Half a million for prosecuting defiant judges. The Law and Justice authority is throwing money at Ziobro’s disciplinary commissioners

Share

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

More

Increasingly more people are involved in prosecuting and repressing independent judges. Not only have other judges joined Schab’s, Radzik’s and Lasota’s team of disciplinary commissioners, but so have assistants. The costs of employing them are also increasing, because they spent PLN 156,000 on travel and accommodation alone last year.



OKO.press obtained information about the costs of the activities of the chief disciplinary commissioner, Piotr Schab, and his two deputies, Przemysław Radzik and Michał Lasota who were all nominated by Minister Ziobro, who appointed them in mid-2018.

 

Little was known until now about how their office works. All the more so that the disciplinary commissioners are unlikely to divulge any information about their work. However, we managed to obtain data showing how much their ‘work’, which primarily involves prosecuting independent judges, is costing the taxpayers.

 

How Schab’s, Radzik’s and Lasota’s team has grown

 

According to data in the possession of OKO.press, 12 people were working for the office of the disciplinary commissioner for judges in October 2020. They are primarily Schab, Radzik, Lasota and the disciplinary commissioner for military judges, Major Andrzej Wilczewski.

 

In comparison, only three people were working for the office of the chief disciplinary commissioner for judges of the ordinary courts in 2017, before Schab and his deputies were appointed. They were the chief disciplinary commissioner Marek Hibner, the disciplinary commissioner for military judges Andrzej Wilczewski and a senior specialist (who has been working in the secretarial office since 1989).

 

The current organisation for prosecuting judges has been growing systematically. When Minister Ziobro appointed Schab, Radzik and Lasota as disciplinary commissioners in June 2018, only one person was working in their office. This was a senior specialist who had been working there for many years. Three new people appeared at the end of 2018, two assistant judges and another senior specialist.

 

The disciplinary commissioners received strong substantive support in the spring of 2019. Because Minister Ziobro seconded two judges, Beata Adamczyk-Łabuda and Edyta Dzielińska (both from the District Court for the Capital City of Warsaw) and another assistant judge to work for the disciplinary commissioner’s office. A Senior Counsellor also started to work for that office. We wrote in OKO.press about the protest of the Warsaw judges criticising their colleagues for working for Ziobro’s disciplinary commissioners.

 

How much does the employment of Ziobro’s disciplinary commissioners cost the taxpayer?

 

Not only has Schab’s, Radzik’s and Lasota’s team grown. The cost of employing them has also increased. In 2018, when they started to conduct their activities, the upkeep of the chief disciplinary commissioner and his office cost PLN 232k. This year, PLN 103k was spent on salaries, while PLN 53.7k was spent on travel and accommodation of the disciplinary commissioner and his deputies. A further PLN 44k was spent on the lease of office space and PLN 27k was spent on furnishing it.

 

The costs increased to PLN 529k in 2019. As much as PLN 156k was spent on travel and accommodation for the chief disciplinary commissioner and his deputies, while PLN 77.5k was spent on people seconded to work for his office. The salaries of the secretarial staff and the commissioner’s deputies cost PLN 222k. PLN 9.6k was spent on current expenses on maintaining the office, while PLN 64k was spent on the lease of office space.

 

The upkeep of Ziobro’s disciplinary commissioners had already cost PLN 346k up to September 2020.

 

In contrast, the maintenance of the chief disciplinary commissioner and his office cost PLN 174k in 2017. He occupied 3 rooms of an area of 68.5 square metres.

 

Now, Ziobro’s commissioners have 8 rooms of an area of 190 square metres available to them, on the upkeep of which they have already spent PLN 80k this year.

 

How Ziobro’s disciplinary commissioners cranked up the disciplinary repressions of independent judges

Therefore, it arises from the data in the possession of OKO.press that it costs the state budget three times more to keep Ziobro’s disciplinary commissioners than their predecessor, Judge Marek Hibner.

 

This is because they have more work. However, it was Schab, Radzik and Lasota, who made more work for themselves. They have been given more powers and have focused on multiplying disciplinary proceedings against defiant judges. They are being prosecuted for defending the free courts, for their independent judgments which the authorities do not like, for criticising the ‘good change’ in the media and for meetings with citizens.

 

The best-known judges they are prosecuting are Waldemar Żurek, the former press officer of the old and legal NCJ, Igor Tuleya, who is already a symbol of the free courts, and Paweł Juszczyszyn, who was the first to implement the CJEU judgment regarding the new NCJ in Poland. Over 100 judges are already being prosecuted by Ziobro’s disciplinary commissioners. We have published the list of these judges in OKO.press and will shortly update it, because new judges are still being entered onto the list.

 

How Ziobro’s disciplinary commissioners are ‘furthering their own careers’

Schab, Radzik and Lasota are taking advantage of their work with Minister Ziobro. Radzik, who was appointed by Minister Ziobro, is the president of the District Court in Krosno Odrzańskie, while Michał Lasota is the president of the district court in Nowe Miasto Lubawskie. Both of them were seconded to the Regional Court in Warsaw, the largest court in Poland by way of a decision of the justice ministry.

 

All of them are being promoted. Piotr Schab was promoted to the Court of Appeal in Warsaw as a result of the recommendations of the new NCJ. Michał Lasota received such a promotion to the Regional Court in Elbląg. Meanwhile, Przemysław Radzik was recently promoted to the Court of Appeal in Warsaw (even though he is a district court judge). Radzik’s wife, Gabriela Zalewska-Radzik, was also promoted. Although she was a legal counsel to date, she was promoted to the Supreme Administrative Court. The group of so-called hawks in the new NCJ were among those who supported her candidacy and Radzik. We wrote about this in OKO.press.

 

This is not the end of the benefits. Dziennik Gazeta Prawna wrote that the Minister Ziobro’s ministry is considering allowances of several thousand zlotys for judges from the ‘good change’. As a result, Piotr Schab, the chief disciplinary commissioner could receive an additional PLN 5,000 per month.

 

Translated by Roman Wojtasz



Author


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


More

Published

November 16, 2020

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional TribunalPolandjudgesdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean Commissionjudicial independenceEuropean UnionMałgorzata ManowskaAndrzej DudaCourt of JusticeIgor TuleyaEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary systemMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiMateusz MorawieckiCJEUmuzzle lawNational Recovery PlanAdam BodnarCommissioner for Human RightsdemocracyWaldemar ŻurekPrzemysław Radzikcriminal lawpresidential electionselectionsKamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerPiotr Schabmedia freedomneo-judgeselections 2023Julia PrzyłębskajudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme Courtpreliminary rulingsSupreme Administrative CourtHungaryelections 2020K 3/21Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaNational Council for JudiciaryharassmentProsecutor GeneralprosecutorsŁukasz PiebiakMichał LasotaBeata MorawiecPaweł JuszczyszynCourt of Justice of the European UnionPrime MinisterPresidentConstitutionCOVID-19European Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiCriminal ChamberRegional Court in KrakówRecovery FundExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberEU budgetfreedom of expressionprosecutiondisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanMałgorzata GersdorfSejmcourtsMaciej Ferekfreedom of assemblyconditionalityLaw and JusticeNCJMinistry of JusticeJustice FundNational ProsecutorPiSStanisław PiotrowiczAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPresident of the Republic of PolandIustitiaTHEMISimmunityAnna DalkowskaNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsStanisław Biernatconditionality mechanismWłodzimierz WróbelLabour and Social Security Chambercommission on Russian influence2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiNational Electoral CommissionJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsPresident of PolandLGBTXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. Polandmedia independenceKrystian MarkiewiczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczMichał WawrykiewiczArticle 6 ECHREAWUrsula von der LeyenTVPmediaLex Super OmniaLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaDidier ReyndersStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationAndrzej StępkaPiotr GąciarekcorruptionP 7/20K 7/21Lex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanProfessional Liability ChambersuspensionparliamentJarosław DudziczChamber of Professional Liabilityelectoral codePiotr Prusinowskidemocratic backslidingdecommunizationLaw on the NCJrecommendationHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europepublic opinion pollreportEuropean ParliamentZiobrointimidation of dissenterstransferretirement agePiebiak gatehuman rightsEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawcoronavirusC-791/19Piotr PszczółkowskiGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaJarosław GowinLGBT ideology free zonescriminal codeSenateZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczMarcin WarchołdefamationFree CourtsEwa WrzosekEU law primacyAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej MiteraViktor OrbanOLAFNext Generation EUvetoabortionJózef IwulskiTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiMarek MazurkiewiczAndrzej MączyńskiJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław RymarFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskiBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikSLAPPOKO.pressDariusz ZawistowskiMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiMarian BanaśSupreme Audit OfficeAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyKrakówXero Flor v. PolandAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Civil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaPegasusMariusz KamińskisurveillanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraEdyta Barańskaright to fair trialUkraineKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecDariusz DrajewiczRafał Puchalskismear campaignmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentMarzanna Piekarska-Drążekelectoral processWojciech Maczugapublic medialexTuskcourt changeselections integrityelections fairnessabuse of state resourcesPATFoxpopulismequal treatmentfundamental rightsCT PresidentEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justice2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUStanisław ZabłockiLIBE CommitteeFrans TimmermansUS Department of StateSwieczkowskiadvocate generalpress releaseRights and Values ProgrammeC-619/18defamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardWojciech SadurskijudgePechKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakAmnesty Internationaltrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote billresolution of 23 January 2020Leon KieresPKWinfringment actionEU valuesENCJIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawPrzemysła RadzikElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsC-487/19Article 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentSimpson judgmentForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited NationsLeszek Mazurinterim measuresautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingproteststhe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europemedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióGazeta WyborczaPollitykaBrussels IRome IIArticle 2Forum shoppingtransparencyEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian KaletaC-156/21C-157/21Marek PiertuszyńskiNational Prosecutor’s OfficeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOlsztyn courtPrzemysła CzarnekEducation MinisterIpsosOlimpia Barańska-MałuszeHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr Burasauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258clientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's OfficePolish National FoundationLux VeritatisMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykTVNjournalistslexTVNPolish mediaRzeszówborderprimacyEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej RutkiewiczMirosław Wróblewskiright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMichał WośMinistry of FinanceJacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryMarek AstCourt of Appeal in KrakówPutinismKaczyńskiPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderekct on the Protection of the Populatiolegislationlex WośRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtAntykastaStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczKatarzyna ChmuraGrzegorz FurmankiewiczMarek JaskulskiJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaKasta/AntykastaAndrzej SkowronŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiEmilia SzmydtTomasz SzmydtE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał Dworczykmedia pluralism#RecoveryFilesrepairing the rule of lawBohdan BieniekMarcin KrajewskiMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsWiesław KozielewiczNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeGrzegorz PudaPiotr MazurekJerzy KwaśniewskiPetros Tovmasyancourt presidentsODIHRFull-Scale Election Observation MissionNGOKarolina MiklaszewskaRafał LisakMałgorzata FroncJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiSebastian MazurekElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikSzymon Szynkowski vel SękJoanna Scheuring-Wielgusinsulting religious feelingsoppositionAdam GendźwiłłDariusz Dończyktest of independenceTomasz KoszewskiJakub KwiecińskidiscriminationAct on the Supreme Courtelectoral commissionsEuropean Court of HuKrzysztof RączkaPoznańKoan LenaertsKarol WeitzKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiRThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFJustyna WydrzyńskaAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszJoanna KnobelCrimes of espionageextraordinary commissionZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaCourt of Appeal in WarsawOsiatyński'a ArchiveUS State DepartmentAssessment Actenvironmentinvestmentstrategic investmentgag lawsuitslex RaczkowskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActdisinformationNational Broadcasting Councilelection fairnessDobrochna Bach-GoleckaRafał WojciechowskiAleksandra RutkowskaGeneral Court of the EUArkadiusz RadwanLech WałęsaWałęsa v. Polandright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawpilot-judgmentDonald Tusk governmentSLAPPscivil lawRadosław BaszukAction PlanJustice MinistryVěra JourováDonald Tuskjustice system reform