The unruly media of the authorities, namely editors Morawiecki and Dworczyk in the Karnowskis’ portal


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


Mateusz Morawiecki’s close associates have prepared a ready interview attacking the judges who ruled unfavourably for the prime minister during the local elections. It was published by the pro-government portal run by the brothers Jacek and Michał Karnowski.

by Roman Imielski


The article was published in Gazeta Wyborcza


The publication of the e-mails, which leaked from the current head of the Prime Minister’s Chancellery, Michał Dworczyk’s inbox, has meant that we could once again see what the intertwining of the ‘unruly’ media with the Law and Justice (PiS) party looks like [in Polish: media niepokorne, which stands for media favorable to the PiS ruling camp; the term was coined before PiS came to power in 2015 – eds.].


Information on the commissioning of the preparation of materials to people from TVP was posted earlier. This time, this is about the portal, which – just like the ‘Sieci’ weekly run by the Karnowski brothers – has tens of millions of zlotys pumped into it each year from advertisements of state-owned companies and state institutions.


The Karnowski brothers receive ready materials


The Karnowski brothers have been regarded as informal spokesmen for the PiS party for a long time. They like to spread slogans about independence and living with the truth. They claim they are the ‘unruly’ media.


All this is obviously a smokescreen. The website, which posts Michał Dworczyk [Chief of the Chancellery of the PM]’s emails, has just confirmed this.


Morawiecki wrote to Dworczyk and Jarosław Gajewski, a former journalist, now an expert at the Polish Development Fund, on 30 October 2018, just before the second round of the local elections.


The prime minister pasted in part of an article from ‘Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki is to apologise to the mayor of Kraków for his words about the lack of action by the city authorities in the battle against smog. Attention was immediately drawn in Kraków to the fact that the adjudicating panel of the Court of Appeal in Kraków included judges who have made no secret of their dislike of the judicial reform. The Court of Appeal in Małopolska’s capital itself is also a bastion of rebellious judges who are ruthlessly attacking the current authorities. Two of the three judges ruling today in the actin filed by Majchrowski are judges actively supporting the ‘caste’.


And he recommends: ‘Do not “apologise”, but “correct”,’ although the rest of the narrative is interesting… ‘I spoke to Michał earlier and he is waiting for information nicely served on a platter from Jarek G. Ania, see to all of this’.


To this, Gajewski replies: ‘I have already written a ready interview for him [for Dworczyk]. He needs to quickly send it to It’s rather strong :)))’. To which Dworczyk replied: ‘I have corrected some minor details and have sent it to Jacek Karnowski. It should be posted in the portal soon’.


And indeed, the ‘ready materials’ quickly appear on the portal of the Karnowski brothers with the title of: ‘Michał Dworczyk on the verdict in the prime minister’s case: I’m not surprised, because these are politicians in togas rather than judges’.


It is worth quoting the ‘ready material’, because its form – especially the questions – is very characteristic.


Below is a translation of the leaked email: However, after the judgment of the court of the first instance that was favourable for the Prime Minister, the Court of Appeal in Kraków ordered the head of the government to post a corrigendum after he stated at a convention in Kraków that the city authorities were ‘doing almost nothing’ to combat smog. How do you assess this decision of the court?


Michał Dworczyk, head of the Prime Minister’s Chancellery: I get the impression that in election-mode cases involving PiS politicians, we have a situation in which courts of the first instance assess the case on its merits and dismiss actions, while the higher-instance courts, namely, in this case, the court of appeal, assess the case in a highly political, extremely biased manner.


What do you mean?


It’s difficult not to get the impression that the Court of Appeal in Kraków is the most politicised court in Poland. Unfortunately. It can even be said that this court is in a kind of anti-government and anti-presidential amok.


Strong words.


That’s how I see it, that’s how I assess it. Just imagine that, as recently as a fortnight ago, the judges of the Court of Appeal in Kraków passed nine resolutions, eight of which were critical of the government’s and the president’s actions! They applied to the method of appointing judges to the Supreme Court, the functioning of the National Council of the Judiciary and other aspects of the reform of the Polish judiciary; one of the resolutions applied to the fact that most of these resolutions are to be translated into English and sent around Europe. This is curious! Although the most scandalous one is the one in which the judges of the Court of Appeal in Kraków assess that the conduct of the Polish President qualifies for putting Andrzej Duda up before the Tribunal of State. So, if you are asking me whether I am surprised by today’s ruling of that court in the prime minister’s case, then no – I am absolutely not surprised, because these are politicians in robes rather than judges in robes. It’s a shame that none of the resolutions of the judges apply, for example, to speeding up court hearings and treating witnesses with dignity.



Of course, both Dworczyk, Morawiecki and the Karnowskis are not even mentioning the publication of the ‘ready materials’. Instead, the old narrative is that the stolen emails are the work of the Russians and are manipulated. However, nobody has specified any manipulation in any of the disclosed correspondence to date. On the contrary, the authenticity of many emails has been publicly confirmed. Meanwhile, the Polish secret services have not yet presented a report on precisely who is behind the publication of the correspondence of the head of the Prime Minister’s Chancellery.


Instead, on 23 May, the Zaufana Trzecia Strona (Trusted Third Party) portal reported that the Internal Security Agency ordered the Polish telecommunications operators to block the website. Although, this is very easy to circumvent – all that is needed is, for example, a VPN.


Przyłębska, a star with Sakiewicz

In the shadow of ‘Dworczyk’s ready materials’, you might not have noticed that we have just witnessed another example of the intertwining of the authorities with the ‘unruly’ media. This time it is about the convention of the ‘Gazeta Polska’ Clubs in Sulejów and the performance by Julia Przyłębska, president of the Constitutional Tribunal appointed by PiS, and party leader Jarosław Kaczyński’s “social discovery”.


There is no need to remind you that tens of millions of zlotys are also flowing to Tomasz Sakiewicz’s media from companies and institutions controlled by the government. And it was precisely he who was the host of Saturday’s panel, at which the star was Przyłębska.


‘Sovereignty should be our roadmap,’ she assured. ‘I am not treating this as a political meeting for one party or another, I am treating it as a meeting for Poland, in support of Poland,’ she added.


She argued that ‘the defects of democracy should be acknowledged. And therefore, democratic elections, in which the majority wins, should be respected. The institutions specified in the constitution should be respected and should work in peace. And even if we don’t agree with everything, we should assert our rights through the law and not through anarchy.’


She emphasised that the constitution is most important: ‘This is our constitution; it is the supreme law and we should respect it, not only by wearing it on t-shirts, but also by not misinforming the public about what it is saying.’


She finally stated: ‘What has been brought about today in many areas, including by preventing the Constitutional Tribunal from operating peacefully, is precisely the result of the anarchisation of public life.


Przyłębska almost certainly was not and is not aware of how comical she herself is in this role. She is managing a legal shell that is still referred to as the ‘Constitutional Tribunal’ – with stand-ins and former PiS MPs within its membership. The authorities are treating the constitution like dirt and did not hesitate to interrupt the constitutional term of the National Council of the Judiciary in 2018. Przyłębska herself plays hostess to Kaczyński and Morawiecki at Sunday lunches, while Sakiewicz’s and Karnowski’s media are the armed media arm of the ruling party.


This is what ‘unruliness’ – not only in the pro-government media – looks like today.


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



June 20, 2022


Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandjudgesZbigniew ZiobroCourt of Justice of the EUrule of lawEuropean CommissionNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceMałgorzata ManowskaEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaCourt of JusticeIgor TuleyaEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary systemMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiNational Recovery PlanWaldemar Żurekmuzzle lawKamil Zaradkiewiczdemocracypresidential electionsdisciplinary commissionerPiotr SchabPrzemysław RadzikjudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme CourtAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsSupreme Administrative CourtK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020neo-judgeselectionsNational Council for JudiciaryBeata MorawiecJulia PrzyłębskaprosecutorsŁukasz PiebiakDagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaMichał LasotaEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiharassmentPaweł JuszczyszynPrime MinisterPresidentmedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawCOVID-19Małgorzata GersdorfSejmMaciej FerekEU budgetfreedom of expressiondisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiStanisław PiotrowiczMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPresident of the Republic of PolandimmunityAnna DalkowskaNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsLabour and Social Security Chamberfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamberconditionality mechanismconditionalityWłodzimierz WróbelCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeRegional Court in KrakówprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisK 7/21May 10 2020 electionsLex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanProfessional Liability ChamberPresident of PolandsuspensionLGBTXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. Polandparliamentmedia independenceIustitiaJarosław DudziczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczArticle 6 ECHRTHEMISEAWUrsula von der LeyenChamber of Professional LiabilityTVPmediaelections 2023Piotr Prusinowski2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaPiotr GąciarekcorruptionRecovery FundP 7/20Justice FundPiSC-791/19National Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Piotr PszczółkowskiJoanna Misztal-KoneckaPegasusMariusz KamińskisurveillanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraJarosław GowinLGBT ideology free zonesUkraineKrystian MarkiewiczKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecSenateZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczDariusz DrajewiczRafał Puchalskidefamationcourtssmear campaignMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekEwa WrzosekEU law primacyLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej Miterademocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetoabortionJózef 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.pressZiobroDariusz ZawistowskiMichał Laskowskiintimidation of dissentersMarek PietruszyńskitransferKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiPiebiak gatehuman rightsEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiMarian BanaśSupreme Audit OfficeAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyKrakówcoronavirusXero Flor v. PolandEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej Rutkiewiczresolution of 23 January 2020Mirosław WróblewskiCivil ChamberLeon Kieresright to protestSławomir JęksaPKWWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman Giertychinfringment actionEU valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinanceENCJJacek 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 AstChamber 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 PopulatiolegislationRafał Trzaskowskilex Wośmedia lawRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtPrzemysła RadzikAntykastaStanisław 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 fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał DworczykC-487/19media pluralism#RecoveryFilesArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in Amsterdamrepairing the rule of lawOpenbaar 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 Tovmasyancourt presidentsLMODIHRIrelandFull-Scale Election Observation MissionNGOIrena MajcherWojciech MaczugaAmsterdamKarolina MiklaszewskaRafał LisakMałgorzata FroncJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiSebastian Mazurekthe Regional Court in WarsawElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikSzymon Szynkowski vel SękUnited NationsJoanna Scheuring-Wielgusinsulting religious feelingsLeszek Mazuroppositionelectoral codeAdam Gendźwiłłpopulisminterim measuresDariusz Dończykautocratizationtest of independenceMultiannual Financial FrameworkTomasz Koszewskipublic mediaJakub Kwiecińskiabortion rulingdiscriminationequal treatmentAct on the Supreme Courtprotestselectoral commissionsfundamental rightsthe NetherlandsEuropean Court of HuDenmarkKrzysztof RączkaSwedenPoznańFinlandKoan LenaertsMariusz KrasońKarol WeitzCT PresidentKaspryszyn v PolandGermanyNCR&DCelmerNCBiRC354/20 PPUThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentC412/20 PPUEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFAusl 301 AR 104/19Justyna WydrzyńskaKarlsruheAgnieszka Brygidyr-Doroszact on misdemeanoursJoanna KnobelCivil 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 generaltransparencyEuropean Economic and Social Committeepress releaseSebastian KaletaRights and Values ProgrammeC-156/21C-157/21C-619/18Marek Piertuszyńskidefamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardNational Prosecutor’s OfficeWojciech 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 WawrzykharrassmentAlina CzubieniakTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediapostal voteRzeszówborderpostal vote billprimacy