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


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


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.


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



March 6, 2023


Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandZbigniew ZiobrojudgesCourt 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 KaczyńskiWaldemar Żurekmuzzle lawKamil ZaradkiewiczNational Recovery Plandemocracypresidential electionsdisciplinary commissionerPiotr SchabPrzemysław RadzikjudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme CourtAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsSupreme Administrative CourtK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020neo-judgeselectionsBeata MorawiecJulia PrzyłębskaprosecutorsŁukasz PiebiakNational Council for JudiciaryMichał LasotaEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiPrime MinisterPresidentmedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawCOVID-19Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaMałgorzata GersdorfSejmharassmentPaweł JuszczyszynEU budgetfreedom of expressiondisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiStanisław PiotrowiczMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPresident of the Republic of PolandMaciej FerekimmunityAnna DalkowskaNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsfreedom 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 PolandLGBTXero 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 2023Labour and Social Security Chamber2017policeJustice 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-SikorasuspensionJarosław GowinLGBT ideology free zonesUkraineKrystian MarkiewiczKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecSenateZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczDariusz DrajewiczRafał PuchalskidefamationcourtsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsConstitutional Tribunal PresidentMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekEwa WrzosekEU law primacyLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej Miterademocratic backslidingPiotr PrusinowskiViktor 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 fundssmear campaignNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał DworczykC-487/19media pluralism#RecoveryFilesArticle 10 ECHRmilestonesRegional 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 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 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