In criminal proceedings, active judges who pursue a combative stance against the system can undermine public justice. This was the warning voiced by Judge Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woicka, the President of the National Judicial Council, in an interview on the wPolityce.pl portal.
The interview touched on the growing political engagement among judges. You had warned about this trend years ago. The consequences of such activism extend beyond the parties appearing before the courts to the judges themselves. In one instance, a politically engaged judge imposed a fine on you. What was the basis for that action and what were its specifics?
Judge Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woicka, who heads the National Court Registry, described being fined by a Gliwice court ruling, with Judge Paweł Strumiński presiding. He is known for active social media use, and his posts reflected political involvement. This individual, who became a judge after the judge accrued roughly twenty years of experience, petitioned the National Judicial Council in a civil suit to obtain a complete set of documents related to Judge X’s nomination process under penalty of a fine.
Was Judge Strumiński the one whose case involved a request for documents?
She stated that she did not have the material on that particular case. The judgment only indicated that it concerned removing the judge from the trial, and she did not know what specific allegations were raised. The council, she noted, does not collect a full dossier, although copies of certain documents are kept.
Were these documents part of the presidential nomination process?
Documents are processed during the appointment procedure, with resolutions, justifications, recorded council meetings, and minutes serving as original sources. In addition, a report card with non-sensitive data is maintained.
Was the disclosure of these documents made to Judge Strumiński?
The problem was that the judge did not specify exactly what he wanted, offering only a dictionary definition of complete. In her view, what was delivered was complete and sufficient. In response she was fined.
What justified the fine?
The justification cited was her alleged refusal to hand over the documents.
Did she try to hide something from Judge Strumiński?
She did not know what the judge expected. After all, she cannot provide the court with a copy of a document that she does not possess in its original form. Civil procedural law requires parties to request documents from the competent authority and then submit them to the court. If the judge wants the original, he can order the originals or visit the relevant office to review them there.
What happens next in this case?
She intends to file for justification. The fine was imposed on her as a private individual, and as a natural person she does not hold documents that the court sought in this instance.
Thus a tension arises because she leads the National Judicial Council while the court treated her as a private party.
In civil procedure, unlike criminal procedure, government agencies generally cannot be fined. This is not the only instance of a judge requesting documents. In another case, Judge Przymusiński tested an assessor himself, leading to requests for a set of documents. She explained that when it came to assessors, nothing existed to hand over. The judge then sought the applicant’s personnel files from the director of the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution. The pursuit appeared to be a performance with little practical value for the parties involved, often prolonging the process.
There have also been cases affecting the judiciary’s integrity and the parties’ interests. One example involved Judge Piotr Gąciarek of the Warsaw District Court, who suspended the execution of a mother nearly responsible for harming her child. He challenged the Court of Appeal’s ruling and questioned the status of the judges who sentenced the woman, applying similar actions to other offenders in batches.
In criminal matters, judges who aggressively seek confrontation with the system risk damaging the justice framework and undermining the public interest. It is striking that a group of judges can influence the entire country without immediate consequences. When a party feels wronged or denied justice, trust in the judiciary erodes.
The perception that justice is out of reach poses a danger to the judicial system. This is especially true regarding the activities of certain active judges associated with groups like Iustitia. There is a concern that impartiality can be compromised in some cases, particularly when the judges themselves express strong ideological stances.
Although not all activities are fully understood, it is clear that part of the work of these associations is supported by foreign funding. The question remains: where does independence and neutrality fit into this?
Transparency emerges as a key requirement. If a board member of a foundation linked with Iustitia or Themis faces complaints or pre-trial detention considerations that another judge at the association recognizes, questions about impartiality arise. There has also been talk of judges being expelled from Iustitia for their opinions. The roundtable discussions on apolitics and constitutional matters highlighted that former members of the Polish United Workers’ Party faced restrictions, reinforcing the argument for constitutional safeguards to govern such affiliations.
Wojciech Biedroń spoke
Source: wPolityce