Ziobro takes the courts in Poznań. When the lawyers found out who the new presidents were, they thought it was a joke

Share

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

More

The new presidents of the Poznań courts had not been promoted for years; they had low appraisals, they made mistakes that were sometimes so embarrassing as sentencing innocent people. Now Ziobro is giving them a huge amount of power. The judges have been stirred up.



by Piotr Żytnicki, Gazeta Wyborcza

 

It took Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro seven years to take over at the two most important courts in Poznań – the regional court and the court of appeal. He has just filled the managerial positions with fully loyal nominees – he did this arbitrarily, without consulting the judicial community.

 

The new presidents, whose names the judges already know, will take over the reins at the beginning of May.

 

A court that is independent of Ziobro

 

The Poznań courts – like the whole of Poznań – have never been a bastion of the ‘good change’. If Ziobro’s irritation could be measured by the number of disciplinary proceedings, then the judges from Poznań have really got under his skin. They have been passing judgments in line with the law and their own conscience, and not in line with the thoughts of the authorities.

 

The most famous were the acquittals of participants in the anti-government protests, including Notary Public Joanna Jaśkowiak, today a Civic Coalition MP. When passing that judgment, Judge Sławomir Jęksa criticised PiS’s breach of the rule of law in Poland. And encountered disciplinary action.

 

It was the courts in Poznań that declared the detention of the well-known lawyer, Roman Giertych, illegal. They also refused to arrest the suspects in the alleged scandal that was supposed to bring Giertych down. When he saw that he could achieve nothing in Poznań, Ziobro moved the investigation to Lublin.

 

The judges from Poznań also criticised the changes in the judiciary and maintained solidarity for seven years.

 

It even happened that there was a shortage of people for passing judgment in the higher courts: the older people were retiring, while the younger ones did not want to be promoted because they would have to face the politicised National Council of the Judiciary, which they do not accept.

 

‘Now this beautiful time may be coming to an end,’ fears one of the experienced judges. ‘This will be a test of character: who will have a spine, who can be bought.’

 

Zbigniew Ziobro did not have his own people

 

The six-year terms of office of Andrzej Daczyński, the president of the court of appeal, and Krzysztof Lewandowski, president of the regional court, will come to an end in a few weeks. ZIobro also appointed them 2017, but he then still took into account the opinion of the judicial community.

 

Daczyński and Lewandowski had the support of the judges. Meanwhile, Ziobro was just starting his assault on the judiciary – he did not yet have his people in the regional and appeal courts.

 

A great deal has changed in six years. Judges who had not been promoted for years were found. Ziobro opened up the path for their dream careers. Despite their poor results and negative appraisals, the new NCJ recommended them for promotions, while President Andrzej Duda handed them nominations.

 

Bartoszek and Jurkiewicz take the helm

Two criminal court judges had the most spectacular promotions: Mateusz Bartoszek and Daniel Jurkiewicz. According to our findings, they are the ones on whom Ziobro is now relying.

 

Bartoszek will manage the court of appeal from May, while Jurkiewicz will manage the regional court. Both have been protagonists of several of our articles.

 

When PiS came to power, Jurkiewicz was an ordinary judge of the District Court in Chodzież. He was reproached for the poor quality of his judgments – many of his decisions were changed or overturned.

 

It was only the fact that Judge Marek Jaskulski from Poznań was his acquaintance which opened the path to his career. Jurkiewicz helped Jaskulski get into the new NCJ, which decides on promotions: he entered his candidature and signed his list of support. He then did it again when Jaskulski was applying for a second term.

 

Jaskulski managed to return the favour. Today Jurkiewiecz is a judge of the Regional Court in Poznań – he adjudicates in the criminal division on the most serious cases: rapes, murders and organised crime groups. In the meantime, he was also president of the District Court in Wągrowiec – a distinction he received from Ziobro.

 

Ziobro appreciates, Bartoszek is promoted

 

Bartoszek’s story is similar. He adjudicated in a court in Poznan’s Old Town for 20 years and was never promoted. Although he defended himself with his statistics, other judges questioned his competence. They pointed out that he convicted a person without any evidence of guilt, breaking the fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence. This embarrassing blunder was later corrected by the court of the second instance, but the distaste remained.

 

Bartoszek also supported Jaskulski’s candidacy to the new NCJ. Then, the same NCJ with Jaskulski as its member, nominated him for promotion to the regional court.

 

The judges told us that examples of Jaskulski, Bartoszek and Jurkiewicz illustrate perfectly well how one hand washes the other: people who, in normal times, could not be promoted, support each other and climb the ladder.

 

Minister Ziobro already appreciated Bartoszek earlier – he appointed him president of the court in Poznań’s Grunwald. Bartoszek was also made president of the disciplinary court for the judges in Poznań.

 

What will Ziobro’s nominees do?

 

As presidents of the regional and appeal courts, Ziobro’s nominees will be given a considerable amount of power. Admittedly, they are not allowed – at least theoretically – to interfere with the content of judgments passed, but they can freely transfer judges between divisions. For example, Judge Jęksa, a brilliant and independent criminal judge, could suddenly find himself in the civil or commercial division simply for falling out with the authorities.

 

Presidents can also change heads of divisions and select people to work with them.

 

Minister Ziobro signed Jurkiewicz’s and Bartoszek’s appointments last week. The judges have now found out about them. They are moved. ‘We expect the worst, although it is possible that the new presidents will withhold from making purges until after the parliamentary elections. They may already be calculating what will happen to them if PiS is ousted,’ one judge tells us.

 

Bartłomiej Przymusiński, press officer of the association of judges, Iustitia, and a judge from Poznań says: ‘Bartoszek’s and Jurkiewicz’s nominations show that, despite almost eight years of Ziobro’s rule, all he has left are people without any authority within the environment. They think they were promoted, but their promotion will pass with Ziobro. Whereas the shame will remain.’

 

The news of the appointments is also spreading to other Poznań lawyers. One attorney could not believe it for a long time when he heard the names of the new presidents: ‘This sounds like a good joke. I thought someone was having me on.’

 

Translated by Roman Wojtasz

 

The article was published in Polish in Gazeta Wyborcza, February 28th 2023.



Author


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


More

Published

March 6, 2023

Tags

Supreme CourtConstitutional TribunalDisciplinary ChamberPolandjudgesdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of Justice of the EUjudicial independenceEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaCourt of JusticeEuropean Court of Human RightsMinister of JusticeIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemAdam Bodnarmuzzle lawJarosław KaczyńskiNational Recovery PlanCJEUMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human Rightsneo-judgesCourt of Justice of the European UniondemocracyPrzemysław RadzikWaldemar ŻurekNational Council for Judiciarypresidential electionselectionselections 2023disciplinary commissionercriminal lawJulia PrzyłębskaPiotr SchabKamil Zaradkiewiczmedia freedomharassmentpreliminary rulingsHungarySupreme Administrative Courtelections 2020K 3/21Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickajudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme CourtŁukasz PiebiakprosecutorsPresidentRecovery FundBeata MorawiecPaweł JuszczyszynProsecutor GeneralMichał Lasotafreedom of expressionMaciej NawackiEuropean Arrest WarrantSejmprosecutionCOVID-19Regional Court in KrakówCriminal ChamberNational ProsecutorConstitutionPrime MinisterMinistry of JusticecourtsMałgorzata GersdorfMarek SafjanEU budgetdisciplinary liability for judgesMaciej FerekOSCEWojciech HermelińskiExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberIustitiacriminal proceedingsWłodzimierz WróbelVenice Commissionconditionality mechanismAleksander StepkowskiTHEMISLabour and Social Security ChamberStanisław BiernatPiScommission on Russian influenceStanisław PiotrowiczPresident of the Republic of PolandNCJimmunityconditionalityAnna DalkowskaJustice FundcorruptionLaw and JusticeNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europefreedom of assemblyKrystian MarkiewiczreformsReczkowicz and Others v. PolandKrzysztof Parchimowiczacting first president of the Supreme Court2017policeSenateAndrzej Zollmedia independenceSLAPPdefamationStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationLGBTJustice Defence Committee – KOSEwa ŁętowskaDidier ReyndersFreedom HouseAmsterdam District CourtMay 10 2020 electionsXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandOrdo IurisPresident of PolandAndrzej StępkaBroda and Bojara v PolandSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramPiotr GąciarekJarosław WyrembakPM Mateusz MorawieckiArticle 7Next Generation EUConstitutional Tribunal PresidentUrsula von der LeyenLex DudaTVPmediaLex Super OmniaProfessional Liability ChamberreformJarosław DudziczK 7/21National Reconstruction PlansuspensionparliamentChamber of Professional LiabilityEAWArticle 6 ECHRP 7/20Supreme Court PresidentLech GarlickiMichał WawrykiewiczabortionPiotr PrusinowskiNational Electoral Commissionelectoral codeJanusz NiemcewiczTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaStanisław RymarMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaKazimierz DziałochaBogdan ŚwięczkowskiNetherlandsAndrzej MączyńskiMarek MazurkiewiczvetoStefan JaworskiMirosław GranatOLAFBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaViktor OrbanJózef IwulskiMaciej MiteraSLAPPsjudcial independenceWojciech ŁączkowskiAdam JamrózPATFoxFerdynand RymarzKonrad WytrykowskiRafał Puchalskismear campaignmilestonesKrakówMarzanna Piekarska-Drążekstate of emergencyUkraineelectoral processBelaruscourt presidentsAdam SynakiewiczXero Flor v. PolandAstradsson v Icelandright to fair trialEdyta BarańskaJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraCentral Anti-Corruption BureauJakub IwaniecsurveillancePegasusDariusz DrajewiczJoanna Misztal-KoneckaCivil ChamberK 6/21Wojciech MaczugaSzymon Szynkowski vel SękDariusz ZawistowskiOKO.presselections integrityelections fairnessMarek ZubikBohdan ZdziennickiMirosław WyrzykowskiSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczPiotr TulejaJerzy StępieńAndrzej RzeplińskitransparencyMariusz KamińskiMaciej Taborowskiinsulting religious feelingsPaweł Filipekpublic mediaMariusz MuszyńskiKrystyna PawłowiczlexTuskcourt changesMarek PietruszyńskiMichał LaskowskiSupreme Audit Officeabuse of state resourcesLaw on the NCJEuropean ParliamentJarosław GowincoronavirusRussiaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczFree Courts11 January March in WarsawCCBEPiebiak gatehuman rightsrecommendationC-791/19Human Rights CommissionerMarcin WarchołLGBT ideology free zonesreportEuropean Association of JudgesPiotr Pszczółkowskiretirement agedecommunizationGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgesintimidation of dissentersdemocratic backslidingpublic opinion pollZiobroEU law primacyMarian BanaśThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europecriminal codeBelgiumlex NGOEwa Wrzosekcivil societytransferAdam Tomczyńskimedia pluralismBohdan Bieniek#RecoveryFilesFrans TimmermansLIBE Committeerepairing the rule of lawUS Department of StateMarcin KrajewskiKarolina Miklaszewska2018NGOFull-Scale Election Observation MissionODIHRNations in TransitStanisław ZabłockiPetros TovmasyanJerzy KwaśniewskiPiotr MazurekGrzegorz PudaNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeWiesław KozielewiczChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakCouncil of the EURafał LisakMichał DworczykWojciech Sadurskidefamatory statementsRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtC-619/18Rights and Values Programmejudgepress releaseAntykastalex WoślegislationCourt of Appeal in KrakówPutinismKaczyńskiPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderekct on the Protection of the PopulatioWorld Justice Project awardStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiEmilia SzmydtTomasz SzmydtE-mail scandalAndrzej SkowronKasta/AntykastaKatarzyna Chmuraadvocate generalGrzegorz FurmankiewiczMarek JaskulskiEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaSwieczkowskiDworczyk leaksMałgorzata FroncHater ScandalAleksandra RutkowskaGeneral Court of the EUArkadiusz RadwanLech WałęsaWałęsa v. Polandright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawpilot-judgmentDonald Tusk governmentRafał WojciechowskiDobrochna Bach-Goleckalex RaczkowskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActdisinformationCT Presidentfundamental rightsNational Broadcasting Councilelection fairnessequal treatmentcivil lawMarcin MatczakDariusz KornelukNational School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (KSSiP)codification commissiondelegationsWatchdog PolskaDariusz BarskiLasotapopulismState TribunalRadosław BaszukAction PlanJustice MinistryVěra JourováDonald Tuskjustice system reformAnti-SLAPP Directiveinsultgag lawsuitsstrategic investmentinvestmentlustrationJakub KwiecińskidiscriminationAct on the Supreme Courtelectoral commissionsEuropean Court of HuKrzysztof RączkaPoznańTomasz Koszewskitest of independenceSebastian MazurekElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikJoanna Scheuring-WielgusoppositionThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentAdam Gendźwiłłtransitional justiceDariusz DończykKoan LenaertsKarol WeitzZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaCourt of Appeal in WarsawOsiatyński'a ArchiveEUUS State DepartmentAssessment Actenvironmentextraordinary commissionWhite PaperKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiREuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFJustyna WydrzyńskaAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszJoanna KnobelCrimes of espionageJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiMarek Piertuszyńskihate speechhate crimesmedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandPrzemysław CzarnekJacek CzaputowiczMarcin RomanowskiElżbieta KarskaPrzemysła Radzikmedia lawRafał TrzaskowskiSobczyńska and Others v PolandTelex.huJelenForum shoppingFirst President of the Suprme CourtEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian KaletaOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeC-156/21C-157/21foreign agents lawArticle 2Rome IIJózsef SzájerChamber of Extraordinary VerificationKlubrádióequalityGazeta WyborczaLGBT free zonesPollitykaBrussels Ilegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekAK judgmentautocratizationMultiannual Financial FrameworkOpenbaar MinisterieRegional Court in Amsterdamabortion rulingArticle 10 ECHRprotestsinterim measuresLeszek MazurIrena MajcherAmsterdamLMmutual trustthe Regional Court in Warsawpublic broadcasterUnited NationsForum Współpracy Sędziówthe NetherlandsDenmarkact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsNorwegian fundsNorwayKraśnikOmbudsmanKarlsruheAusl 301 AR 104/19SwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońC-487/19GermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUIrelandMarek AstLSOright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman Giertychtrans-Atlantic valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinancelawyersMirosław Wróblewskirepressive actborderprimacyEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej RutkiewiczAct of 20 December 2019Amnesty InternationalJacek SasinEvgeni TanchevKochenovPechPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryFreedom in the WorldECJErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitFrackowiakDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandRzeszówKoen LenaertsharrassmentOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeinfringment actionHudocPKWKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr BurasLeon KieresIpsosEU valuesNational Prosecutor’s OfficeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOlsztyn courtPrzemysła CzarnekEducation MinisterENCJauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258postal voteTVNjournalistslexTVNEwa MaciejewskaGerard BirgfellerPolish mediaAlina CzubieniakSimpson judgmentpostal vote billclientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officeresolution of 23 January 2020Polish National FoundationLux VeritatisMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykIsrael