Ziobro’s man censors Judge Igor Tuleya. He banned his columns about the courts on the radio


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


The ban on recording columns was issued by Przemyslaw Radzik, Minister Ziobro’s man for prosecuting independent judges and his nominee in Poland’s largest court. Radzik did not like it that Tuleya wanted to record columns about courts and the rule of law for the civic Halo.Radio.

This is additional harassment of Judge Igor Tuleya from Warsaw who is being repressed on disciplinary charges and criminally prosecuted by the National Prosecutor’s Office. At the beginning of February 2021, the judge informed his superiors at his home Regional Court in Warsaw of his intention to record columns for the civic Halo.Radio. The judge did so because it is an additional occupation and the court authorities should know about it.


The columns will not interfere with the judge’s work because Tuleya has not adjudicated for 99 days after the illegal Disciplinary Chamber suspended him (it also cut his salary by 25%) and the court authorities removed him from adjudication. The judge was also supposed to record the columns for free.


However, on Wednesday, 24 February, he was prohibited from working with Halo.Radio. The decision was made by the famous Przemysław Radzik, who, as the deputy chief disciplinary commissioner, prosecutes independent judges, and who was recently appointed vice-president of the Regional Court in Warsaw on the nomination of Ziobro’s ministry.


Radzik did not like the radio, which he considered ‘politicized’. ‘Radzik is already not only a disciplinary commissioner and vice-president of the court, but he also wants to be a censor. His assessment of Halo.Radio is outrageous. I will probably continue doing columns, for which they will automatically impose disciplinary sanctions on me,’ Judge Igor Tuleya tells OKO.press.


How the prosecuted judge wanted to talk about the courts and the law


Judge Igor Tuleya is a symbol of the free courts. He is being prosecuted by Ziobro’s men for criticizing the minister’s ‘reforms’, defending the free courts and meeting with citizens. He has received several disciplinary sanctions for this. And the internal affairs department of the National Prosecutor’s Office wants to press criminal charges against him for a ruling that was unfavourable to PiS, for which he let journalists in. To this end, in November 2020, the illegal Disciplinary Chamber lifted his immunity and simultaneously suspended him as a judge.


However, Tuleya does not recognize the Chamber as being legal and has already failed to appear twice for questioning when summoned by the National Prosecutor’s Office. It can now be expected that the prosecutor’s office will apply to the Chamber for its consent for the police to detain him and bring him to them forcibly. Tuleya is aware of this, but the judicial community is fully behind him.


In a letter to the authorities of the Regional Court in Warsaw, Tuleya informed them that he wants to publish columns on education and the broadly-understood rule of law. He was asked to specify exactly what they would be about. The judge specified that the 2–5 minute columns would be posted on the radio’s website. They will be pre-recorded. They will apply, among other things, to the right to a fair trial, the independence of the judiciary, the impartiality of judges, the administration of justice under the Constitution and criminal procedures. His column of 19 February is on the radio’s website; the judge talks in it about the types of pre-war judges.


The vice-president for criminal cases of the Regional Court in Warsaw, Przemyslaw Radzik, who raised an objection, made the decision to prohibit the recording of the columns. He referred to a provision of the Act on Courts that states that an objection to additional employment of a judge is issued if it will interfere with the performance of the judge’s duties, undermine confidence in his impartiality or bring disrepute to the judge’s office.


Radzik attacks Halo.Radio


In his decision, Radzik wrote that, in his opinion, Halo.Radio, which was founded by Fundacja Obywatelska [the Civic Foundation] and relies on donations from its listeners, is extremely ‘politicized’. For Radzik, the proof of this is the description of the nature of the radio from its website.


The radio station writes about itself as follows: ‘HALO.RADIO is a modern media project, based on the foundation of IMPARTIALITY, namely the basis of journalism. We do not advocate any political option, and we want to fulfil the role of a carrier of information and an unbiased commentary. We watch all politicians closely with equal commitment and energy, regardless of the camp or option they represent.’


Radzik did not like the statement that the radio watches all politicians closely, dividing them into options, namely the government and the opposition. He also points out that the radio was created on the initiative of the Civic Foundation and that there are sharp, blunt journalistic programmes on the radio, which avoid ‘political correctness’. But it is not clear from his decision why he considers such a formula of the radio to be extremely politicized.


In his decision, he writes that it is better to cooperate with the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution, which is subordinated to Minister Ziobro and is headed by Dariusz Pawłyszcze, privately the partner of Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woicka, a member of the new NCJ and president of the Regional Court in Kraków, nominated by Ziobro’s ministry.


Radzik makes it clear that training for lawyers is also better than columns. Meanwhile, he considers cooperation with private entities questionable. Furthermore, Radzik is concerned that Tuleya’s columns could increase the reach of the Civic Foundation, which founded the radio. And its ‘political’ nature will undermine confidence in the profession of judge. Furthermore, according to Radzik, Tuleya’s cooperation with the radio would also breach the Code of Professional Ethics of Judges and Court Assessors, which states that a judge must avoid behaviour that undermines his impartiality.


At the end of his decision, Radzik falls into absurdity and ridicule. He writes that publishing legal columns on Halo.Radio ‘can dangerously gain the attribute of him [Tuleya – ed.] providing legal advice’. His entire decision is on the Facebook profile of the Iustitia association of judges, which disclosed it.


Iustitia: Radzik has become a censor


Radzik’s letter does not explain the reasons for prohibiting Tuleya from publishing columns in Halo.Radio. The vice-president of the court did not give any serious allegations for his argument about the ‘politicization’ of the radio. So maybe he is referring to the announcement of Tuleya’s already published column, in which the judge is presented as ‘a judge repressed by Kaczyński’s regime’. Radzik may also not like the radio’s columnists, namely Professor Magdalena Środa, attorney Sylwia Gregorczyk-Abram from the Free Courts, who defends repressed judges, or Professor Marcin Matczak, who defends the rule of law in Poland and who works with the radio.


‘Radzik is no longer satisfied with the function of vice-president and disciplinary commissioner; now, he has decided to become a censor and choose the media Igor in which Tuleya can express himself. I don’t know where Mr Radzik gets this fascination with communist methods; he is behaving like a character taken from a different era,’


Judge Bartłomiej Przymusiński, a member of the management board of the ‘Iustitia’ Association of Polish Judges, comments on Tuleya’s prohibition. And adds: ‘We shall not agree to censorship activities. This case should also incite objections among journalists’.


The judge is also defended by the Warsaw branch of Iustitia: ‘How many more instruments and tools will be used to humiliate and degrade Judge Igor Tuleya? This is an oddity. A judge who is suspended, who has been prohibited from taking any action, is forbidden from conducting educational activities, with the argument that this will ‘undermine confidence in his impartiality’. After all, he cannot make a single procedural decision in any case! Therefore, there is no question of undermining confidence in his impartiality, and only the mere content of his columns and the judge’s statements can prove whether they are unworthy of a judge,’ says judge Katarzyna Wróbel-Zumbrzycka, president of the Warsaw branch of Iustitia.


The editor-in-chief of Halo.Radio, Mariusz Rokos, is also amazed by Radzik’s decision and the allegations against the radio station. ‘I wanted to hire a detective to look for the sense and logic in Radzik’s decision. Impartiality and looking closely at all politicians cannot be used as arguments concluding that the radio is politicized. Radzik does not understand what freedom of speech and independent media are,’ Mariusz Rokos tells OKO.press. And adds: ‘Radzik demands that Tuleya stops talking on air about judicial impartiality and the independence of the courts. But Tuleya will continue to talk, no one will shut him up. The radio is standing behind him. We will defend Judge Tuleya’s right of free speech.’


Radzik banned another judge from training trainees


This is yet another example of how the new authorities of the Regional Court in Warsaw, appointed by Minister Ziobro, will toughen the course taken with respect to the capital’s judges. Piotr Schab, who is simultaneously Minister Ziobro’s chief disciplinary commissioner, has been the president here for several months. He replaced Joanna Bitner.

And Przemysław Radzik was recently made his deputy for criminal matters, also being the deputy chief disciplinary commissioner (namely Schab in a different role).


Radzik has already shown that he will prosecute the capital’s judges at work. Judge Piotr Gąciarek, who is very active in defending the free courts and is a member of the Warsaw Iustitia, already has problems. A week ago, Court President Piotr Schab, reported him to the disciplinary commissioner. The president did not like the fact that Gąciarek was defending Tuleya in front of the National Prosecutor’s Office. He also did not like his criticism of the prosecutor’s office and the fact that he organized a picket in defence of the prosecutor’s office and that he went there without his consent. It did not end there. Because Radzik, as the vice-president of the court, following in Schab’s footsteps, prohibited Gąciarz from participating in training for trainee attorneys-at-law.


However, Radzik is not consistent. Because, while he praised the training of lawyers in Tuleya’s prohibition, in the case of Gąciarek he considered that if he trained them this would bring dishonour to the office of a judge. The new authorities of the largest court did not stop there. They included a prohibition to take photographs in court without their consent in the court rules. This strikes at independent judges, because they had previously taken solidarity photographs in court with repressed judges. Now the Warsaw judges hold solidarity pickets outside the court, in a car park on the other side of Al. Solidarności, opposite the regional court.


Harassment of punitively posted prosecutors


But it is not only Ziobro’s people in the courts who are tightening the screw. The same is happening in Prosecutor General Ziobro’s prosecutor’s office. It is mainly the rebellious prosecutors from the Lex Super Omnia association, which is critical of Ziobro and National Prosecutor Bogdan Święczkowski, who experience repression and additional harassment. Overall, Bogdan Święczkowski has sent seven prosecutors on punitive postings several hundred kilometres away from home. But this was not the end of it. Ewa Wrzosek from Warsaw, who now works in Śrem in Wielkopolska, was recently prevented by her supervisor from attending a meeting with law students.


Meanwhile, on Wednesday, 24 February 2021, the National Prosecutor’s Office announced that it would sue Katarzyna Kwiatkowska, the head of the Lex Super Omnia association, who had been punitively posted in Golub-Dobrzyń. The prosecution office announced the lawsuit because it was hurt by her criticism of Ziobro’s prosecution service and National Prosecutor Bogdan Święczkowski. Kwiatkowska criticized them in an interview with Gazeta Wyborcza. However, the announcement of the lawsuit may be a response to Kwiatkowska’s lawsuit. Because she filed a lawsuit in court on Tuesday, 23 February against the prosecutor’s office for the punitive posting and is demanding compensation.



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



February 26, 2021


Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional TribunalPolandjudgesdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean Commissionjudicial independenceEuropean UnionMałgorzata ManowskaAndrzej DudaCourt of JusticeIgor TuleyaEuropean Court of Human Rightsdisciplinary systemMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiMateusz MorawieckiCJEUmuzzle lawNational Recovery PlanAdam BodnarCommissioner for Human RightsdemocracyWaldemar ŻurekPrzemysław Radzikcriminal lawpresidential electionselectionsKamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerPiotr Schabmedia freedomneo-judgeselections 2023Julia PrzyłębskajudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme Courtpreliminary rulingsSupreme Administrative CourtHungaryelections 2020K 3/21Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaNational Council for JudiciaryharassmentProsecutor GeneralprosecutorsŁukasz PiebiakMichał LasotaBeata MorawiecPaweł JuszczyszynCourt of Justice of the European UnionPrime MinisterPresidentConstitutionCOVID-19European Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiCriminal ChamberRegional Court in KrakówRecovery FundExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberEU budgetfreedom of expressionprosecutiondisciplinary liability for judgesWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanMałgorzata GersdorfSejmcourtsMaciej Ferekfreedom of assemblyconditionalityLaw and JusticeNCJMinistry of JusticeJustice FundNational ProsecutorPiSStanisław PiotrowiczAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPresident of the Republic of PolandIustitiaTHEMISimmunityAnna DalkowskaNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europecriminal proceedingsStanisław Biernatconditionality mechanismWłodzimierz WróbelLabour and Social Security Chambercommission on Russian influence2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiNational Electoral CommissionJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsPresident of PolandLGBTXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v PolandReczkowicz and Others v. Polandmedia independenceKrystian MarkiewiczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczMichał WawrykiewiczArticle 6 ECHREAWUrsula von der LeyenTVPmediaLex Super OmniaLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaDidier ReyndersStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationAndrzej StępkaPiotr GąciarekcorruptionP 7/20K 7/21Lex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanProfessional Liability ChambersuspensionparliamentJarosław DudziczChamber of Professional Liabilityelectoral codePiotr Prusinowskidemocratic backslidingdecommunizationLaw on the NCJrecommendationHuman Rights CommissionerCCBEThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europepublic opinion pollreportEuropean ParliamentZiobrointimidation of dissenterstransferretirement agePiebiak gatehuman rightsEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawcoronavirusC-791/19Piotr PszczółkowskiGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaJarosław GowinLGBT ideology free zonescriminal codeSenateZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczMarcin WarchołdefamationFree CourtsEwa WrzosekEU law primacyAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej MiteraViktor OrbanOLAFNext Generation EUvetoabortionJózef IwulskiTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiMarek MazurkiewiczAndrzej MączyńskiJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław RymarFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskiBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikSLAPPOKO.pressDariusz ZawistowskiMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiMarian BanaśSupreme Audit OfficeAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyKrakówXero Flor v. PolandAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Civil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaPegasusMariusz KamińskisurveillanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraEdyta Barańskaright to fair trialUkraineKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecDariusz DrajewiczRafał Puchalskismear campaignmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentMarzanna Piekarska-Drążekelectoral processWojciech Maczugapublic medialexTuskcourt changeselections integrityelections fairnessabuse of state resourcesPATFoxpopulismequal treatmentfundamental rightsCT PresidentEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justice2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUStanisław ZabłockiLIBE CommitteeFrans TimmermansUS Department of StateSwieczkowskiadvocate generalpress releaseRights and Values ProgrammeC-619/18defamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardWojciech SadurskijudgePechKochenovEvgeni TanchevFreedom in the WorldECJFrackowiakAmnesty Internationaltrans-Atlantic valuesLSOlawyersAct of 20 December 2019repressive actKoen LenaertsharrassmentAlina CzubieniakGerard BirgfellerEwa Maciejewskapostal votepostal vote billresolution of 23 January 2020Leon KieresPKWinfringment actionEU valuesENCJIsraelforeign agents lawOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawPrzemysła RadzikElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsC-487/19Article 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentSimpson judgmentForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited NationsLeszek Mazurinterim measuresautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingproteststhe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europemedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióGazeta WyborczaPollitykaBrussels IRome IIArticle 2Forum shoppingtransparencyEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian KaletaC-156/21C-157/21Marek PiertuszyńskiNational Prosecutor’s OfficeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOlsztyn courtPrzemysła CzarnekEducation MinisterIpsosOlimpia Barańska-MałuszeHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr Burasauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258clientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's OfficePolish National FoundationLux VeritatisMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykTVNjournalistslexTVNPolish mediaRzeszówborderprimacyEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej RutkiewiczMirosław Wróblewskiright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMichał WośMinistry of FinanceJacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryMarek AstCourt of Appeal in KrakówPutinismKaczyńskiPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderekct on the Protection of the Populatiolegislationlex WośRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtAntykastaStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczKatarzyna ChmuraGrzegorz FurmankiewiczMarek JaskulskiJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaKasta/AntykastaAndrzej SkowronŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiEmilia SzmydtTomasz SzmydtE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał Dworczykmedia pluralism#RecoveryFilesrepairing the rule of lawBohdan BieniekMarcin KrajewskiMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsWiesław KozielewiczNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeGrzegorz PudaPiotr MazurekJerzy KwaśniewskiPetros Tovmasyancourt presidentsODIHRFull-Scale Election Observation MissionNGOKarolina MiklaszewskaRafał LisakMałgorzata FroncJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiSebastian MazurekElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikSzymon Szynkowski vel SękJoanna Scheuring-Wielgusinsulting religious feelingsoppositionAdam GendźwiłłDariusz Dończyktest of independenceTomasz KoszewskiJakub KwiecińskidiscriminationAct on the Supreme Courtelectoral commissionsEuropean Court of HuKrzysztof RączkaPoznańKoan LenaertsKarol WeitzKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiRThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFJustyna WydrzyńskaAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszJoanna KnobelCrimes of espionageextraordinary commissionZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaCourt of Appeal in WarsawOsiatyński'a ArchiveUS State DepartmentAssessment Actenvironmentinvestmentstrategic investmentgag lawsuitslex RaczkowskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActdisinformationNational Broadcasting Councilelection fairnessDobrochna Bach-GoleckaRafał WojciechowskiAleksandra RutkowskaGeneral Court of the EUArkadiusz RadwanLech WałęsaWałęsa v. Polandright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawpilot-judgmentDonald Tusk governmentSLAPPscivil lawRadosław BaszukAction PlanJustice MinistryVěra JourováDonald Tuskjustice system reform