The Disciplinary Chamber goes to task on judges Morawiec and Tuleya

Share

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

More

The Disciplinary Chamber will decide at the beginning of October whether the National Prosecutor’s Office will be able to press far-fetched criminal charges against judges who are known for defending the free courts. Judges and lawyers from all over Poland are supporting Igor Tuleya and Beata Morawiec.



The article was published in Polish at OKO.press on 27 September 2020.

 

Judges in Poland photographed themselves in front of the courts in the past few days with such slogans as ‘United with Judge Beata Morawiec’, ‘Full support for Beata’, ‘Today Beata, tomorrow you’, ‘Full support for Beata, we will not be intimidated’, ‘Enough repression, hands off judge Morawiec’.

 

This is a gesture of solidarity and support for Judge Beata Morawiec from Krakow, on whom the National Prosecutor’s Office headed by Bogdan Święczkowski wants to press highly dubious criminal charges.

 

The judges picketed in solidarity before the courts in large cities such as Poznań, Krakow, Gdańsk, Łódź, Bydgoszcz, Szczecin and Olsztyn, but also in smaller centres, where such a gesture is an expression of great courage. Judges from Bytów, Grójec, Lębork, Nakło nad Notecią, Myślibórz, Kościan and Bartoszyce went out in front of the smaller courts. A judge from the District Court in Kętrzyn took a photograph of solidarity with Beata Morawiec on his own.

 

Citizens also stood before the courts in Warsaw and Przemyśl as a gesture of their support.

 

Attorneys also joined the campaign, headed by the president of the Supreme Bar Council, Jacek Trela, and the dean of the Regional Bar Council in Warsaw, Mikołaj Pietrzak.

 

Solidarity campaign

 

The solidarity campaign is very important, because the Disciplinary Chamber at the Supreme Court will consider the request of the National Prosecutor’s Office to remove Beata Morawiec’s immunity on 12 October 2020.

 

The Chamber quickly set the date for its consideration, because in accordance with Article 80 para. 2d of the Act on the Structure of Ordinary Courts, it has two weeks for its examination.

 

Adam Tomczyński will examine the request individually (in the first instance). He was a member of the panel that suspended Judge Paweł Juszczyszyn from Olsztyn and cut his salary.

 

Before his appointment to the Disciplinary Chamber, Tomczyński was known for praising the PiS government on Twitter.

 

The criminal charges that a special internal department of the National Public Prosecutor’s Office (appointed to prosecute judges and prosecutors) wants to press against Judge Beata Morawiec have to be approached with great reserve. According to the prosecutor’s office, years ago, the judge was supposed to have taken money for a fictitious expert opinion for the court and accepted a telephone for issuing a favourable judgment. The judge denies this. She even posted the expert opinion that she had written for the court on the internet.

 

The judges do not believe the allegations. They believe the prosecutor’s office has targeted Morawiec because she is the president of the Themis association of independent judges, which, alongside the Iustitia association of judges, defends the free courts and is a fierce critic of Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro.

 

Furthermore, Morawiec won a civil action against Ziobro with a non-final judgment for a statement from the Ministry of Justice slandering the judge. The statement was issued after Ziobro’s ministry dismissed Morawiec from the position of president of the Regional Court in Krakow.

 

The judgment may have humiliated the Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro, because the court ordered him to apologize to the judge. The minister appealed and his appeal in the case is pending.

 

The National Prosecutor’s Office did not stop at filing a request to remove her immunity. It entered the judge’s home at 6.30 a.m. and took her business laptop under the threat of searching her home.

 

The prosecutor’s office conducted a raid at Morawiec’s home, even though she is protected by judicial immunity.

 

According to lawyers, including the former president of the Constitutional Tribunal and former Commissioner for Human Rights, Prof. Andrzej Zoll, the prosecutor’s office did this illegally.

 

This is why judges throughout Poland went out in front of the courts to show that they support Judge Morawiec. Support for the judge is important so that she can see that she is not alone when facing Zbigniew Ziobro’s prosecution service.

 

‘This means that people can see what a cheek all this is, what harm is being done to a person who is uncomfortable for the authorities. I hold on every day, stand fast, like some Rejtan, without tears in my eyes, but when I saw these photographs [from the Solidarity campaign – ed.], tears flowed from my eyes,’ Judge Morawiec confessed in an inteview for OKO.press.

 

Tuleya’s case

 

The Disciplinary Chamber will not only be dealing with Judge Morawiec in the coming few days. Several days before the hearing in her case, the Chamber will decide whether to remove the immunity of Judge Igor Tuleya, the symbol of the independent courts.

 

This will take place on 5 October. The same department of internal affairs of the National Public Prosecutor’s Office wants to remove his immunity. What for? Because it wants to press absurd charges against him for allowing journalists in to the announcement of a ruling that was critical of PiS.

 

This applied to a judgment in which Tuleya ordered the prosecutor’s office to investigate the voting on the budget in the Sejm’s Column Hall by PiS in December 2016. There were irregularities then; the opposition’s participation in the deliberations was blocked. And Tuleya pointed this out in front of the cameras; the whole of Poland saw this. PiS did not like it. And now the prosecutor’s office has prepared far-fetched charges for allowing journalists into the courtroom when he ordered the investigation into PiS.

 

However, in the first instance, the Disciplinary Chamber refused the request of the National Public Prosecutor’s Office to remove the immunity. In the justification of this decision, it acknowledged that Tuleya did not break the law by allowing journalists to witness him issuing the judgment. Furthermore, Jacek Wygoda, who adjudicated in the case, ruled that the Constitution guarantees openness of court proceedings to the public.

 

The prosecutor’s office appealed against this. And a three-person panel of the Disciplinary Chamber will examine this appeal on 5 October: Tomasz Przesławski, Sławomir Niedzielak (rapporteur for the case), and Jarosław Sobutka.

 

Judge Igor Tuleya, one of most hated by PiS rebellious judges in Poland, is supported by the judiciary. As with Beata Morawiec, the judges also organized solidarity campaigns to express their support for him.



Author


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


More

Published

September 29, 2020

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroEuropean Commissionjudicial independenceCourt of Justice of the EUNational Council of the JudiciaryjudgesEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemEuropean Court of Human RightsMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeWaldemar ŻurekJarosław Kaczyńskidemocracymuzzle lawpresidential electionsjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020Kamil ZaradkiewiczBeata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme Courtprosecutorsdisciplinary commissionerEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiPrzemysław RadzikPrime Ministermedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19Piotr SchabJulia PrzyłębskaPresidentfreedom of expressionŁukasz PiebiakCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawdisciplinary liability for judgesMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiOSCENational Council for JudiciaryMichał LasotaPaweł JuszczyszynAnna DalkowskaNational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetWłodzimierz WróbelCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorelectionsWojciech HermelińskiStanisław PiotrowiczAndrzej ZollMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisK 7/21May 10 2020 electionsLex DudaSejmXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v Polandmedia independenceIustitiaJarosław DudziczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczTHEMISEAWUrsula von der LeyenmediaimmunityCouncil of Europe2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaP 7/20Justice FundDagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaPiSC-791/19National Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Piotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaNational Reconstruction PlanJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesReczkowicz and Others v. PolandUkraineKrystian MarkiewiczKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczDariusz DrajewiczRafał PuchalskidefamationcourtsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsArticle 6 ECHREwa WrzosekEU law primacyTVPLex 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 PietruszyńskiPiotr GąciarekRegional Court in KrakówPiebiak gatehuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawRecovery FundPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyneo-judgescoronavirusXero 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 lawpolexitNational Recovery PlanDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeProfessional Liability ChamberFirst President of the Suprme CourtsuspensionPaulina 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 pluralismArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentSimpson judgmentForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena 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 StatetransferPechOlsztyn courtKochenovPrzemysła CzarnekEvgeni TanchevEducation MinisterFreedom in the WorldKrystyna PawłowiczECJIpsosFrackowiakOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeretirement ageMariusz MuszyńskiAmnesty 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