The Warsaw Court of Appeal overturned a decision by Judge Piotr Gąciarek from February that had stayed enforcement proceedings against a drug dealer. A public figure known for judicial activism criticized the final verdict, which was issued by a panel formed under a new composition of the National Judicial Council. Reports circulated that the appeal court’s decision caused embarrassment for the original judge.
The case drew attention to ongoing debates about judicial appointments and the balance between ensuring accountability and maintaining the integrity of final judgments. Observers noted that the appellate court in Warsaw provided its reasoning, highlighting that the appointment of judges, including those appointed at the request of the National Court Register under recent legislation, must be understood as a legitimate process with full authority to adjudicate. This perspective challenges arguments that post hoc changes in appointment procedures should automatically affect past decisions.
The appellate panel emphasized that the Court must consider the entire appointment process and its cumulative evaluation, referencing high court precedents and constitutional rulings that frame the interpretation of such processes. The decision also included recognition of human rights protections under the European Convention on Human Rights, underscoring that the rule of law bounds all actors within the judiciary.
According to the appellate justification, suspending the execution of a sentence—especially one as lengthy as six years and six months—can run counter to the principle that final judgments are to be respected. The ruling makes clear that such suspensions cannot be used to undermine established verdicts, even amid disputes about who properly served on the bench at the time of the original decision.
Upon the turnover of the case, Judge Gąciarek no longer serves in the Law Enforcement Division of the Warsaw Regional Court. He was reassigned to another division, reducing his ability to influence ongoing matters within that court. The broader context includes intense public debate about the judiciary and concerns raised by various factions about perceived political influences within some judicial circles. Experts stress the importance of protecting the independence and certainty of court decisions while continuing to review appointment practices in a transparent and legally grounded manner.
In summary, the appellate court’s action reaffirms that the judiciary operates on a framework of procedural integrity, constitutional safeguards, and human rights considerations. It cautions against using procedural technicalities to delay or overturn final judgments and reinforces the principle that all adjudicatory bodies must function within a reliable and predictable system, free from partisan interference.