Prosecutor disciplined for participation in demonstration in defence of Supreme Court wins with National Prosecutor’s Office

Share

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

More

Prosecutor Piotr Wójtowicz from Legnica will not be formally disciplined for his appearance at a protest in defence of the Supreme Court. On Tuesday, the disciplinary court for prosecutors rejected the appeal of National Prosecutor Bogdan Święczkowski, who was seeking to punish Wójtowicz.



This ruling of the Disciplinary Court for prosecutors sets a precedent and will impact similar cases in the future. It has also demonstrated the limits of National Prosecutor Bogdan Święczkowski’s power.

 

On Tuesday the Disciplinary Court not only rejected Święczkowski’s appeal, but also took a positive view of Wójtowicz’s appeal, in which he sought to have the charges entirely dismissed.

 

Consistent with his wishes, the Disciplinary Court ruled that his participation in a demonstration in the defence of judicial independence did not constitute a disciplinary infraction.

 

Applause after the ruling

 

The ruling was unanimous, and was issued by a panel of three prosecutors: Elżbieta Krężołek, Damian Gross and Sebastian Chmielewski.

 

Observers at the announcement of the ruling, primarily activists of the “Free Prosecutors” initiative, greeted it with an ovation. “Thank you from the bottom of my heart. You gave me the strength to come to Warsaw,” a visibly moved prosecutor Wójtowicz said after the judgment was given.

 

“I am satisfied with the ruling,” he told OKO.press.

 

The case of prosecutor Wójtowicz has made news around Poland, owing to the degraded prosecutor’s fight for his professional dignity against National Prosecutor Bogdan Święczkowski, who is also right-hand man of Prosecutor General Zbigniew Ziobro.

 

The case was a demonstration of how much freedom line prosecutors enjoy, as well as of whether there are some prosecutors more equal than others and where the limits of free speech are.

 

Demonstration in defence of courts in Legnica

 

Piotr Wójtowicz worked for the appellate prosecutor’s office in Wrocław and was head of the Circuit Public Prosecutor’s Office in Legnica. When Zbigniew Ziobro took control of the public prosecutorial service, Wójtowicz was demoted and sent to work as a line prosecutor in Legnica.

 

Today he is a member of the association of independent prosecutors Lex Super Omnia, a group defending the honour of the prosecutorial service, and which is a harsh critic of Zbigniew Ziobro and his supporters.

 

In July 2017, he attended a demonstration by KOD in front of a Legnica courthouse. This was a very intense period throughout the country, with protests at courthouses around Poland in defence of the Supreme Court and the National Council of the Judiciary, at the time targets of the ruling Law and Justice party.

 

Perhaps Wójtowicz’s presence at the Legnica demonstration would have gone unnoticed if it were not for the local media. One website reported his joking remark: “I don’t have anything to lose. What will they do to me? Ship me to Ełk?”

 

In connection with his presence at the KOD demonstration and the quote in the media, the disciplinary spokesman examined whether Wójtowicz had violated the principle of neutrality and the prosecutorial code of ethics. In 2018, however, he discontinued the case, declaring that Wójtowicz’s actions were not harmful.

 

Święczkowski appeals

 

Both Bogdan Święczkowski and Wójtowicz himself lodged appeals. Święczkowski considered that Wójtowicz had violated the principle of apoliticality, as well as harmed public trust in the office of the prosecutor and its neutrality. In Święczkowski’s view, the KOD demonstration was not apolitical.

 

The National Prosecutor also felt that the unauthorized statement by Wójtowicz referenced the changes taking place in the prosecutorial service and his personal situation, while for Wójtowicz to discuss the prosecutorial service he would need authorization from his superiors. This is why he sought a repeal of the decision to dismiss the case by the disciplinary spokesperson.

 

Wójtowicz appealed as well

 

Wójtowicz appealed because, although he agreed with the ruling itself, he negated its legal basis. He argued that he did not break the law nor ethical principles, because as a citizen he has the right to participate in apolitical gatherings.

 

His statement was unauthorized. It was made in the context of a manifestation concerning independence of the courts, not changes in the prosecutorial service. That is why he did not need the consent of his superiors.

 

Cleared of wrongdoing

 

At the hearing on 11 June 2019, three defenders represented Wójtowicz: prosecutor Jacek Bilewicz, member of the Board of Lex Super Omnia, judge Piotr Gąciarek from the Circuit Court in Warsaw and member of Iustitia, and attorney Joanna Jakubowska-Siwko, associated with the Committee for the Defence of Justice. They all appeared pro bono.

 

At the trial, Gąciarek recalled that in 2017 there were demonstrations throughout Poland in defence of the courts, including the Supreme Court. He emphasized that it was a duty of lawyers – including prosecutors – to defend their independence.

 

He added that people were proven right then, because the authorities stepped back from some of the “reforms”. He said that a prosecutor could do his job properly only before an independent court. Therefore, Wójtowicz’s participation in a peaceful demonstration could not be evaluated negatively.

 

He appealed to the disciplinary court before issuing its decision that the members of the court should be guided by their conscience, and not the political bias of the National Prosecutor.

 

Attorney Jakubowska-Siwko emphasized the unprecedented nature of the case. She said that the decision would affect the reputation of the prosecutorial service by demonstrating whether double standards are applied there.

 

In other words, this concerns Bogdan Święczkowski, whom no one has charged for having stood in elections as a candidate of Law and Justice and supported the party.

 

Prosecutor Bilewicz added that Wójtowicz is a member of Lex Super Omnia and has the right to speak out on public matters.

 

After their remarks, the disciplinary court issued its ruling in Wójtowicz’s favour. The court did not announce its reasons for the judgement, with everything detailed in the written verdict.

 

Importantly, the disciplinary court emphasized that the ruling in Wójtowicz’s was final. This means that his case has been discontinued, just as the Legnica prosecutor wanted.

 

However, it cannot be ruled out that Święczkowski will try to challenge this ruling in the Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Chamber, which was established by Law and Justice.

 

[translated by Matthew La Fontaine]



Author


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


More

Published

June 14, 2019

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