Prosecutor Wójtowicz under fire for defending judicial independence


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


The head of the national public prosecutor’s office, Bogdan Święczkowski, is seeking to punish prosecutor Piotr Wójtowicz (pictured below) for his presence at a demonstration protesting attacks on the independence of the Supreme Court and National Council of the Judiciary (KRS). Święczkowski is demanding punishment for “political” activity, despite the fact that he himself ran as a candidate of Law and Justice (PiS) in recent elections. The verdict in this case will set a major precedent and will show whether all prosecutors are equal under the law.

The case of prosecutor Wójtowicz, who works in Legnica, is presently the most talked-about disciplinary proceedings in the prosecutorial community. Several dozen people came to a disciplinary hearing held on 6 May in Warsaw to lend him their support




Małgorzata Rosłońska, leader of the Free Prosecutors initiative (left)

Małgorzata Rosłońska, leader of the Free Prosecutors initiative (left)


In attendance were judges and lawyers from the Polish capital, citizens from the Free Prosecutors initiative, head of the Lex Super Omnia association of independent prosecutors and the face of defence of the prosecutorial service’s independence Krzysztof Parchimowicz, as well as professor Mirosław Wyrzykowski, a former justice of the Constitutional Tribunal.


From left: Wójtowicz’s three defenders Jacek Bilewicz, Joanna Jakubowska – Siwko, and professor Mirosław Wyrzykowski, with prosecutor Piotr Wójtowicz on the right.


The hearing thus began 1.5 hours later than planned, as the original room proved too small for all those who came to observe the process, causing it to be moved to a larger room in the seat of the National Prosecutorial Service.


Wójtowicz is a former head of the District Prosecutorial Service in Legnica and a member of the Lex Super Omnia association of independent prosecutors. Under the present ruling party, he has been demoted to the Regional Prosecutorial Service.


He is being charged by Bogdan Święczkowski, the National Prosecutor and both first deputy and right-hand man of the Prosecutor General, Zbigniew Ziobro.


Demonstration in Legnica


In 2017, Wójtowicz was present at a rally by the Committee for the Defence of Democracy (KOD) in front of a court in Legnica. This was during a very intense period across Poland. Protests were held in front of courts and the Polish parliament in defence of the Supreme Court and the National Council of the Judiciary, which PiS sought to take control of.


Perhaps nobody would know that Wójtowicz was at the demonstration in Legnica if it weren’t for local media. One website cited his remark made in jest: “I don’t have anything to lose. What will they do? Transfer me to Ełk (a city roughly 650 km from Legnica – translator’s note)?”
In light of his presence at the KOD demonstration and the quip cited above, the disciplinary spokesman decided to review whether Wójtowicz had violated the principle of political neutrality and the prosecutorial code of ethics. However, in 2018 he discontinued proceedings, ruling that Wójtowicz had not broken any rules.


Święczkowski appeals against the case being dropped


Both Bogdan Święczkowski and Wójtowicz himself appealed against the decision. Święczkowski claims that Wójtowicz violated the principle of prosecutorial political neutrality and damaged the public’s trust in the prosecutorial office and its neutrality. This is because, in Święczkowski’s opinion, the KOD demonstration was not a politically neutral event.


Święczkowski also considers the unauthorized statement by Wójtowicz to relate to changes in the prosecutorial service and his personal situation, something which Wójtowicz should have permission from his superiors to discuss publicly. These are the reasons for which he is appealing to reopen the disciplinary case against Wójtowicz.


While he agrees with the decision to suspend the case, Wójtowicz is appealing because he does not agree with the legal basis on which it was done. He argues that he has not broken any laws or ethical principles, and that as a citizen he has the right to participate in politically neutral assemblies.


As for his words reported in the media, they were unauthorized, but were of a sarcastic nature and were made in the context of a protest concerning judicial independence, not changes in the prosecutorial service. This is why consent from his superiors was not needed.


The first hearing was held in December 2018, but in the meantime one of the prosecutors in the original panel hearing both appeals in the case ceased working in the disciplinary court.


The change to the composition of the panel meant that the process had to start over from the beginning last Monday. The new prosecutor in the three-member panel is the Katowice-based Sebastian Chmielewski, who has been promoted to the National Prosecutorial Service by the current government. In April 2019, he was given the Bronze Cross of Merit by President Andrzej Duda.


The disciplinary panel. On the left: Prosecutor Sebastian Chmielewski


Wójtowicz has three defenders: prosecutor Jacek Bilewicz, who is a member of the board of Lex Super Omnia, judge Piotr Gąciarek from the Circuit Court in Warsaw, a member of Iustitia, and attorney-at-law Joanna Jakubowska-Siwko, affiliated with the Committee for the Defence of Justice. All of them are appearing in Wójtowicz’s defence pro bono.


On Monday, Bilewicz and Jakubowska-Siwko appeared in defence of Wójtowicz’s constitutional rights (Gąciarek was not present at the hearing).


Constitutional right of a prosecutor as a citizen


Jacek Bilewicz said that Wójtowicz had the right to be present at the demonstration in defence of the courts, as this was an exercise of his constitutional right to freedom of assembly. His conversation with a journalist, in turn, involved freedom of expression, which is also allowed by the Constitution.


“The prosecutor has the right to freedom of expression and of assembly. He was at the demonstration in his capacity as a member of Lex Super Omnia, and he did so in support of the principle of the rule of law. He was also within his rights to speak publicly as a member of the association. As a prosecutor, he also has the right to freedom of speech,” said Bilewicz at the disciplinary court hearing.


He recalled that similar arguments were invoked in 2016 by Bogdan Święczkowski when filing a cassation motion with the Supreme Court on behalf of prosecutor Jarosław Duś (presently working in the National Prosecutorial Service).


Duś had been convicted in a disciplinary case for defaming the then Prosecutor General Andrzej Seremet. Święczkowski argued in the cassation appeal that prosecutors have the right to make statements that can even be classified as provocative and harsh in tone.


The president himself acknowledged the demonstrators’ arguments


Bilewicz went on to stress that Wójtowicz cannot bear any responsibility for participation in the demonstration with consideration of the fact that the president and government acknowledged the demands of the demonstrators by cancelling their plans for radical changes to the Supreme Court. In other words, they conceded that the demonstrators were in the right, including Wójtowicz.


Bilewicz also pointed out that Święczkowski that he was pursuing a disciplinary case against the prosecutor from Legnica despite being active politically himself in the past, campaigning in local and national elections as a candidate of PiS. “This is why the decision made in this case will constitute a precedent. It will be a signal for prosecutors as to whether their activities outside the workplace will be assessed depending on the position they hold, or whether everyone will be judged by the same standard,” stressed Bilewicz.


In turn, Joanna Jakubowska-Siwko invoked the opinion of the Polish Commissioner for Human Rights, who stated that prosecutors have the right to participate in assemblies and in public debate over the rule of law.


Not political demonstrations


She emphasized the politically neutral character of the KOD demonstration organized by a social movement. Wójtowicz did not make any show of political sympathies nor express political views. Jakubowska-Siwko also highlighted the significance of the decision to be taken in the case. “This ruling will decide not only about whether a prosecutor can express opinions, participate in assemblies, or associate freely. It will also be a strong signal to public opinion about whether there are double standards in the prosecutorial service, or whether everyone is treated equally.” She added that the ruling will impact perception of the prosecutorial service and the disciplinary court.


Piotr Wójtowicz also spoke, restricting his comments to saying he supported the statements made by his defenders about double standards in the assessment of prosecutors’ activities. He declared that he would not make any statements concerning his actions, which is his right.
Wójtowicz has refused to comment on the case until a ruling is issued. The next hearing is scheduled for 11 June. The disciplinary court intends to question the journalist from the local website that quoted Wójtowicz.


Disciplinary proceedings against Beata Mik


In May the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court will begin reviewing the case of Beata Mik, who is being charged for articles critical of the prosecutorial service appearing in the national daily “Rzeczpospolita”. Large crowds can also be expected at this hearing.
Independent prosecutors being harassed with disciplinary cases can now count on the support of judges, citizens from the Free Prosecutors initiative, and lawyers affiliated with the Committee in the Defence of Justice.


The Committee in the Defence of Justice provides support and legal assistance to prosecutors and judges being attacked by the disciplinary spokesman. A list of prosecutors subjected to such harassment has been published by


translated by Matthew La Fontaine


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



May 13, 2019


Supreme CourtConstitutional TribunalDisciplinary ChamberPolandjudgesdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of Justice of the EUjudicial independenceEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaCourt of JusticeEuropean Court of Human RightsMinister of JusticeIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemAdam Bodnarmuzzle lawJarosław KaczyńskiNational Recovery PlanCJEUMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human Rightsneo-judgesCourt of Justice of the European UniondemocracyPrzemysław RadzikWaldemar ŻurekNational Council for Judiciarypresidential electionselectionselections 2023disciplinary commissionercriminal lawJulia PrzyłębskaPiotr SchabKamil Zaradkiewiczmedia freedomharassmentpreliminary rulingsHungarySupreme Administrative Courtelections 2020K 3/21Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickajudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme CourtŁukasz PiebiakprosecutorsPresidentRecovery FundBeata MorawiecPaweł JuszczyszynProsecutor GeneralMichał Lasotafreedom of expressionMaciej NawackiEuropean Arrest WarrantSejmprosecutionCOVID-19Regional Court in KrakówCriminal ChamberNational ProsecutorConstitutionPrime MinisterMinistry of JusticecourtsMałgorzata GersdorfMarek SafjanEU budgetdisciplinary liability for judgesMaciej FerekOSCEWojciech HermelińskiExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberIustitiacriminal proceedingsWłodzimierz WróbelVenice Commissionconditionality mechanismAleksander StepkowskiTHEMISLabour and Social Security ChamberStanisław BiernatPiScommission on Russian influenceStanisław PiotrowiczPresident of the Republic of PolandNCJimmunityconditionalityAnna DalkowskaJustice FundcorruptionLaw and JusticeNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europefreedom of assemblyKrystian MarkiewiczreformsReczkowicz and Others v. PolandKrzysztof Parchimowiczacting first president of the Supreme Court2017policeSenateAndrzej Zollmedia independenceSLAPPdefamationStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationLGBTJustice Defence Committee – KOSEwa ŁętowskaDidier ReyndersFreedom HouseAmsterdam District CourtMay 10 2020 electionsXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandOrdo IurisPresident of PolandAndrzej StępkaBroda and Bojara v PolandSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramPiotr GąciarekJarosław WyrembakPM Mateusz MorawieckiArticle 7Next Generation EUConstitutional Tribunal PresidentUrsula von der LeyenLex DudaTVPmediaLex Super OmniaProfessional Liability ChamberreformJarosław DudziczK 7/21National Reconstruction PlansuspensionparliamentChamber of Professional LiabilityEAWArticle 6 ECHRP 7/20Supreme Court PresidentLech GarlickiMichał WawrykiewiczabortionPiotr PrusinowskiNational Electoral Commissionelectoral codeJanusz NiemcewiczTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaStanisław RymarMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaKazimierz DziałochaBogdan ŚwięczkowskiNetherlandsAndrzej MączyńskiMarek MazurkiewiczvetoStefan JaworskiMirosław GranatOLAFBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaViktor OrbanJózef IwulskiMaciej MiteraSLAPPsjudcial independenceWojciech ŁączkowskiAdam JamrózPATFoxFerdynand RymarzKonrad WytrykowskiRafał Puchalskismear campaignmilestonesKrakówMarzanna Piekarska-Drążekstate of emergencyUkraineelectoral processBelaruscourt presidentsAdam SynakiewiczXero Flor v. PolandAstradsson v Icelandright to fair trialEdyta BarańskaJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraCentral Anti-Corruption BureauJakub IwaniecsurveillancePegasusDariusz DrajewiczJoanna Misztal-KoneckaCivil ChamberK 6/21Wojciech MaczugaSzymon Szynkowski vel SękDariusz ZawistowskiOKO.presselections integrityelections fairnessMarek ZubikBohdan ZdziennickiMirosław WyrzykowskiSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczPiotr TulejaJerzy StępieńAndrzej RzeplińskitransparencyMariusz KamińskiMaciej Taborowskiinsulting religious feelingsPaweł Filipekpublic mediaMariusz MuszyńskiKrystyna PawłowiczlexTuskcourt changesMarek PietruszyńskiMichał LaskowskiSupreme Audit Officeabuse of state resourcesLaw on the NCJEuropean ParliamentJarosław GowincoronavirusRussiaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczFree Courts11 January March in WarsawCCBEPiebiak gatehuman rightsrecommendationC-791/19Human Rights CommissionerMarcin WarchołLGBT ideology free zonesreportEuropean Association of JudgesPiotr Pszczółkowskiretirement agedecommunizationGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgesintimidation of dissentersdemocratic backslidingpublic opinion pollZiobroEU law primacyMarian BanaśThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europecriminal codeBelgiumlex NGOEwa Wrzosekcivil societytransferAdam Tomczyńskimedia pluralismBohdan Bieniek#RecoveryFilesFrans TimmermansLIBE Committeerepairing the rule of lawUS Department of StateMarcin KrajewskiKarolina Miklaszewska2018NGOFull-Scale Election Observation MissionODIHRNations in TransitStanisław ZabłockiPetros TovmasyanJerzy KwaśniewskiPiotr MazurekGrzegorz PudaNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeWiesław KozielewiczChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakCouncil of the EURafał LisakMichał DworczykWojciech Sadurskidefamatory statementsRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtC-619/18Rights and Values Programmejudgepress releaseAntykastalex WoślegislationCourt of Appeal in KrakówPutinismKaczyńskiPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderekct on the Protection of the PopulatioWorld Justice Project awardStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiEmilia SzmydtTomasz SzmydtE-mail scandalAndrzej SkowronKasta/AntykastaKatarzyna Chmuraadvocate generalGrzegorz FurmankiewiczMarek JaskulskiEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaSwieczkowskiDworczyk leaksMałgorzata FroncHater ScandalAleksandra RutkowskaGeneral Court of the EUArkadiusz RadwanLech WałęsaWałęsa v. Polandright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawpilot-judgmentDonald Tusk governmentRafał WojciechowskiDobrochna Bach-Goleckalex RaczkowskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActdisinformationCT Presidentfundamental rightsNational Broadcasting Councilelection fairnessequal treatmentcivil lawMarcin MatczakDariusz KornelukNational School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (KSSiP)codification commissiondelegationsWatchdog PolskaDariusz BarskiLasotapopulismState TribunalRadosław BaszukAction PlanJustice MinistryVěra JourováDonald Tuskjustice system reformAnti-SLAPP Directiveinsultgag lawsuitsstrategic investmentinvestmentlustrationJakub KwiecińskidiscriminationAct on the Supreme Courtelectoral commissionsEuropean Court of HuKrzysztof RączkaPoznańTomasz Koszewskitest of independenceSebastian MazurekElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikJoanna Scheuring-WielgusoppositionThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentAdam Gendźwiłłtransitional justiceDariusz DończykKoan LenaertsKarol WeitzZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaCourt of Appeal in WarsawOsiatyński'a ArchiveEUUS State DepartmentAssessment Actenvironmentextraordinary commissionWhite PaperKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiREuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFJustyna WydrzyńskaAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszJoanna KnobelCrimes of espionageJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiMarek Piertuszyńskihate speechhate crimesmedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandPrzemysław CzarnekJacek CzaputowiczMarcin RomanowskiElżbieta KarskaPrzemysła Radzikmedia lawRafał TrzaskowskiSobczyńska and Others v PolandTelex.huJelenForum shoppingFirst President of the Suprme CourtEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian KaletaOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeC-156/21C-157/21foreign agents lawArticle 2Rome IIJózsef SzájerChamber of Extraordinary VerificationKlubrádióequalityGazeta WyborczaLGBT free zonesPollitykaBrussels Ilegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekAK judgmentautocratizationMultiannual Financial FrameworkOpenbaar MinisterieRegional Court in Amsterdamabortion rulingArticle 10 ECHRprotestsinterim measuresLeszek MazurIrena MajcherAmsterdamLMmutual trustthe Regional Court in Warsawpublic broadcasterUnited NationsForum Współpracy Sędziówthe NetherlandsDenmarkact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsNorwegian fundsNorwayKraśnikOmbudsmanKarlsruheAusl 301 AR 104/19SwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońC-487/19GermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUIrelandMarek AstLSOright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman Giertychtrans-Atlantic valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinancelawyersMirosław Wróblewskirepressive actborderprimacyEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej RutkiewiczAct of 20 December 2019Amnesty InternationalJacek SasinEvgeni TanchevKochenovPechPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryFreedom in the WorldECJErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitFrackowiakDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandRzeszówKoen LenaertsharrassmentOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeinfringment actionHudocPKWKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr BurasLeon KieresIpsosEU valuesNational Prosecutor’s OfficeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOlsztyn courtPrzemysła CzarnekEducation MinisterENCJauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258postal voteTVNjournalistslexTVNEwa MaciejewskaGerard BirgfellerPolish mediaAlina CzubieniakSimpson judgmentpostal vote billclientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officeresolution of 23 January 2020Polish National FoundationLux VeritatisMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykIsrael