Repressions for independence. A prosecutor did not want to arrest participants of the protest, so he was transferred.

Share

Leading journalist and commentator on legal affairs in Poland, a columnist for Polityka weekly. Her latest book ‘Sędziowie mówią. Zamach…

More

Prosecutor Wojciech Pełeszok did not want to support the arrests of demonstrators. He was posted to a prosecution office at a level lower. This is how you break someone’s back: punishing, for example, for taking advantage of the guarantee of independence. Other prosecutors see this – and prefer to be obedient.



Wojciech Pełeszok is a prosecutor in the Court Division of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Warsaw. He received a case of an appeal against the decision of the Regional Court for Warszawa-Śródmieście, with respect to which he refused to arrest the detainee during the first demonstration after Julia Przyłębska’s verdict. The girl was charged with assaulting an officer – she threw a firecracker, which is in normal sales, in his direction. The court found no reason to arrest her.

 

The defendant’s lawyer, Agnieszka Helsztyńska, says that her client is a student in Warsaw, has a permanent place of residence and an excellent reputation. She is a member of aid organisations, works in a day care centre for refugee children, and has guarantees from a dozen or so people, including politicians, actors and a priest from the parish where she helps children.

 

The prosecutor’s office appealed to the Regional Court. This was just after Bogdan Święczkowski, the head of the National Prosecutor’s Office, issued orders to the heads of the prosecutor’s offices that they should prosecute the participants of the protests for anything possible, including the crime of bringing danger to health and lives.

 

Pełeszok represented the prosecutor’s office in court. Attorney Helsztynska says that, during the trial, he made a statement to the minutes that he is supporting the motion for the arrest, because he was ordered to do so in writing, but disagrees with it. The right to demand a written order is one of the few guarantees of the prosecutor’s independence described in Article 7 of the Law on the Prosecution Service. If a prosecutor takes advantage of this possibility, it means that he is forced to perform a procedural deed with which he disagrees. When issuing an order in writing, the supervisor assumes responsibility for it.

 

Demanding a written order in Zbigniew Ziobro’s prosecution service is treated as an act of disobedience, which every prosecutor knows. But a prosecutor cannot be punished directly for such a demand, because it is his statutory right.

 

I unofficially learned that Prosecutor Pełeszok was posted to the district prosecutor’s office from 1 December. He probably expected some kind of sanction. This cannot be officially considered a repression, although, in its annual reports on the state of Ziobro’s prosecution service, the Association of Prosecutors, Lex Super Omnia, lists posting downwards as one of the most frequent forms of repression. Its hard version is posting as far away from home as possible.

 

I asked the press officer of the prosecutor’s office, Aleksandra Skrzyniarz, about the reason for Pełeszok’s posting, but she did not reply to my e-mail, text message or phone call.

 

The authorities want the participants of the anti-government protests to be prosecuted as severely as possible. For this, they need obedient police officers and prosecutors. Not ones who doubt the sense of imprisoning a girl who is not demoralised and there is no indication that she intends to hide. Her arrest had the objective of deterring others from demonstrating. The invasion of pupils at home for sharing materials about the protests in the social media, the notification of schools and sending petitions to the family court with a charge of demoralising minors are also supposed to be deterrents.

 

Pełeszok’s posting downwards is almost certainly supposed to be a deterrent for prosecutors to exercise their independence. And it will deter those who value peace of mind more than professional honour.

 

The article was posted in Polish on Ewa Siedlecka’s blog at Polityka weekly website.



Author


Leading journalist and commentator on legal affairs in Poland, a columnist for Polityka weekly. Her latest book ‘Sędziowie mówią. Zamach…


More

Published

December 1, 2020

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary Chamberdisciplinary proceedingsPolandrule of lawConstitutional Tribunaljudicial independenceZbigniew ZiobroEuropean CommissionCourt of Justice of the EUjudgesNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of JusticeEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaIgor TuleyaMałgorzata Manowskadisciplinary systemMinister of JusticeCommissioner for Human RightsEuropean Court of Human RightsMateusz MorawieckiCJEUpresidential electionsjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsdemocracymuzzle lawHungaryJarosław Kaczyńskielections 2020Beata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsKamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerEuropean Arrest WarrantCOVID-19PresidentProsecutor GeneralConstitutionfreedom of expressioncriminal lawMarek SafjanOSCEWaldemar ŻurekPaweł JuszczyszynNational Public ProsecutorPiotr SchabPrzemysław Radzikcriminal proceedingsPrime MinisterJulia PrzyłębskaExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chambermedia freedomSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJNational ProsecutorelectionsWojciech HermelińskiStanisław PiotrowiczAndrzej ZollMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtAleksander StepkowskiOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsmedia independenceAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczMaciej NawackiEAWmediaimmunityAnna DalkowskaCouncil of Europe2017freedom of assemblyFreedom HouseLech GarlickiStanisław BiernatArticle 7Venice CommissionWłodzimierz WróbelPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaK 3/21P 7/20Ministry of JusticeC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesSejmBroda and Bojara v PolandMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramdefamationTHEMISTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskidemocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetopoliceJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJJustice Defence Committee – KOSrecommendationTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiEwa ŁętowskaHuman 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 ParliamentZiobroMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiPiotr Gąciarekhuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawCourt of Justice of the European UnionJustice FundAdam SynakiewiczcoronavirusPiSresolution of 23 January 2020Piotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakLeon KieresPKWinfringment actionEU valuesENCJlex NGOcivil societyRussiaIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechcriminal codeGrzęda v PolandXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawIustitiaKrystian MarkiewiczPrzemysła RadzikSenateMarcin WarchołElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekcourtsOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsC-487/19Article 6 ECHRArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieUrsula von der LeyenEwa WrzosekAK judgmentSimpson judgmentEU law primacyForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited Nationsjudcial independenceLeszek 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 WyborczaOKO.pressUS 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 WawrzykPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiharrassmentMarian BanaśAlina CzubieniakSupreme Audit OfficeTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerBelarusEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediastate of emergencypostal votepostal vote bill