The Warsaw-Mokotów District Court in Warsaw has rejected the complaint filed by the lawyer for Marcin Romanowski regarding the March decision by the National Prosecutor’s Office to demand the handover of items and to search the residences associated with the politician. The announcement was issued today by the National Public Prosecution Service.
At the end of March, the Internal Security Agency, collaborating with prosecutors examining the Justice Fund and acting on their orders, conducted searches at numerous locations across the country. The operations involved politicians aligned with Sovereign Poland and MPs from the PiS circle, including former head of the Ministry of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro and his former deputies Marcin Romanowski and Michał Woś.
The court’s ruling
Today the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court in Warsaw did not uphold the appeal lodged by Marcin Romanowski’s legal representative against the National Public Prosecution Service’s March 25, 2024 decision to require the surrender of items and to conduct searches at the described locations. The court’s press statements indicated that the ruling was not found to contain errors.
The Public Prosecution Service reported on Friday evening that the court considered the search justified and carried out in accordance with legal provisions. The court noted no irregularities in the execution of the searches. It was stated that the retention of certain objects was supported by the facts of the case and the applicable legal framework.
The Justice Fund case
The investigation into the Justice Fund, ongoing since February, encompasses multiple strands. It examines potential abuses of power and failures to perform duties by the Minister of Justice and civil servants involved in managing, distributing, and accounting for funds from the Justice Fund. The fund is intended to aid crime victims and provide post-penitentiary support, among other objectives.
According to the authorities, individuals acting to secure financial and personal gains allegedly offered discretionary and arbitrary financial support to beneficiaries of programs not aligned with the fund’s stated goals. Prosecutors argue that such actions harmed the public interest by affecting state finances and diverting funds away from authorized recipients.
Some lawmakers have pointed out that this line of inquiry has not produced proof of certain alleged financial benefits, drawing parallels to other cases where charges did not lead to guilt. The broader discussion surrounding the case highlights ongoing political and public-interest tensions that accompany high-profile investigations.
With ongoing assessments of the fund and related actions, observers note that the case reflects a broader debate over accountability, transparency, and the use of public resources in the justice sector.
–