The public prosecutor’s office is taking on the Supreme Court. It wants the immunity of three judges to be lifted

Share

Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland

More

The National Prosecutor’s Office has requested that three ‘old’ judges of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court be stripped of their immunity. They are to answer for the negligence of Supreme Court employees.



by Łukasz Woźnicki 

The text was posted at Gazeta Wyborcza on  16 March 2021.

 

The requests to lift the immunity were filed by prosecutors from the Internal Affairs Department of the National Prosecutor’s Office. This is a special unit created in 2016 to prove that the justice system is affected by pathologies and corrupt arrangements. The IAD is already prosecuting judges who disagree with PiS’s restriction of the independence of the judiciary: Igor Tuleya and Beata Morawiec. Both were stripped of their immunity at the request of the prosecutor’s office. Now, three ‘old’ judges of the Supreme Court could encounter a similar fate.

 

The requests to lift immunity apply to ‘Marek P., Andrzej S. and Włodzimierz W.’ – as the prosecutors presented them in their announcement. These judges are Marek Pietruszyński, Andrzej Stępka and Włodzimierz Wróbel.

 

‘The prosecutor’s office intends to charge them with the inadvertent failure to settle cases in accordance with the applicable laws’, announced the prosecutors. The Penal Code provides for a penalty of up to two years’ imprisonment for this.

 

The judges will answer for the negligence of the employees

 

According to the prosecutor’s office, by their rulings, the judges ‘brought about the unlawful imprisonment of two people’. How? Judge Marek Pietruszyński made a stay of the execution of a sentence for a man sentenced to prison for theft. According to the prosecutor’s office, the judge did not check whether the man was already serving his sentence. ‘The judge’s omission resulted in the man being unreasonably imprisoned for almost a month’ reads the communiqué.

 

In turn, Judges Andrzej Stępka and Włodzimierz Wróbel overturned a two-year prison sentence for the perpetrator of a fatal accident. ‘Despite their obligation, they did not check whether the sentence was already being executed. The man illegally spent over a month in prison as a result of the omissions of the judges,’ acknowledged the prosecution office.

 

The cases described by the prosecutor’s office were pending in the Supreme Court in 2019. No release order was indeed issued in either case, which should have gone to the prison.

 

‘This is a routine activity that all managers of secretariats take care to perform. I, as a judge, have never issued such an order myself. In these two cases, it was acknowledged that there was negligence on the part of the employees of the Supreme Court,’ says the president of the Criminal Chamber, Michał Laskowski.

 

‘The failure to issue the orders resulted in disciplinary proceedings being conducted in the Supreme Court against the court clerk, who should have initiated this, and the manager of the secretariat of the Third Criminal Chamber. These proceedings ended with a final and binding reprimand for the court clerk and the dismissal of the manager of the secretariat,’ he adds.

 

‘The long-standing practice of the Criminal Chamber is as follows: it is the manager of the secretariat or possibly the court clerk who ensures that the court’s decision is implemented. The court overturns the sentence and someone looks into the system, checks where the offender is being held, and sends a release order to the unit. In this case, it only took place after the defence counsel intervened, and in the other case, after the prison intervened,’ describes Laskowski.

 

‘The judges were not considered liable in these cases. But the prosecutor’s office initiated criminal proceedings in a situation where there was no intention to deprive a person of freedom. I have never encountered such a situation,’ says Laskowski. ‘It is significant that Włodzimierz Wróbel was among these three judges. The assumption can be made that it is about an attack on that judge,’ he comments.

 

‘Old’ judges in the hands of the Disciplinary Chamber 

 

Professor Włodzimierz Wróbel is the head of the Department of Criminal Law at the Jagiellonian University and the author of over a hundred academic works, awarded the title of ‘Civic Judge of the Year’ in 2020. It was he who justified the famous resolution of three chambers of the last year (the PiS government does not recognise this resolution). In last year’s elections of candidates for the office of first chairman of the Supreme Court, Wróbel received the most votes of the judges, but was not appointed by the president. In his speeches, the judge emphatically stood up in defence of the independence of the Supreme Court.

 

Now, the Disciplinary Chamber staffed in whole with ‘new’ judges appointed by the politicised NCJ will deal with the requests of the prosecutor’s office. The Supreme Court – among others, in a resolution of the three chambers – ruled that the Disciplinary Chamber is not a court and its rulings are burdened with an irremovable defect. Later, the activities of the Chamber were frozen by the EU Court of Justice. Even so, the Chamber continues to rule on the lifting of the immunity of judges.

 

‘A judge’s immunity can only be lifted by a final decision of an independent and impartial court. The Disciplinary Chamber has none of these properties,’ the Court of Appeal in Warsaw recently concluded in Judge Igor Tuleya’s case.

 

‘The Polish prosecutor’s office has just acknowledged that the most dangerous potential criminals are the judge-professors from the Polish Supreme Court. That is why it has applied to a non-court, namely the Disciplinary Chamber, to lift their immunity. This is legal violence,’ comments constitutionalist Professor Marcin Matczak.

 

‘The National Prosecutor’s Office wants to prosecute legal judges of the Supreme Court, including Prof. Włodzimierz Wróbel. Obviously, the inquisitorial disciplinary chamber is to lift their immunities. They have really gone crazy in this rush to repress independent judges,’ commented Michał Wawrykiewicz, attorney-at-law from the ‘Free Courts’ initiative.



Author


Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland


More

Published

March 17, 2021

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroEuropean CommissionCourt of Justice of the EUjudgesjudicial 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 electionsjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020Kamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerBeata MorawiecPiotr SchabPrzemysław RadzikFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiPrime MinisterJulia Przyłębskamedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19National Council for JudiciaryMichał LasotaPresidentfreedom of expressionŁukasz PiebiakCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawdisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiNational Recovery PlanOSCEPaweł 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-WoickaelectionsStanisław PiotrowiczJarosław WyrembakAndrzej ZollMałgorzata Gersdorfacting 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 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 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 KrajewskiChamber of Professional LiabilityForum Współpracy SędziówMałgorzata Dobiecka-Woźniakpublic 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 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