A Kraków judge’s order in which he asks about neo-judges has been removed from the case files. It was replaced with a photocopy without this question.

Share

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

More

by Jarosław Sidorowicz   An order in which Kraków-based Judge Waldemar Żurek asks his superiors whether they had taken steps to ensure that neo-judges did not issue rulings that could result in damages in the future was removed from his case files. Instead, a photocopy of the same document was inserted, but without that question. […]



by Jarosław Sidorowicz

 

An order in which Kraków-based Judge Waldemar Żurek asks his superiors whether they had taken steps to ensure that neo-judges did not issue rulings that could result in damages in the future was removed from his case files. Instead, a photocopy of the same document was inserted, but without that question.

 

‘This is unbelievable,’ says Judge Waldemar Żurek. He is known for his defence of the rule of law and his consistent criticism of the changes being forced through by PiS in the judiciary.

 

Judge Zurek asks about neo-judges

The judge is handling a case brought against a bank by its customers. It applies to a loan in Swiss francs they had taken out years ago. During the proceedings, Judge Żurek decided that he would suspend repayment of further instalments for the duration of the proceedings. He acknowledged that the lack of such security would make it difficult to enforce a potential judgment or even ‘prevent the achievement of the objective of the proceedings’.

 

The bank appealed, the appeal was heard by a judge who had been seconded to the regional court. And she upheld the appeal. The parties no longer have any opportunity to challenge this decision regarding this matter.

 

The case returned to the referring judge.  He set a date for a hearing, but also asked the head of his division what steps he intended to take to ensure that neo-judges (appointed with the participation of the political National Council of the Judiciary) or judges seconded to higher courts while Minister Ziobro was in office did not issue rulings that could result in future actions against the state for damages. He mentioned, among other things, the judgment of 16 November 2021 before the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In that judgment, the CJEU ruled that EU law prohibits the system that is applicable in Poland which allows the minister of justice to second judges to higher instance criminal courts, under which the minister of justice can remove a judge at any time and without justification. Therefore, they are not independent.

 

‘My question was intended to ensure that the authorities do not sit on this matter with their arms folded because, in the light of the rulings of the European courts, in the future, judgments of neo-judges or judges seconded to courts of higher instances can result in actions for damages against the state. Because doubts will be raised that judgments or other decisions were made by people who are not judges or judges who are dependent on the minister’s will,’ explains Judge Waldemar Żurek.

 

Disappearing order

However, this part of Judge Żurek’s order was removed from the case files. His original order with the question was removed and a photocopy was inserted in its place, which does not have the question to the head of the division regarding steps taken with regard to neo-judges and seconded judges. Furthermore, there is only a photocopy of the judge’s signature on it, and not the original. The case files also have an official note from an administrative employee who, when making a note of the ‘exclusion of the original’ of the document, refers to an order from the president of the Regional Court in Kraków, Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woicka. However, according to our findings the case files do not contain any such order.

 

‘This even appears to be forgery of documents. This matter should be reported to the prosecutor’s office,’ Judge Waldemar Żurek does not hide his indignation. ‘Even if someone disagrees with the content of my order, the original should remain in the case files; it should not be replaced with a photocopy with the question cut out. Nor is there any order of the court president on the basis of which, at least according to the note made by the administrative clerk, the original was removed,’ Judge Żurek added.

 

Our source at the Kraków court tells us that the whole matter is no coincidence. ‘The secretarial staff was ordered to catch cases in rulings of judges in which the status of neo-judges was questioned and to inform the court authorities about this. They heard that the failure to comply could mean consequences for them at work.

 

According to our information, the president of the regional court supposedly issued such a ‘request’ to the management of the secretariat of the first civil division of the regional court.

 

Judge Żurek has already approached the president of the Court of Appeal in Kraków to investigate the basis on which his original order was removed from the files of the case he is handling.

 

Translated by Roman Wojtasz

 

Published in Polish on 4 March 2022 at wyborcza.pl Kraków



Author


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


More

Published

March 6, 2022

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandrule of lawZbigniew Ziobrojudicial independenceCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean CommissionNational Council of the JudiciaryjudgesEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemEuropean Court of Human RightsCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeMateusz MorawieckiJarosław KaczyńskiWaldemar Żurekmuzzle lawpresidential electionsjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsdemocracyK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020Kamil ZaradkiewiczBeata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme Courtprosecutorsdisciplinary commissionerEuropean Arrest WarrantProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19Maciej NawackiPrzemysław RadzikJulia PrzyłębskaPresidentmedia freedomfreedom of expressionCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynNational Public ProsecutorPiotr Schabcriminal proceedingsPrime Ministerfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetWłodzimierz WróbelCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational Prosecutordisciplinary liability for judgeselectionsWojciech HermelińskiStanisław PiotrowiczAndrzej ZollMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisK 7/21May 10 2020 electionsLex DudaNational Council for JudiciarySejmXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v Polandmedia independenceIustitiaSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczTHEMISEAWmediaimmunityAnna DalkowskaCouncil of Europe2017policeFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaŁukasz PiebiakP 7/20Justice FundPiSC-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. PolandKrystian MarkiewiczMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczdefamationcourtsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsArticle 6 ECHRUrsula von der LeyenEwa 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 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 WarsawPaweł 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 WośUkrainemedia lawRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtKonrad WytrykowskiJarosław DudziczPrzemysła RadzikJakub IwaniecAntykastaSenateMarcin WarchołElżbieta 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 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 InternationalHudocKonrad 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