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 Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandrule of lawZbigniew Ziobrojudicial independenceCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean CommissionNational Council of the JudiciaryjudgesEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeMałgorzata ManowskaAndrzej DudaIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemCommissioner for Human RightsEuropean Court of Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeMateusz MorawieckiJarosław Kaczyńskipresidential electionsjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsdemocracyK 3/21muzzle lawHungaryelections 2020Kamil ZaradkiewiczBeata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsWaldemar Żurekdisciplinary commissionerEuropean Arrest WarrantProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19Julia PrzyłębskaPresidentmedia freedomfreedom of expressionCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynNational Public ProsecutorPiotr SchabPrzemysław Radzikcriminal proceedingsPrime Ministerfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorelectionsWojciech HermelińskiStanisław PiotrowiczAndrzej ZollMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsBroda and Bojara v Polandmedia independenceAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczTHEMISMaciej NawackiEAWmediaimmunityAnna DalkowskaCouncil of Europe2017policeFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaArticle 7Venice CommissionWłodzimierz WróbelPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaP 7/20Justice FundPiSC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesSejmXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandReczkowicz and Others v. PolandIustitiaKrystian MarkiewiczMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramdefamationcourtsEwa 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 RzeplińskiSupreme Court PresidentJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskireportBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersEuropean ParliamentOKO.pressZiobroMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiPiotr Gąciarekhuman 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 2020K 6/21Mirosław WróblewskiCivil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaLeon Kieresright to protestSławomir JęksaPKWWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMariusz Kamińskiinfringment actionsurveillanceEU valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauENCJJacek SasinErnest Bejdalex NGOThe First President of the Supreme Courtcivil societyMaciej CzajkaRussiaMariusz JałoszewskiIsraelŁukasz Radkeforeign agents lawpolexitNational Recovery PlanK 7/21Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechcriminal codeGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawPrzemysła RadzikSenateMarcin WarchołElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsC-487/19Article 6 ECHRArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieUrsula von der LeyenAK 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 InternationalHudocŁukasz PiebiakRegional Court in KrakówPiebiak gateKonrad 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