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 CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandZbigniew Ziobrorule of lawEuropean CommissionjudgesCourt of Justice of the EUjudicial independenceNational Council of the JudiciaryEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemEuropean Court of Human RightsMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiWaldemar Żurekdemocracymuzzle lawpresidential electionsPiotr SchabjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020Kamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerBeata MorawiecPrzemysław RadzikFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsMichał LasotaEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiPrime MinisterJulia Przyłębskamedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19National Recovery PlanNational Council for JudiciaryPresidentfreedom of expressionŁukasz PiebiakCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawdisciplinary liability for judgeselectionsWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanMałgorzata GersdorfAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynAnna DalkowskaNational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetWłodzimierz WróbelCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorDagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaStanisław PiotrowiczJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisK 7/21May 10 2020 electionsLex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandSejmXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v Polandmedia independenceIustitiaJarosław DudziczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczArticle 6 ECHRTHEMISEAWUrsula von der LeyenmediaimmunityCouncil of Europe2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaRecovery FundP 7/20Justice Fundneo-judgesPiSC-791/19National Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Piotr PszczółkowskiPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaProfessional Liability ChamberJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikorasuspensionJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesReczkowicz and Others v. PolandUkraineKrystian MarkiewiczKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczDariusz DrajewiczRafał PuchalskidefamationcourtsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekEwa WrzosekEU law primacyChamber of Professional LiabilityTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej Miterademocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetoJózef 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.pressZiobroMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskitransferPiotr GąciarekKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiRegional Court in KrakówPiebiak gatehuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencycoronavirusXero Flor v. PolandEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej Rutkiewiczresolution of 23 January 2020Mirosław WróblewskiCivil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaLeon Kieresright to protestSławomir JęksaPKWWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMariusz Kamińskiinfringment actionsurveillanceEU valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauENCJJacek 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 AstMaciej FerekChamber 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 PopulatioparliamentlegislationRafał Trzaskowskilex Wośmedia lawRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtPrzemysła RadzikAntykastaSenateStanisław 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 ECHRmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentRegional Court in Amsterdamrepairing the rule of lawharassmentOpenbaar 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 TovmasyanLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited NationsLeszek Mazurpopulisminterim measuresautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingequal treatmentabortionprotestsfundamental rightsthe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońCT PresidentGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact 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 generalDariusz ZawistowskitransparencyEuropean Economic and Social Committeepress releaseSebastian KaletaRights and Values ProgrammeC-156/21C-157/21C-619/18Marek Piertuszyńskidefamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardNational Prosecutor’s Officeintimidation of dissentersWojciech 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 WawrzykharrassmentMarian BanaśAlina CzubieniakSupreme Audit OfficeTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediapostal voteKrakówRzeszówborderpostal vote billprimacy