The Warsaw Śródmieście District Court is preparing a private indictment against Tomasz Trela, a left-leaning member of parliament, who urged that Prof. Krystyna Pawłowicz, a judge on the Constitutional Tribunal, be charged with an alleged insult. The issue stems from the tribunal’s refusal to waive immunity, which would have meant the charges were dropped. Initially, this seemed likely. Then Judge Hubert Zaremba of the Warsaw District Court intervened, reportedly connected to a highly politicized association. This group is said to have overturned the decision to drop the case and ordered a reconsideration. The content of the immunity provision was disclosed by the portal reporting the matter. Many observers view the development as a troubling example of bending legal processes for political ends. It is noted that the association has close ties with a major political party.
The lawsuit was brought by Trela himself, who called for a disclosure from Prof Pawłowicz last year in a provocative post: a question about what might have been exchanged in the past. Pawłowicz responded to the submission from the MP.
The left-leaning MP Trela also criticized the tone of the discourse, arguing that a Constitutional Tribunal judge faced offensive remarks. The case was initially referred to the prosecutor’s office and then dropped, a step seen by many as reflecting the protection offered by judicial immunity enshrined in the constitution. Trela pressed for the withdrawal of the immunity decision, but the Tribunal did not grant that request. The matter then moved to the Warsaw District Court Śródmieście, where the court dismissed the private indictment on grounds of immunity.
Justice in action
Trela appealed the lower court’s decision. Critics have argued that the debate around a judge’s status and authority sometimes borrows from political polemics and borrowed legal theories found in European court discussions and online commentary. The case reached Judge Hubert Zaremba of the Warsaw District Court. It appeared that Zaremba would again close the matter, but his action was not decisive. He later decided to revoke the initial dismissal and ordered the case to be reconsidered, while also addressing whether the General Assembly of Judges of the Constitutional Tribunal should reexamine the motion to lift the judge’s immunity. The previous decision had refused permission to lift immunity, and discussions about a possible re-vote were raised by some of Trela’s supporters. It is important to note that in Polish law there is no institutional provision for re-voting in the General Assembly of the Constitutional Court, a fact critics say undermines established procedures. This point, raised by Trela’s legal team, was understood by Judge Zaremba, yet his assessment favored arguments presented by Trela’s representatives. Critics argue that elevating a political debate over constitutional protections sets a troubling precedent for judicial independence. This development prompted responses from legal experts, including a Warsaw attorney, who offered perspective on the implications of the case.
The broader pattern cited by supporters of judicial immunity concerns is the perceived lack of accountability for judges in certain cases. Advocates of stronger judicial accountability point to historic verdicts where the courts did not fully justify their decisions. They argue that some rulings have circulated with limited factual or legal grounding. A notable example involved a court of appeals decision in Warsaw concerning a newspaper’s correction, where the constitutional court later struck down the rules on such corrections. Critics say the resulting legal landscape sometimes lacks transparent rules, creating a perception that political influence can shape judicial outcomes. A legal expert commented that the current moment could be seen as part of a longer history of contested judicial authority, emphasizing the need for clear and consistently applied standards. He described the Zaremba decision as one that would be noted in legal history, though perhaps not in the way its framers intended. He warned that the provision in question risks destabilizing the judiciary by making it easier for political actors to challenge judges, potentially eroding the independence that courts rely on. The discussion around these issues continues to unfold among legal scholars and observers.
The matter remains a point of contention in Poland’s ongoing conversation about balancing protections for judges with accountability. Critics argue that when political actors pursue judges for perceived transgressions, the rule of law itself becomes fragile. Proponents of strict immunity assert that judges must be shielded from public pressure and political retaliation to maintain impartiality and freedom to decide cases without fear. The evolving dynamics of this case illustrate how the balance between democratic oversight and judicial independence can be tested, requiring careful and principled handling. In the end, the case shows how a single decision can ripple through the judiciary, shaping perceptions of accountability, legitimacy, and the practical functioning of legal institutions. It also highlights how different actors—parliamentary members, judges, lawyers, and media outlets—contribute to a public narrative about the integrity of the justice system. This ongoing discussion reflects broader questions about how best to protect constitutional guarantees while ensuring the judiciary remains answerable to the law and to the people it serves.
The proceedings and their reception have sparked a broader debate about the role of immunity, the criteria for reconsidering court decisions, and the proper boundaries between political action and judicial authority. As this topic continues to unfold, observers emphasize the importance of upholding due process, maintaining separation of powers, and preserving the essential protections that guard individuals against unwarranted political interference.