Kaczyński threatens judges in Poland with disciplinary proceedings for court judgments

Share

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

More

Jarosław Kaczyński: "there is indeed a problem in Poland with the rule of law, but the main sources of this state of affairs are court judgments contra legem. It is our duty to ensure that these judgments made in conflict with the law are swiftly revoked and the judges who issue them held accountable on disciplinary charges and, consequently, removed from the profession."



What follows is a translation of an article published at right-wing portal niezalezna.pl on 5 September 2020.

 

ONLY HERE! “The court broke through the communist censorship.” Jarosław Kaczyński on the prohibition to write about Bonek

 

“Anyone who takes an honest look at this matter can see that it was not about compliance with the law, but about some other considerations”, says Jarosław Kaczyński, Chairman of the Law and Justice Party, in an interview with Katarzyna Gójska. This is how he referred to the prohibition received by Piotr Nisztor, an investigative journalist from Gazeta Polska. He is not allowed to publish articles on Zbigniew Bonek, chairman of the Polish Football Association, for 12 months. “We should strongly protest against such practices, because they have nothing to do with democracy,” added Chairman Kaczyński.

 

Katarzyna Gójska: Mr. Chairman, the Regional Court in Warsaw has issued an injunction, which, in practice, prohibits a journalist from GP from writing for a year about Zbigniew Bońek, the chairman of the Polish Football Association in almost every respect. We do not know what the justification is for this decision; it was passed behind closed doors. How can such action by the court be assessed?

 

Jarosław Kaczyński: In some respects, this beats the censorship of the communist times. This decision is incredible, in conflict with the constitution and common sense. It is difficult not to get the impression that, when deciding on this, one way or another, the court was acting in some interests.

 

I don’t know which interests, but anyone who takes an honest look at this can see that it was not about compliance with the law, but about some other considerations.

 

The head of the Polish Football Association was treated as a person who has some extraordinary privileges, as if he were a citizen who deserves special rights and special treatment. Imagine that I were to file a motion with the court to issue an injunction against writing about me in advance and for a year. Of course, I am saying this jokingly, but if we were to accept the principle of equality before the law, to which everyone is entitled and which is clearly specified in the constitution, then anyone holding a public office could demand such extraordinary protection.

 

But quite seriously, we are dealing with a matter that requires a response and poses a threat to the freedom of speech in Poland. We should strongly protest against such practices, because they have nothing to do with democracy. This matter is one more argument in support of the need for a profound reform of the judiciary. Not only in the institutional and organizational sense, but also in the personal sense.

 

Judge Rafał Wagner, who issued the injunction, which essentially constitutes preventive censorship, was entered by the opponents of the reform of the judiciary onto the list of the so-called “freedom judges”.

 

This is what could be referred to as a miserable rule of law burlesque. Because there is indeed a problem in Poland with the rule of law, but the main sources of this state of affairs are court judgments contra legem.

 

It is our duty to ensure that these judgments made in conflict with the law are swiftly revoked and the judges who issue them held accountable on disciplinary charges and, consequently, removed from the profession.

 

And only such a determined attitude with respect to this state-destroying pathology can bring results and, over the next few years, eliminate what hurts so many citizens.

 

Obviously, mistakes will always be made in the judiciary – certain mistakes – but, after all, this is not about mistakes here, but about flagrant breaches of the law by the courts.

 

It is worth looking at this problem in a broader context: it is a phenomenon that devastates public life and is related to others, such as the aim of the judges to have legislative authority. After all, this was written explicitly in one of the justifications for the Supreme Court’s decisions.

 

And all this is supposed to lead to a change in the system in Poland. From democracy to some form of a tribunal system, namely an undemocratic, even oligarchic order.

 

Mr. Chairman, the EC, the EP and politicians from other countries are accusing the Polish authorities of destroying the independence of the courts, and therefore the freedom of citizens, but meanwhile a judge, described by his Polish allies as a “freedom judge”, issues a decision that brutally blocks freedom of speech.

 

The assessment of the situation in Poland formulated by various international bodies is counterfactual.

 

This actually has nothing to do with reality. I will say it once again: Our country indeed has a problem with the rule of law, but its main and dominant sources are the courts that breach the law and do not care about the constitution.

 

Therefore, changing this state of affairs – through the reform of the judiciary – is nothing more than an attempt to eliminate this pathology and restore the rule of law in Poland, by restoring respect for the constitution.

 

Piotr Nisztor has been publishing articles in Gazeta Polska and Gazeta Polska Codziennie for several months about the doubts surrounding the functioning of the Polish Football Association, chaired by Zbigniew Bonek, a former football player from Widzew Łódź and Juventus. On 27 August 2020, Judge Rafał Wagner from the First Civil Division of the Regional Court in Warsaw decided to impose an injunction on the journalist from publishing content about Bonek for a year.  He also ordered the removal of those already posted in YouTube and Twitter.



Author


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


More

Published

September 6, 2020

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroEuropean Commissionjudicial independenceCourt of Justice of the EUNational Council of the JudiciaryjudgesEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemEuropean Court of Human RightsMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeWaldemar ŻurekJarosław Kaczyńskidemocracymuzzle lawpresidential electionsjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020Kamil ZaradkiewiczBeata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme Courtprosecutorsdisciplinary commissionerEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiPrzemysław RadzikPrime Ministermedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19Piotr SchabJulia PrzyłębskaPresidentfreedom of expressionŁukasz PiebiakCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawdisciplinary liability for judgesMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiOSCENational Council for JudiciaryMichał LasotaPaweł JuszczyszynAnna DalkowskaNational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetWłodzimierz WróbelCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorelectionsWojciech HermelińskiStanisław PiotrowiczAndrzej ZollMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisK 7/21May 10 2020 electionsLex DudaSejmXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v Polandmedia independenceIustitiaJarosław DudziczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczTHEMISEAWUrsula von der LeyenmediaimmunityCouncil of Europe2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaP 7/20Justice FundDagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaPiSC-791/19National Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Piotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaNational Reconstruction PlanJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesReczkowicz and Others v. PolandUkraineKrystian MarkiewiczKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczDariusz DrajewiczRafał PuchalskidefamationcourtsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsArticle 6 ECHREwa WrzosekEU law primacyTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan 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 LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiPiotr GąciarekRegional Court in KrakówPiebiak gatehuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawRecovery FundPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyneo-judgescoronavirusXero 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 lawpolexitNational Recovery PlanDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeProfessional Liability ChamberFirst President of the Suprme CourtsuspensionPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościLGBT free zonesAct sanitising the judiciaryequalityMarek AstMaciej FerekChamber 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 PopulatioparliamentlegislationRafał 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 pluralismArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentSimpson judgmentForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited NationsLeszek Mazurpopulisminterim 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 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 voteKrakówRzeszówborderpostal vote billprimacy