The wPolityce.pl portal found and confirmed that the Supreme Court did not accept the request of the Attorney General and refused to suspend the execution of the judgment challenged by the extraordinary complaint (file reference number II NSNk 23/23). This means that journalists have to pay a fine of 10,000 euros. zlotys, as judged by the SO in Warsaw, in its bizarre verdict of May this year. Fortunately, the Supreme Court ruling does not ultimately determine the case of journalists and the Attorney General’s indictment.
READ ALSO: OUR NEWS. The Prosecutor General filed an extraordinary complaint with the Supreme Court regarding the shameful sentence against Magdalena Ogórek and Rafał Ziemkiewicz
By decision of 18 August 2023, the Supreme Court did not accept the request of the Attorney General and refused to suspend the execution of the judgment challenged by the extraordinary complaint (case number II NSNk 23/23)
– we read in the reply of the Supreme Court to the questions of the wPolityce.pl portal.
Justification
According to Judge Maria Szczepaniec, the Prosecutor General did not properly justify the request for suspension of the execution of the sentence and the fine of PLN 10,000 was not properly justified. zlotys should not lead to a material loss for Magdalena Ogórek and Rafał Ziemkiewicz.
(…) The motivation for the motion to suspend the execution of the judgment contained in the extraordinary complaint is firstly laconic and secondly characterized by a high degree of abstraction. It should be emphasized that the Prosecutor General has not only failed to substantiate this request properly, but has not even indicated the circumstances that could indicate that the payment by the convicts of fines of 200 daily fines of PLN 50 each would entail a financial loss for causes them an above-average ailment
– argues Judge Maria Szczepaniec in her statement of reasons.
I also read in the justification that not taking into account the request of the Attorney General to suspend the execution of the sentence does not prejudge the complaint itself and the final outcome of this case at the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court emphatically emphasizes that it in no way determines the final judgment on the merits of the extraordinary complaint, but that its reading does not, at first sight, lead to the conclusion of obvious legitimacy that would allow the execution of the suspend the contested judgment
– we read in the motivation of judge Szczepaniec.
Political judgments
The case concerns the material from the TVP.INFO program “In the back of vision” from 2019. Journalists described the aggressive behavior of Podleśna and her associates and friends. It was about a loud attack on Magdalena Ogórek leaving the TVP building. Known for her aggressive behavior, the activist quickly filed a personal libel suit with the court. Initially, the court dropped the proceedings, but the case was reconsidered. Then the judiciary began to act suspiciously quickly and efficiently against journalists hated by the opposition and the “caste”. In December 2022, the court sentenced the publicists to a fine of 10,000. zloty. But already in May 2023, the court in Warsaw upheld the court’s verdict in its entirety.
Extraordinary complaint
The Prosecutor’s Office stressed that the offenses committed by the court (District and Regional Court in Warsaw) were so important that it had to be assumed that they had not been committed under Article 45(1.1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, the duty of the court to examine all relevant aspects of a particular case and duly justify its ruling. Thus, both rulings of the Warsaw courts appear to be arbitrary. The actions of the courts also violated art. 14 and art. 54 sec. 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland regarding freedom of the press and means of social communication, de facto suppressing press criticism.
The Attorney General also disagreed with the court’s opinion that the suspects acted in their own interests or in the interests of the editors. Such a statement is illogical – because it is difficult to determine, and the court did not do it – what that interest would consist of, especially when one considers that experienced journalists, if they acted with premeditation, would be aware of the threat of criminal or civil liability
– informed the National Public Prosecutor’s Office on our website.
The error of the courts, pointed out by the Attorney General, was also the omission of the principle of individualization of criminal liability under Art. 20 kk. The applicant argues that the statements of the journalists should be treated separately and that the court’s suggestion that they acted according to a pre-existing script contradicted the practical experience, given the nature of the dynamic live program with audience participation.
The Prosecutor General requested the annulment of the judgment of the Warsaw District Court and a decision on the merits by amending the judgment of the Court of First Instance and acquitting the defendants of having committed the act of which they were accused
the prosecutor argued.
UK
Source: wPolityce