“In criminal cases, such active judges who want to “fight the system” can damage the justice system. They violate the common interest of the whole society,” Judge Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woicka, President of the National Judicial Council, said in an interview with the wPolityce.pl portal.
wPolityce.pl: The political activism of judges is getting stronger. You warned about this a few years ago. Victims of this pathology are not only the parties who appear in court, but also the judges themselves. In your case it happened that one of the politically engaged judges imposed a fine on you. For what and on what basis?
Judge Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woicka, President of the National Court Registry: I have been fined by the court ruling in Gliwice. Judge Paweł Strumiński sat on the bench. He is an active user of social media. His entries indicate his political involvement. This is clear. This gentleman, who became a judge when my judicial experience reached 20 years, appealed to the National Judicial Council, under penalty of a fine, in a civil suit, to provide a full set of documentation of Judge X’s nomination process .
Was Judge Strumiński’s case the judge whose documents were requested?
I don’t know the material on this case. I learned from the contents of the judgment that it was about excluding the judge from trial in the case. Of course, I don’t know what allegations the site has made. Meanwhile, we (KRS – ed.) do not collect a “set of documents”. Of course we have copies of certain documents.
Collected in the presidential nomination process?
We process documents in the appointment procedure, we have our resolution with justification, recording of the Council meeting, minutes. These sources are original. We also have a report card with non-sensitive data.
Did you hand over these documents to Judge Strumiński?
The problem is that the judge didn’t specify exactly what he wants. He only gave a dictionary definition of “complete” or completeness. In my opinion, what I delivered to him was complete and complete. In response I was fined.
With what justification?
The justification was my alleged refusal to hand over the documents.
Did you want to hide something from Judge Strumiński?
I don’t know what he expected of us. After all, I cannot provide the court with a copy of a document of which I do not have the original. Civil procedural law provides for the actions of the parties. If a party makes a request, it must ask the competent authority to provide a document or a copy and submit it to the court. If the judge decides that he wants to see the original, he can order the original documents to be handed over or go to the seat of the authority concerned and consult them there.
What’s next for this case?
I have to ask for a justification. The fine was imposed on me as a private individual. Meanwhile, as a natural person, I do not have any documents in which the court was interested in this case.
Well, then we have a problem, because you are the head of the body, which is the National Judicial Council. At the same time, the court treated you as a natural person.
Unlike the criminal procedure, the civil procedure does not provide for the imposition of fines on a government agency. This is not the only judge to ask for documents. It is an organized action. In another case, Judge Przymusiński decided to test the assessor himself. That’s why he asked us for a set of documents. I explained to the judge that in the case of assessors we have nothing. The judge asked for personal files. In the second decision, he required the applicant’s personal files from the director of the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution. We are dealing with a demonstration, it serves no purpose. They do not serve the parties. That can only help the party that is counting on the length of the procedure.
There are also situations that affect the interests of the judiciary and the interests of the parties. This is the case with the decision of Judge Piotr Gąciarek of the Warsaw District Court. He suspended the execution of a mother who almost killed her child. He challenged the Court of Appeal ruling and the status of the judges who sentenced this woman to a long prison term. He makes similar decisions, also with regard to the perpetrators of the crime, in batches.
In criminal cases, such active judges who want to “fight the system” can damage the justice system. They violate the common interest of the whole society. It amazes me that a group of judges can shake the whole country and nothing happens. In some cases, if a party falls before a judge or group of judges, they may not get justice.
The mere impression that justice is not forthcoming is dangerous for the judiciary.
Especially when it comes to active judges of “Iustitia”. Unfortunately, I have the impression that it is difficult for some judges to seek impartiality.
Only that such decisions affect the interests of the judiciary. They cause society to misrepresent all judges, not just a group of activists. The judges of “Iustitia” and “Themis” themselves state that they are acting in accordance with the constitution.
I am not familiar with all the constitutional lectures organized by these associations, but I have seen attempts to indoctrinate people attending these meetings. I do not agree with the statements of judicial activists.
Today we know that part of the activity of these associations is financed by foreign funds. Where is the place for the independence and impartiality of the judiciary?
It’s very complicated. The law does not prohibit it, but there must be complete transparency here. If one of the board members of a foundation cooperating with the “Iustitia” or “Themis” associations has a complaint filed against him and requests for pre-trial detention are filed with the court, and a judge of one of these associations recognizes them, then I have the impression that the judgment may not be impartial. Recently we see judges being expelled from Iustitia for their opinions. The roundtable discussed the issue of the apolitical nature of the judiciary, similar to the work on the constitution. It was argued that judges who were members of the Polish United Workers’ Party were bound by party resolutions. It was unacceptable. Hence the argument for including such a provision in the constitution, and that was done.
Wojciech Biedron spoke
Source: wPolityce