‘Wyborcza’ reveals: This is how the judges were pressured in the case of the fine for neo-NCJ head, Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woicka


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


Zbigniew Ziobro’s schoolmate and simultaneously the head of the politicised NCJ, Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woicka, will not have to pay a fine. The decision was made in bizarre circumstances, with one of the judges reporting the suspicion of the court ruling having been illegally influenced.

The article was first published in Polish in Gazeta Wyborcza on December 2, 2022.


by Jarosław Sidorowicz



‘This is an unbelievable matter, blatant influence with the decisions of an independent court. I cannot believe something like this has happened here,’ said a Kraków judge requesting anonymity.


As ‘Wyborcza’ found out, Judge Elżbieta Jabłońska-Malik – the presiding judge of the appeal division in the Regional Court in Kraków – was first to apply pressure to two judges to withdraw the motion to impose a fine on Judge Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaShe is Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro’s schoolmate and head of the politicised National Council of the Judiciary.


Then, suddenly, two judges on the bench were replaced and the new judges – who are associated with Ziobro’s ministry – decided to revoke Pawełczyk-Woicka’s penalty.  Wojciech Maczuga, who had previously imposed a PLN 3,000 fine on the head of the neo-NCJ, was the judge rapporteur in this case.


This was a fine for refusing four times to release documents that were needed for the test of independence of Judge Karolina Miklaszewska, whose career had progressed rapidly under the Law and Justice (PiS) government. She was also the presiding judge in the Wadowice court which was dealing with a case of harassment.


After the verdict, the case went to the appeal division of the Regional Court in Kraków. The appeal was handled by a three-person panel: Judge Rafał Lisak as the presiding judge, Judge Małgorzata Fronc and precisely Judge Maczuga as the rapporteur.


Judge Maczuga: The judges were being pressured

Judge Maczuga: ‘Judge Rafał Lisak called me on 24 November. He said there was a problem with my decision to impose a fine [on Pawełczyk-Woicka], there was an argument about this and that the head of the appeals division, Judge Elżbieta Jabłońska-Malik, had come to see him about it.


She told him she had not sent this decision out and that he should issue an order not to send this decision and not to execute it. From what he said, it transpired that he told her that the decision had been made, was enforceable and that he would not issue such an order. He was then told that this could be taken to the hearing on 25 November, I could be outvoted, that these documents are unnecessary, the fine could be revoked and the trial could end without the documents being pulled from the neo-NCJ. Judge Lisak was shocked that someone could come to him and say something like that. And that it would be best if the trial were not held on 25 November. I replied that I did not know why it should not take place and that I would do nothing of the kind. I heard that we need to think about it.’


Judge Maczuga says that, later that same day, he went to Judge Lisak, who repeated what he had said earlier.


He added that, on that same day, he also had a phone call from the other judge from the bench, Małgorzata Fronc. ‘She was shouting that there was pressure in the case, that she had already stopped taking phone calls from the head of department and that it would be best if the case did not take place. She argued that perhaps the test should be dropped. I said the test should be performed, she said she would think about what to do next.’


Judges take leave on demand

In the morning of 25 November, just before the hearing, Judge Maczuga first received a text message from Judge Fronc stating that she was taking leave on demand. A short while later, he received the same information from Judge Lisak.


Later that day, two on-call judges joined the bench in their place: Jędrzej Dessoulavy-Śliwiński and Sebastian Mazurek. They outvoted Judge Maczuga and decided to close the harassment trial without conducting the test of Judge Miklaszewska and waiting for the documents from the neo-NCJ. Judge Maczuga’s objections were not put on record. 


The verdict on harassment was passed last Wednesday. Maczuga still applied for a re-trial, unsuccessfully. He therefore filed a dissenting opinion.


Immediately after the verdict, Judge Dessoulavy-Śliwiński put the cancellation of the fine imposed on Pawelczyk-Woicka to a vote. ‘According to the court, this activity has become unnecessary as judgment has been passed,’ said Dessoulavy-Śliwiński. And both he and Mazurek voted to cancel the fine.


Judge Maczuga again filed a dissenting opinion. Meanwhile, on Thursday, he reported the suspicion of a crime having been committed of the unlawful influencing of a court decision to the president of the Regional Court in Kraków.


Judge Jabłońska-Malik: I do not interfere with judgments

The head of the Appeals Division, Elżbieta Jabłońska-Malik, refused to talk to ‘Wyborcza’. ‘I do not interfere with the judgments of the judges in my division,’ she said, hanging up the phone.


Judge Lisak denies that there had been pressure: ‘I did not feel anything like that in such terms. This decision was commented on, but only that such a decision had been made.’


‘And who commented?’ we ask.


‘It was talked about, I don’t remember. It was talked about in the division, because this was the first time such a decision had been made in our division,’ replies Judge Lisak.


‘Was it a coincidence that you and Judge Fronc took leave on demand on the same day?’ we ask.


Lisak: ‘It’s difficult for me to comment on that, I had health-related duties. I’m not in a position to state whether it was a coincidence or not. I can only speak for myself.’


We were unable to contact Judge Fronc.


Doubts about Judge Miklaszewska’s impartiality

Judge Maczuga wanted to conduct a test of Judge Miklaszewska’s independence, because at the time of PiS rule – after a short period as a clerk (she refused to become an assessor) – she ran for the position of a judge and, despite the poor result at the College of the Regional Court, she received a nomination from the neo-NCJ. She was already president of the District Court in Wadowice after two years.


Given the rulings of the European tribunals on neo-judges appointed with the involvement of the politicised NCJ and the course of her career, Maczuga became doubtful that, as a judge, Miklaszewska was independent and impartial. He referred to the resolution of the three chambers of the Supreme Court and requested the authorities of the Regional Court in Kraków to provide the judge’s personnel file and the neo-NCJ to provide the documents related to her nomination.


Judge Maczuga had already, in another case, raised doubts as to whether, an assessor appointed by the neo-NCJ could have ruled at all, for which he was being investigated by the disciplinary commissioner of judges, Piotr Schab.


Pawełczyk-Woicka refused to send Miklaszewska’s documents. She had previously entered into a fierce dispute with the Kraków judges questioning the changes to the judiciary introduced by PiS. She suspended or transferred anyone who refused to recognise the judgments passed by judges appointed with the involvement of the neo-NCJ, to other departments. And one of her first decisions was to dismiss Judge Waldemar Żurek, a judge known for defending the rule of law, from his position as spokesperson for the Regional Court in Kraków.


Judges on secondment from Ziobro

In turn, Judge Dessoulavy-Śliwiński received his nomination as a regional court judge in October 2021. In one case – while assessing a defence counsel’s motion to remove a judge seconded on the basis of a decision of the Minister of Justice (the EU Court of Justice has questioned such secondments, indicating that judges can be dependent on Zbigniew Ziobro in this way) – he wrote in the justification: ‘The case law of the CJEU directly regarding that body’s assessments of the organisation of the judiciary in a Member State of the European Union is of no significance to the assessment of the guarantees of the independence of judges and the independence of judges. The CJEU does not have the competence to speak up in a binding manner on this. (…) A national court of a sovereign state, as is currently the Republic of Poland, should disregard such views as being harmful to the legal order.’


During Pawełczyk-Woicka’s presidency, Dessoulavy-Śliwiński also became deputy disciplinary commissioner for the Kraków judges.  He also signed Pawełczyk-Woicka’s list of support when she was standing for a second term of office in the neo-NCJ this year.


A Kraków judge requesting anonymity: ‘Dessoulavy-Śliwiński previously had nothing to do with Kraków; he was a judge from Bydgoszcz and had previously applied several times for a nomination to the office of regional court judge. He worked at the Ministry of Justice, where he met Dariusz Pawłyszcze [the current director of the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution, privately Pawełczyk-Woicka’s partner]. Soon afterwards, he ended up in Kraków, where Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woicka was already the head of the regional court.


Judge Sebastian Mazurek is also at the Regional Court in Kraków on a ministerial secondment.


As Judge Maczuga points out, Dessoulavy-Śliwiński and Mazurek did not even have a chance to read the case files in which Miklaszewska was passing judgment. Even so, the hearing took place in the changed composition of the bench.


Translated by Roman Wojtasz


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



December 7, 2022


Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandZbigniew Ziobrorule of lawEuropean CommissionjudgesCourt of Justice of the EUNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaCourt of JusticeMałgorzata ManowskaIgor TuleyaEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary systemMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiWaldemar Żurekmuzzle lawdemocracypresidential electionsKamil ZaradkiewiczNational Recovery Plandisciplinary commissionerPiotr SchabPrzemysław RadzikjudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme CourtAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsSupreme Administrative CourtK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020Beata MorawiecprosecutorsŁukasz Piebiakneo-judgeselectionsNational Council for JudiciaryMichał LasotaEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiPrime MinisterJulia PrzyłębskaPresidentmedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19Małgorzata GersdorfPaweł Juszczyszynfreedom of expressionCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawDagmara Pawełczyk-Woickadisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPresident of the Republic of PolandSejmimmunityAnna DalkowskaNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamberconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetWłodzimierz WróbelCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorStanisław PiotrowiczJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisK 7/21May 10 2020 electionsLex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanProfessional Liability ChamberPresident of PolandLGBTMaciej FerekXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. Polandmedia independenceIustitiaJarosław DudziczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczArticle 6 ECHRTHEMISEAWUrsula von der LeyenChamber of Professional LiabilityTVPmedia2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaPiotr GąciarekRegional Court in KrakówRecovery FundP 7/20Justice FundPiSC-791/19National Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Piotr PszczółkowskiPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikorasuspensionJarosław GowinLGBT ideology free zonesparliamentUkraineKrystian MarkiewiczKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczDariusz DrajewiczRafał PuchalskidefamationcourtsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsharassmentMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekEwa WrzosekEU law primacyLex Super OmniaAdam Tomczyńskielections 2023BelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej Miterademocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetoJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJrecommendationTeresa 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 RzeplińskiJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskireportBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersEuropean ParliamentOKO.pressZiobroMichał Laskowskiintimidation of dissentersMarek PietruszyńskitransferKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiPiebiak gatehuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyKrakówcoronavirusXero Flor v. PolandEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej Rutkiewiczresolution of 23 January 2020Mirosław WróblewskiCivil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaLeon Kieresright to protestSławomir JęksaPKWWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMariusz Kamińskiinfringment actionsurveillanceEU valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauENCJJacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiIsraelŁukasz Radkeforeign agents lawpolexitDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościLGBT free zonesAct sanitising the judiciaryequalityMarek AstChamber of Extraordinary VerificationEdyta Barańskahate crimesCourt of Appeal in Krakówhate speechPutinismcriminal codeKaczyńskiGrzęda v Polandright to fair trialPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasŻurek v PolandMałgorzata Wąsek-WiaderekSobczyńska and Others v Polandct on the Protection of the PopulatiolegislationRafał Trzaskowskilex Wośmedia lawRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtPrzemysła RadzikAntykastaSenateStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczMarcin WarchołKatarzyna ChmuraElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiGrzegorz FurmankiewiczJacek CzaputowiczMarek JaskulskiPrzemysław CzarnekJoanna Kołodziej-Michałowiczlegislative practiceEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaENAPaweł StyrnaZbigniew BoniekKasta/AntykastaAndrzej SkowronŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoOmbudsmanMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiKraśnikEmilia SzmydtNorwayTomasz SzmydtNorwegian fundssmear campaignNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał DworczykC-487/19media pluralism#RecoveryFilesArticle 10 ECHRmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentRegional Court in Amsterdamrepairing the rule of lawOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentBohdan BieniekSimpson judgmentMarcin KrajewskiForum Współpracy SędziówMałgorzata Dobiecka-Woźniakelectoral processChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairspublic broadcasterWiesław KozielewiczNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeGrzegorz PudaPiotr MazurekJerzy Kwaśniewskimutual trustPetros Tovmasyancourt presidentsLMODIHRIrelandFull-Scale Election Observation MissionNGOIrena MajcherWojciech MaczugaAmsterdamKarolina MiklaszewskaRafał LisakMałgorzata FroncJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiSebastian Mazurekthe Regional Court in WarsawElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikSzymon Szynkowski vel SękUnited NationsJoanna Scheuring-Wielgusinsulting religious feelingsLeszek Mazuroppositionelectoral codeAdam Gendźwiłłpopulisminterim measuresPiotr PrusinowskiLabour and Social Security ChamberDariusz Dończykautocratizationtest of independenceMultiannual Financial FrameworkTomasz Koszewskipublic mediaJakub Kwiecińskiabortion rulingdiscriminationequal 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 OfficeWojciech SadurskiBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberjudgeTribunal of StatePechOlsztyn courtKochenovPrzemysła CzarnekEvgeni TanchevEducation MinisterFreedom in the WorldECJIpsosFrackowiakOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeretirement ageAmnesty InternationalHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr Bogdanowicztrans-Atlantic valuesPiotr BurasLSOauthoritarian equilibriumlawyersArticle 258Act of 20 December 2019clientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officerepressive actPolish National FoundationLux VeritatisKoen LenaertsMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykharrassmentMarian BanaśAlina CzubieniakSupreme Audit OfficeTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediapostal voteRzeszówborderpostal vote billprimacy