Prosecutors’ association board may be held liable on criminal charges for reporting the suspected abuse of authority by Minister of Justice

Share

journalist at Gazeta Wyborcza

More

The management board of the Lex Super Omnia (LSO) association of prosecutors may be held liable on criminal charges for reporting the suspected abuse of authority by Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro. Proceedings are pending in this matter.



Prosecutor Krzysztof Parchimowicz, co-founder and former president of Lex Super Omnia association (LSO), was again in the line of sights of the prosecutor’s office and, with him, also the association’s management board.

 

This is because the prosecutors from the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Ostrołęka are conducting an investigation regarding the organization – they are investigating the report it filed in September 2019.

 

The report applied to the suspicion that Minister of Justice – Prosecutor General Zbigniew Ziobro had committed a crime. According to LSO, he had illegally issued a regulation enabling top management of the prosecutor’s office to receive additional benefits.

 

According to the prosecutors from Ostrołęka, this was a false accusation and report of a crime that had not been committed. The proceedings are pending under Articles 238 and 234 of the Penal Code. This is punishable by imprisonment for up to two years. The investigation is being handled by Prosecutor Małgorzata Ochman, a prosecutor from the Pułtusk district posted to the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Ostrołęka. So far, Prosecutor Parchimowicz has been summoned for questioning as a witness on 19 October.

 

‘This is a further manifestation of harassment intended to silence LSO, which has been a thorn in the side of the good change management of the prosecutor’s office since its registration,’ says Parchimowicz. ‘Money is currently an important element of building the motivation of the prosecutors. That is why the disclosure of abuse related to the collection of undue allowances has hurt the management so much. I shall come to the questioning. However, I do not intend to help the prosecutor prosecute members of the LSO.

 

Allowances for the prosecutor’s senior management 

 

Prosecutor Parchimowicz and the current president of the organization, Prosecutor Katarzyna Kwiatkowska, signed the report on Ziobro addressed to Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki. In it, LSO raised the allegation that the management of the National Prosecutor’s Office received allowances of 2,700 per month, namely a housing allowance in addition to their salaries because of Ziobro’s illegal regulation. 29 people received the benefits, including national prosecutor Bogdan Święczkowski and the prosecutor general’s deputies, including Krzysztof Sierak, Marek Pasionek and Robert Hernand, as well as the directors of the National Public Prosecutor’s Office. The prosecutors received the allowance without grounds up to August 2018. A total of more than PLN 2.3 million from the budget was spent on this.

 

Why – according to LSO – were the allowances paid without legal grounds? The Act on the Public Prosecutor’s Office of 2016 stipulated that housing allowances are only due to prosecutors who were posted away from their current place of work and residence. But it was also taken by other prosecutors appointed to posts in the National Prosecutor’s Office. Ziobro’s regulation increased this group, extending beyond the Act. LSO believes that Zbigniew Ziobro overstepped his authority to the benefit of third parties, namely the management of the National Prosecutor’s Office (Article 231 para. 2 of the Penal Code). Such a crime is punishable by imprisonment for up to 10 years.

 

‘The Minister of Justice – Prosecutor General will be under suspicion for as long as the matter of the allowances is not fully clarified,’ believes Prosecutor Parchimowicz.

 

The National Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of Justice had never officially admitted to illegally paying the allowance. But when the matter was publicized by ‘Wyborcza’, a provision was introduced into the law in August 2018 enabling the payment of housing allowances to prosecutors from the National Prosecutor’s Office working in the capital but permanently residing outside Warsaw. They have been taking the money legally since then.

 

Counterattack from Ad Vocem

 

However, LSO’s report infuriated the prosecutors from the pro-Ziobro association, Ad Vocem. Its founders and the most important activists, including National Prosecutor Bogdan Święczkowski, were beneficiaries of the housing allowances. Therefore, Ad Vocem reported LSO to one of the Warsaw district prosecutor’s offices in September 2019 as being suspected of having committed a crime involving the ‘false accusation of the minister of justice of overstepping his authority”’. According to Ad Vocem, the collection of the allowances ‘was and is legal’. Is the investigation in Ostrołęka a follow-on from Ad Vocem’s notification? Prosecutors from LSO have not received any official information on this. We are also waiting for a response from the Ostrołęka prosecutors on this.

 

It is known that the matter of Zbigniew Ziobro potentially abusing his authority in the prosecutor’s office has never been seriously taken up. The first of such proceedings were being conducted on the basis of a notice from Prosecutor Parchimowicz and ended in August 2017 with a refusal to initiate an investigation. Such a decision was made by the then head of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Warsaw, Paweł Blachowski (who has been rapidly promoted under Ziobro – now he is posted to the National Prosecutor’s Office). He argued that the regulation was not issued in breach of his authority, because it was protected by the presumption of constitutionality: it is part of the applicable legal order until questioned by the Constitutional Tribunal. LSO treated the notice of September 2019 as a motion to take up old proceedings. A decision was made to refusal to handle the case because of a lack of any new circumstances. According to the prosecutors from LSO, not only does the Constitutional Tribunal determine the compliance of regulations with an act of law, but so do independent judges. Meanwhile, the prosecutor’s office never took any steps to check the compliance of the regulation with the law.

 

Harassment of an inconvenient prosecutor 

 

Prosecutor Parchimowicz is the most harassed prosecutor of the times of the ‘good change’. Other than having numerous disciplinary proceedings, he is also the target of several criminal proceedings.

 

‘These are essentially the third criminal proceedings against me, but the first directly related to my activity in LSO,’ says Parchimowicz.

 

‘Wyborcza’ wrote about two other proceedings. One of them was handled by the famous Internal Affairs Department of the National Prosecutor’s Office. Prosecutors from the Internal Affairs Department of the National Prosecutor’s Office rummaged around the family inheritance files of the LSO’s co-founder under the pretext of checking Parchimowicz’s asset declaration. Were they looking for something on him? The National Prosecutor’s Office claimed that ‘calling these activities “surveillance” and “looking for something on him” is an insinuation.’ The proceedings ended in failure – the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings.

 

 

Parchimowicz’s name also appears in the third set of criminal proceedings – in the investigation regarding the abuse of authority by judges and prosecutors in connection with prosecution for VAT crimes. They are handled by the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Białystok. It is supposed to demonstrate that judges of the Supreme Court and prosecutors at the highest level supported the development of the VAT mafia and contributed to the emergence of a VAT shortfall of PLN 250 billion.

 

Translated by Roman Wojtasz

 

The text was published in Polish in Gazeta Wyborcza.



Author


journalist at Gazeta Wyborcza


More

Published

October 12, 2020

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandZbigniew Ziobrorule of lawEuropean CommissionjudgesCourt of Justice of the EUjudicial independenceNational Council of the JudiciaryEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemEuropean Court of Human RightsMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiWaldemar Żurekdemocracymuzzle lawpresidential electionsPiotr SchabjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020Kamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerBeata MorawiecPrzemysław RadzikFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsMichał LasotaEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiPrime MinisterJulia Przyłębskamedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19National Recovery PlanNational Council for JudiciaryPresidentfreedom of expressionŁukasz PiebiakCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawdisciplinary liability for judgeselectionsWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanMałgorzata GersdorfAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynAnna DalkowskaNational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetWłodzimierz WróbelCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorDagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaStanisław PiotrowiczJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisK 7/21May 10 2020 electionsLex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandSejmXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v Polandmedia independenceIustitiaJarosław DudziczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczArticle 6 ECHRTHEMISEAWUrsula von der LeyenmediaimmunityCouncil of Europe2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaRecovery FundP 7/20Justice Fundneo-judgesPiSC-791/19National Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Piotr PszczółkowskiPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaProfessional Liability ChamberJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikorasuspensionJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesReczkowicz and Others v. PolandUkraineKrystian MarkiewiczKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczDariusz DrajewiczRafał PuchalskidefamationcourtsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekEwa WrzosekEU law primacyChamber of Professional LiabilityTVPLex 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 PietruszyńskitransferPiotr GąciarekKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiRegional Court in KrakówPiebiak gatehuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencycoronavirusXero 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 lawpolexitDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtPaulina 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 pluralism#RecoveryFilesArticle 10 ECHRmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentRegional Court in Amsterdamrepairing the rule of lawharassmentOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentBohdan BieniekSimpson judgmentMarcin KrajewskiForum Współpracy SędziówMałgorzata Dobiecka-Woźniakelectoral processChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairspublic broadcasterWiesław KozielewiczNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeGrzegorz PudaPiotr MazurekJerzy Kwaśniewskimutual trustPetros TovmasyanLMIrelandIrena 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 StatePechOlsztyn courtKochenovPrzemysła CzarnekEvgeni TanchevEducation MinisterFreedom in the WorldECJIpsosFrackowiakOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeretirement ageAmnesty 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