Judge Edyta Barańska, serving on the Kraków District Court, has been at the center of public debate as an activist associated with the highly politicized group known as Iustitia. Reports from the wPolityce.pl portal indicate that a disciplinary charge was brought against her in the Chamber of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court. The critic at the heart of the matter, Judge Przemysław W. Radzik, characterizes Barańska as someone who undermined the standing of another Kraków judge and challenged the authority of the National Judicial Council.
READ ALSO: OUR NEWS. The shocking greed of the “caste.” A judge who owned several properties received a special housing loan!
In January 2022, Barańska withdrew an appeal decision from the Kraków District Court and sent the case back for reconsideration by a different panel of judges, a move framed by supporters as demonstrating her resilience. The principal reason cited for this procedural step was that the original decision involved a judge appointed in accordance with the law and through procedures that included the involvement of the newly constituted National Council of the Judiciary. When disciplinary proceedings were initiated, Barańska refrained from giving a formal statement.
The defendant did not present written explanations or evidence requests under Article 114, sections 1 and 5, as reflected in the case excerpts.
– this is how the motivation notes are summarized in Judge Radzik’s recounting of the application.
An Important Lesson
Judge Przemysław W. Radzik reminded Barańska of fundamental constitutional considerations. He suggested that her actions carried ideological and political overtones and raised questions about the balance between judicial independence and accountability.
Courts in Poland administer justice through the institution of judges, and it is the duty of judges to uphold the integrity of those processes. A judge, however, does not have the authority to scrutinize the terms of employment for another judge or the legitimacy of another judge’s appointment. The functions of the judiciary rely on the proper respect for constitutional authority. In this light, the actions alleged in the disciplinary petition were viewed as an overreach of power, potentially harming the public interest and the smooth operation of the judicial system.
– this formulation appears in the critique offered by the Deputy Disciplinary Prosecutor for Judges of Ordinary Courts.
The assertion that such conduct undermines any legitimate legal basis and risks destabilizing the judiciary was emphasized as unacceptable by Radzik.
Resulting Tensions
Judge Radzik also recalled a 2019 decision by the Constitutional Tribunal concerning the election of members of the National Judicial Council. He pointed to the way Barańska’s actions were argued to contribute to an atmosphere of disorder within the judiciary. The verdict underscored the need for careful adherence to constitutional procedures and the separation of powers in the Polish legal system. The disciplinary file described actions driven by intent and premeditation that could have negative consequences for the functioning of the courts, the rights of the judge involved, and the overall constitutional order. Such patterns were depicted as being at odds with the core duties of service in the judiciary.
– Judge Radzik’s conclusions were clear and firm.
UK
Source: wPolityce