Judge Piotr Gąciarek has drawn significant attention for delaying the enforcement of a sentence in a high-profile fraud case involving the embezzlement of 9.5 million PLN from EU funds. The case has become a focal point in discussions about the judiciary and political influence, prompting responses from a notably partisan association of judges and sparking a formal complaint against the National Judicial Council and Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro.
READ ALSO: Judge Piotr Gąciarek’s controversial move—why the execution of the fine tied to a 9.5 million PLN EU funds embezzlement has been suspended.
At the heart of the matter is the Zbigniew Z. case, in which the Ministry of Economic Development was deceived and EU money from the Operational Program Infrastructure and Environment 2007-2013 was misappropriated using documents deemed unreliable. The total amount involved stands at 9.5 million PLN. In September 2020, the defendant received a lenient two-year term with a five-year suspended sentence, a fine, and an order to compensate the embezzled funds. In March 2022, the Warsaw Court of Appeal upheld a four-year absolute prison sentence, but Judge Gąciarek subsequently suspended its enforcement. This suspension means the defendant currently does not serve prison time and is not required to repay the damage, estimated by the Ministry of Economic Development at 9.5 million PLN. The judge asserted that the appellate court’s decision carried an irreparable legal defect through improper staffing, referencing Article 439 § 1 point 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The assertion highlighted disagreements over the judges who presided over Zbigniew Z.’s case and whether their nominations to the Court of Appeals were properly processed with involvement from the National Court Register. This combination of factors, according to the court, was sufficient to halt enforcement against the fraudster while the underlying process was reviewed. An analysis by the wPolityce platform noted that the judges involved possess decades of adjudicatory experience, with many having served across different judicial instances for more than twenty years and not holding current posts in the Warsaw Court of Appeals.
Gąciarek responds
Interest from the National Judicial Council followed, with official statements and social media commentary reflecting scrutiny of Judge Gąciarek’s decision. One of his messages questioned the Council and challenged judges who are viewed as less supportive of political reform efforts associated with certain judicial groups, framing the issue as a broader struggle over judicial independence and accountability.
The dialogue extended to political rhetoric that questioned the direction of the judiciary and its alignment with reform movements, touching on tensions between reform advocates and opponents of rapid structural change. The discussion also touched on concerns about how political perspectives can intersect with judicial rulings and the potential impact on perceived rule of law and citizens’ confidence in the courts.
– comments circulated on social media in relation to the case.
The reaction from Gąciarek and supporters has been described by critics as part of a broader pattern of confrontation with bodies overseeing the judiciary and with reforms proposed in recent years. Observers note that the judge has previously authored controversial decisions in cases involving a drug offense and a VAT-related vehicle scheme, contributing to ongoing debates about judicial behavior and accountability in high-stakes economic crimes.
Canada and the United States readers may encounter parallel discussions in their own legal environments when courts confront questions about enforcement, proportionality, and the independence of judges amid public scrutiny. The Polish situation highlights the delicate balance between upholding due process, ensuring consistent application of penalties, and managing public trust in the legal system.