Ziobro’s prosecution service wants to charge Judge Tuleya for a judgment critical of PiS party

Share

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

More

The National Prosecution Office has applied for the waiver of Judge Igor Tuleya’s immunity because he ordered an investigation into the Law and Justice vote in the Sejm’s Column Hall. Tuleya will be the first judge to whom the muzzle act will be applied. Because the illegal Disciplinary Chamber will make a decision as to his immunity.



“This is tangible evidence that Poland is no different from Turkey.   The consequences for issuing a judgment on the vote of the Sejm’s majority in the Column Hall should have been expected from the beginning. And I expected them. I am probably one of the pests that should be eliminated,” this is how Judge Igor Tuleya comments on the prosecutor’s motion to waive his immunity.

 

National Prosecution Office: Tuleya has overstepped his powers

 

The internal department of the National Prosecution Office has applied for the waiver of the immunity. This is a special department established by the Law and Justice party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, PiS) or prosecuting prosecutors and judges.

 

The prosecution office wants to waive the immunity in order to press criminal charges against the judge for failing to comply perform his official duties and overstepping his powers, with regard to the judgment issued on 18 December 2017.

 

The National Prosecution Office claims Tuleya unlawfully allowed it to be heard and recorded by journalists. According to the prosecution office, the judge disclosed a secret of the investigation to ‘unauthorized personnel’. The motion for the waiver of the immunity was signed by Prosecutor Dariusz Ziomek, who had been delegated to work for the National Prosecution Office from the Regional Prosecution Office in Gdańsk.

 

The motion will be considered by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court on 20 March 2020. Such motions have been considered to date by the disciplinary court at the court of appeal. However, Law and Justice entered a provision into the muzzle act whereby motions to waive the immunity of judges and prosecutors were to be immediately recognized by the Disciplinary Chamber appointed by Law and Justice.

 

This is how the ruling camp wants to increase the chances of accusing rebellious judges and prosecutors, because the Disciplinary Chamber is staffed mainly with former co-workers of the Minister of Justice and Prosecutor General, Zbigniew Ziobro.

 

The motion to waive Igor Tuleya’s immunity will be considered by Jacek Wygoda, a former prosecutor, among others, associated with the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN).

 

How Tuleya ordered another investigation into the voting in the Column Hall

 

The association of judges, Iustitia, reported the motion to waive the immunity on its Facebook profile on Wednesday, 26 February 2020 (in the evening).

 

However, many months ago, OKO.press was the first to write that the prosecution office intends to press charges against Tuleya.

 

Just to reiterate. Judge Igor Tuleya received a complaint to discontinue the investigation into the Law and Justice voting on the budget for 2017 in the Column Hall of the Sejm for adjudication in December 2017. The Speaker of the Sejm had moved the meeting then because the opposition was protesting against the exclusion of MP Michał Szczerba from the deliberations and the planned restriction of journalists’ rights in the Sejm in the Plenary Hall. A heated protest of the citizens was taking place at that time in front of the parliament.

 

After voting in the Column Hall, the opposition MPs reported the matter to the prosecution office. They wrote in that report that they were not allowed to take part in the deliberations and that there might not have been a quorum during the voting. Therefore, the budget may have been passed illegally. The investigators did not see any faults and dismissed the case.

 

However, Judge Tuleya overruled the decision of the prosecution office and ordered another investigation.

 

Tuleya’s judgment was publicised because he allowed the media to record his oral justification. In the justification, the judge quoted the testimony given in the prosecution office by the Law and Justice MPs. It transpired from them that, among other things, the opposition MPs were not allowed to enter the Column Hall, that the voting reports had been reworked, and that there may not have been a quorum in the hall, because MPs were constantly leaving to go into the corridor.

 

In addition, in view of the discrepancies in the testimony of the Law and Justice MPs, the judge ordered the prosecution office to examine whether they had given false testimony.

 

Judge Tuleya was able to let the media in

 

After Tuleya’s decision, however, the prosecution office discontinued the case for a second time and took an interest in the judge.

 

The case came to the forefront because the prosecution office questioned the employees of the secretariat of the VIII division, in which Tuleya was adjudicating, including the court clerk who was in the courtroom with the judge at that time. Joanna Bitner, President of the Regional Court and former chairperson of the VIII Criminal Division and Judge Wojciech Małek, who assigned the matter of voting in the Column Hall to Tuleya, were also questioned.

 

The willingness of the prosecution office to prosecute the judge is absurd and can be considered as repression of a brave judge whom Law and Justice and its supporters have hated for over a dozen years.

 

Tuleya considered the complaint of the opposition MPs about the discontinuation of the matter of the voting on the budget in the Column Hall by the prosecution office at a court session. He only admitted the journalists for the announcement of the judgment.

 

As a rule, sessions at which complaints against the prosecution office’s decision are heard are held behind closed doors, as referred to in Article 95b para. 1 of the Criminal Procedures Code. The further paragraphs of this provision list which meetings are open to the public.

 

However, Article 95b para. 1 also states that the president of the court or the judge himself may decide that a session, which is, in principle, to be held behind closed doors, may be held in public. This is his discretionary decision.

 

In this case, Tuleya ordered a public hearing. Before the start, the journalists who were present in the courtroom submitted a request for permission to record the meeting and for taking part in it. The judge asked the representatives of the MPs and the prosecutor for their position, and they left the decision to the court.

 

The prosecutor did not raise an objection, for instance by making reference to the good of the investigation or the materials gathered in the case files. In this situation, the judge allowed the hearing to be held in public. It is important that the case applied to a matter which is of importance to the public.

 

Tuleya could also legally disclose evidence from the investigation. Because when a case is filed with the court, the court decides about the extent of disclosure of the material from the case files. The judge did not reveal any secrets from the investigation, because the case had already been discontinued in the prosecution office.

 

Tuleya, who does not bow to the Central Anticorruption Bureau and Ziobro

 

The current motion to waive the immunity for the judgment that was critical of Law and Justice can be treated as an excuse for pressing criminal charges against him. Tuleya has been heavily involved in the defence of the free courts for several years; he often meets with citizens.  He was awarded the prestigious Edward J. Wende prize in 2019 for that.

 

Tuleya also strongly criticizes the ‘good change’ in the courts and Minister Zbigniew Ziobro. He is threatened with disciplinary proceedings for that and for meeting with citizens and for submitting requests for preliminary rulings to the CJEU.

 

But Tuleya has been in the Law and Justice firing line for a dozen or so years. He fell to the right wing’s bad books when he compared the methods of work of Mariusz Kamiński’s Central Anticorruption Bureau (in 2006–2007) to the methods used in the Stalinist era. Tuleya used this comparison in his judgment on the cardiac surgeon, Dr. G., whom he judged for receiving envelopes with money from patients.

 

And he became one of the right wing’s most hated judges in Poland for this comparison. Because he criticized the service subordinated to Mariusz Kamiński at that time. Kamiński is currently the head of the Ministry of Interior and Administration and vice president of Law and Justice.



Author


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


More

Published

February 27, 2020

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