErnest Bejdalex NGOThe First President of the Supreme Courtcivil societyMaciej CzajkaRussiaMariusz JałoszewskiIsraelŁukasz Radkeforeign agents lawpolexitNational Recovery PlanK 7/21Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechcriminal codeGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawPrzemysła RadzikSenateMarcin WarchołElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsC-487/19Article 6 ECHRArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieUrsula von der LeyenAK judgmentSimpson judgmentForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited NationsLeszek MazurMaciej Miterapopulisminterim measuresautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingequal treatmentabortionprotestsfundamental rightsthe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońCT PresidentGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact 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 generalDariusz ZawistowskitransparencyEuropean Economic and Social Committeepress releaseSebastian KaletaRights and Values ProgrammeC-156/21C-157/21C-619/18Marek Piertuszyńskidefamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardNational Prosecutor’s Officeintimidation of dissentersWojciech SadurskiBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberjudgeTribunal of StatetransferPechOlsztyn courtKochenovPrzemysła CzarnekEvgeni TanchevEducation MinisterFreedom in the WorldKrystyna PawłowiczECJIpsosFrackowiakOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeretirement ageMariusz MuszyńskiAmnesty InternationalHudocŁukasz PiebiakRegional Court in KrakówPiebiak gateKonrad SzymańskiPiotr Bogdanowicztrans-Atlantic valuesPiotr BurasLSOauthoritarian equilibriumlawyersArticle 258Act of 20 December 2019clientelismoligarchic systemRecovery FundEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officerepressive actPolish National FoundationLux VeritatisKoen LenaertsMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykharrassmentMarian BanaśAlina CzubieniakSupreme Audit OfficeTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediapostal voteKrakówRzeszówDagmara Pawełczyk-Woickaborderpostal vote billprimacy