She has been adjudicating in the criminal division for 30 years. Ziobro’s man transferred her to the labour division. ‘They showed contempt’

Share

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

More

‘This is a show of contempt for the work we do. The authorities are proving that they can do anything they like with a judge,’ commented Judge Marzanna Piekarska-Drążek of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw in an interview with Onet on the decision to move her to the labour and social insurance division after 30 years of adjudicating in the criminal division. On Monday, after returning from her holiday, she found out that she is to work in a completely different place from next week.



by Magdalena Gałczyńska, Onet.pl

 

  • The new president of the capital’s court of appeal and simultaneously the central disciplinary commissioner of judges, Piotr Schab, made the decision to transfer the judge, which was signed by his deputy, Przemysław Radzik
  • Earlier, during the summer holidays, the management of the capital’s court of appeal transferred two other judges, Ewa Gregajtys and Ewa Leszczyńska-Furtak, from the same criminal division to the labour division
  • What the three judges, who were transferred against their will, have in common is that they questioned the status of nominees of the new NCJ, so-called ‘neo-judges’, and overturned the rulings made by these people 
  • ‘If no legal basis for this decision was given in the document prejudging a judge’s entire future, including my transfer, how am I supposed to treat this document as being serious and based on the law?’ asks Judge Piekarska-Drążek in an interview with Onet.
  • She points out that, after the decision of the presidents of the capital’s court of appeal, ‘there was almost certainly rejoicing in many prisons’.

 

Magda Gałczyńska, Onet: You returned to your court from holiday today. And it turned out that there would be changes.

 

Judge Marzanna Piekarska-Drążek: Yes, definitely. Immediately after coming to work I was handed a letter informing me that I am to start adjudicating in the labour division from 12 September. I have been adjudicating in the criminal division for 30 years, and now I am supposed to enter into a completely new field. This is kind of … well, kind of ridiculous. All the more so that President Schab’s decision – which was specifically signed by Vice President Radzik – was issued on 9 August.  I was on holiday at the time, but no one informed me of this. It is also worth pointing out that the decision on my transfer itself is somewhat defective.

 

Why?

 

If there is no regulation cited by the ‘ruler’ in a document that determines a judge’s entire professional future, no legal basis for this decision, how am I supposed to take this decision seriously? 

 

So what will happen now?

 

I don’t know. I suppose I will be finishing the criminal cases I am currently handling. I have about 40 of them – the most serious ones – plus a few dozen of what I would call minor ones, which is an average of a year and a half of a judge’s work. If I am removed from these cases, they will have to start all over again, from the beginning. This is the result of a replacement of a judge in a criminal case.

This would obviously be to the detriment of the public and the justice system?

In a normal country, yes. However, I am convinced that the social consequences of this decision are completely insignificant to them – those who currently rule the courts both centrally and individually. All that matters is the absolute control of the courts, in order to serve the political authorities. It is easy to imagine who else is enjoying this. Almost certainly many prisons in Poland.

 

How many years have you been adjudicating in the criminal division?

 

About 30. However, a judge’s knowledge and professional experience are of no value to the group that is currently managing the courts. Meanwhile, what is socially most important in this service is the knowledge and experience gained in passing the most difficult sentences. A person develops this skill over decades. And the moment he is mature, that’s when your ‘rulers’ tell you that your work is insignificant. We’ll take you away from the public and throw you into another section; what’s the harm! But this is almost infeasible, just as it is infeasible to transfer a surgeon specialising in brain surgery to, for example, the abdominal section. After all, new people are appearing in the criminal division at the same time as the transfer of three judges from the criminal division to another division is taking place. One new person has already appeared, seconded from the Regional Court. More are to come, so our places are already taken.

 

A penalty? Harassment for challenging the status of so-called neo-judges?

 

It’s certainly not a reward. What has been done to me, to Judges Ewa Gregajtys and Ewa Leszczyńska-Furtak – who have also been thrown out of the criminal division into the labour law section – is a demonstration of contempt for the service we perform. The authority is proving: ‘we can do whatever we like with you, judge.’ But that is not the case. I still believe constitutional order, legal order exists, and we will be able to sort it all out one day.

 

Probably not in the coming months?

 

No, I will become a judge in another division, the labour division, not even in the coming months, but the coming days. Until then, I intend to go to court normally in my division, the Second Criminal Division – unless someone denies me this right. I am in the hands of the authority that believes it is stronger and can do whatever it wants with me, a judge, an employee. They are wrong. I never give up when defending a good cause. We judges – who are treated today like pawns to be moved about a chessboard – are fighting for the values that are most important in a democratic state. We are fighting for the separation of powers, for civil rights, for the courts to have control over the decisions, including unlawful decisions, of the political authorities. So we shall not give up, because that would be giving consent to lawlessness. If I were to surrender, I would stop being a judge.

The fact that you, as well as Judges Gregajtys and Leszczyńska-Furtak, have been removed from the criminal division – although you have a huge amount of experience – also means that you are losing control over the use of wire-tapping and other operational methods used by the services in Poland?

 

Precisely. After all, I have no doubt that one of the objectives of taking over the Warsaw region and appellate area was to eliminate experienced judges from controlling the activities of the services. That is because the services today are requesting permission from the Regional Court in Warsaw to use operational methods, including wire-tapping. If it does not agree, the case ends up with us, the criminal division of the court of appeal. Only that Vice-President Przemysław Radzik has now assumed total control over these proceedings, and it is he who will decide which judge he will appoint to hear these cases.

 

What do you mean? Is that possible?

 

Anything is possible where the law is not applied. No doubt, this is the elimination of us from hearing cases of the secret service, not allowing judges to know what is going on in the secret chancellery. It is precisely in such an area – organised crime and special services – that an experienced judge has a great deal of knowledge and can recognise what kind of wire-tapping the authorities want. And such judges with a great deal of experience are highly undesirable for the current authorities in these matters.

 

Source: Onet

 

Originally published on 5 September 2022.



Author


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


More

Published

September 8, 2022

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 commissionerJulia Przyłębskamedia freedomelections 2020harassmentSupreme Administrative Courtpreliminary rulingsK 3/21Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaprosecutionHungaryFirst President of the Supreme CourtBeata MorawiecMichał LasotaprosecutorsRecovery FundPresidentProsecutor GeneralPaweł JuszczyszynNational ProsecutorŁukasz PiebiakConstitutionEuropean Arrest WarrantPrime Ministerfreedom of expressionMaciej NawackiCOVID-19Marek SafjanVenice CommissionSejmimmunityCriminal ChamberRegional Court in KrakówIustitiaExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberMałgorzata GersdorfreformMinistry of JusticeNCJMaciej FerekOSCEcourtsWojciech Hermelińskidisciplinary liability for judgesEU budgetcorruptionStanisław PiotrowiczNational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsCouncil of EuropeJustice FundLGBTAnna DalkowskaWłodzimierz WróbelPresident of the Republic of Polandconditionality mechanismTHEMISKrystian MarkiewiczStanisław BiernatAleksander StepkowskiPiSreformsLaw and JusticeJarosław DudziczLabour and Social Security Chamberconditionalitycommission on Russian influencefreedom of assemblyMarcin RomanowskiSLAPPReczkowicz and Others v. PolandPiotr PrusinowskiOrdo IurisDidier ReyndersPiotr Gąciarekmedia independenceStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationBroda and Bojara v PolandXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. Polandelectoral codeAndrzej StępkaChamber of Professional LiabilityChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsArticle 7President of PolandSupreme Court PresidentSenateUrsula von der LeyenParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeTVPmediaLex Super OmniapoliceabortionNext Generation EUEAWJustice Defence Committee – KOSMay 10 2020 electionsSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtdefamationKrzysztof ParchimowiczFreedom HouseMichał WawrykiewiczEwa ŁętowskaArticle 6 ECHR2017Constitutional Tribunal PresidentsuspensionNational Electoral CommissionProfessional Liability ChamberAndrzej ZollNational Reconstruction PlanJarosław WyrembakPegasusLex DudaP 7/20K 7/21parliamentcivil societyLech Garlickiacting first president of the Supreme CourtCivil ChamberPM Mateusz MorawieckiAdam Jamrózright to fair trialStefan JaworskiKrakówMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaStanisław RymarJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraWojciech Łączkowskistate of emergencyMarek MazurkiewiczAndrzej MączyńskiJanusz NiemcewiczJózef IwulskiMirosław GranatTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskavetoJoanna Misztal-KoneckaOLAFViktor OrbanDariusz KornelukMaciej Miterajudcial independenceMariusz KamińskiAstradsson v IcelandKazimierz DziałochaSLAPPsrestoration of the rule of lawCentral Anti-Corruption BureausurveillanceEdyta BarańskaXero Flor v. PolandPATFoxaccountabilityKrystyna Pawłowiczinsulting religious feelingsDariusz DrajewiczK 6/21transparencyDariusz ZawistowskiOKO.pressJakub IwaniecPaweł FilipekSzymon Szynkowski vel SękNational Prosecutor’s OfficeWojciech MaczugaMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekMariusz MuszyńskiBelaruselectoral processmilestonessmear campaigncourt presidentsMichał LaskowskiMaciej TaborowskiMarian BanaśSupreme Audit OfficeMarek PietruszyńskiSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczPiotr TulejaJerzy Stępieńelections fairnessAndrzej RzeplińskiUkraineFerdynand RymarzMirosław WyrzykowskiBohdan ZdziennickiAdam SynakiewiczKonrad WytrykowskiRafał Puchalskipublic medialexTuskcourt changeselections integrityInternational Criminal CourtMarek Zubikabuse of state resourcescriminal codeMarcin WarchołZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczJarosław GowinreportPiotr Pszczółkowskiretirement ageEuropean Association of JudgesPiebiak gateZiobroEU law primacyLaw on the NCJhuman rightsEwa WrzosekC-791/19Free Courtspublic opinion pollcoronavirusAdam Tomczyńskidemocratic backslidingNetherlandsEuropean ParliamentRussiadecommunizationlex NGOtransferintimidation of dissentersBogdan ŚwięczkowskiGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesHuman Rights CommissionerBelgiumrecommendationLGBT ideology free zones11 January March in WarsawThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeCCBEJerzy KwaśniewskiNGOStanisław ZabłockiFull-Scale Election Observation MissionODIHRNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeGrzegorz PudaPiotr MazurekPetros TovmasyanCouncil of the EUKarolina MiklaszewskaJakub KwiecińskiTomasz Koszewskitest of independenceDariusz DończykAdam GendźwiłłRafał Lisakopposition2018Joanna Scheuring-WielgusNations in TransitElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikAct on the Supreme CourtSebastian MazurekJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiMałgorzata FroncdiscriminationRome StatuteJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaRights and Values ProgrammeKasta/AntykastaAndrzej SkowronŁukasz BilińskiMarek JaskulskiGrzegorz FurmankiewiczC-619/18Wojciech SadurskiWorld Justice Project awarddefamatory statementsAntykastaStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczKatarzyna ChmuraIvan MischenkoMonika Frąckowiakrepairing the rule of lawE-mail scandalUS Department of StateBohdan BieniekMarcin KrajewskiFrans TimmermansMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakLIBE CommitteeSwieczkowskiadvocate generalArkadiusz CichockiEmilia SzmydtTomasz Szmydtpress releaseDworczyk leaksMichał Dworczykmedia pluralism#RecoveryFilesWiesław Kozielewiczright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawinsultState Tribunalfundamental rightsMarcin Matczakequal treatmentNational School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (KSSiP)codification commissiondelegationsAnti-SLAPP Directivejustice system reformDonald Tuskpilot-judgmentDonald Tusk governmentCT Presidentcivil lawRadosław BaszukAction PlanJustice MinistryVěra JourováWatchdog PolskaDariusz BarskiLasotacivil partnershipsKatarzyna Kotulasame-sex unionscivil partnerships billKRSJudicial Reformsmigration strategyPenal CodeThe Codification Committee of Civil LawChamber of Professional ResponsibilityethicsHater ScandalpopulismNational Council for the JudiciaryHelsinki Foundation for Human RightsPiotr HofmańskiC‑718/21preliminary referenceEU lawLGBTQ+Wałęsa v. Polandelectoral commissionsAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszJoanna KnobelCrimes of espionageKESMAextraordinary commissionZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaCourt of Appeal in WarsawJustyna WydrzyńskaEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentEuropean Court of HuKrzysztof RączkaPoznańKoan LenaertsKarol WeitzKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiROsiatyński'a Archivetransitional justiceUS State DepartmentEUNational Broadcasting Councilelection fairnessDobrochna Bach-GoleckaRafał WojciechowskiAleksandra RutkowskaGeneral Court of the EUArkadiusz RadwanWhite PaperlustrationdisinformationAssessment Actenvironmentinvestmentstrategic investmentgag lawsuitslex RaczkowskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActLech WałęsaPrzemysław CzarnekJózsef SzájerRafał TrzaskowskiKlubrádióSobczyńska and Others v PolandŻurek v PolandGazeta WyborczaGrzęda v PolandPollitykaJelenTelex.huIndex.huJacek CzaputowiczElżbieta KarskaPrzemysła Radzikmedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek Kurskimedia lawBrussels 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 practicerepressive actThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz Radkepolexittrans-Atlantic valuesDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandAmnesty InternationalErnest BejdaJacek SasinLSOright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychAct of 20 December 2019lawyersMichał WośMinistry of FinanceFrackowiakECJKaczyńskiPechPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderekct on the Protection of the Populatiolegislationlex WośPutinismCourt of Appeal in KrakówKochenovPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryFreedom in the WorldMarek AstEvgeni Tanchevjudgeforeign agents lawENCJEuropean Public Prosecutor's OfficeEU valuesPolish National FoundationLux Veritatisinfringment actionMałgorzata BednarekPiotr Wawrzykoligarchic systemclientelismArticle 258IsraelIpsosOlimpia Barańska-MałuszeHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr Burasauthoritarian equilibriumPKWLeon KieresprimacyAlina CzubieniakEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtharrassmentMaciej RutkiewiczKoen LenaertsborderGerard BirgfellerRzeszówresolution of 23 January 2020TVNjournalistslexTVNpostal vote billPolish mediapostal voteEwa MaciejewskaMirosław Wróblewski