The National Court Register reports that the Prosecutor’s Office has received a notification about the potential crime involving a prominent Gliwice-based judicial activist, judge Paweł Strumiński. The matter centers on a possible fine imposed on judge Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woicka, the president of the National Judicial Council. Questions arise about manipulated handling and possible concealment of a key case document, and the underlying reasons behind the Silesian judge’s decision are under scrutiny.
READ ALSO: OUR INTERVIEW. The president of the National Court Register comments on the clash between Iustitia and the system, and on decisions by Gąciarek: “They undermine the public interest.”
The case traces back to a January decision (dated January 25) by Judge Strumiński, which demanded that the President of the National Court Register provide full documentation from the National Council of the Judiciary regarding the appointment process for a District Court judge in Gliwice, along with complete records of the prior appointment of the same individual to the position of assessor. The directive required these materials within 14 days, under penalty of a PLN 2,000 fine for failing to meet the court’s deadline.
On February 17, the head of the National Court Register submitted the “missing” documentation to the district court in Gliwice. The letter was delivered to the court’s president. Notably, Judge Paweł Strumiński had already issued a PLN 2,000 fine against Judge Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woicka on February 24, citing a lack of timely response to the request.
In this context, on April 19, 2023, the President of the National Court Register spoke with the head of the Gliwice Court. From that discussion, it emerged that the February 17, 2023 letter was under review under the Code of Administrative Procedure terms and had not been filed in case I Co 204/23. Attachments and related court documents were similarly treated, remaining accessible to the court president.
That, according to the National Court Register, is the governing position.
As early as April 20, the president of the National Court Register filed a complaint with the Ministry of Justice about the behavior of the Gliwice district court’s president.
The complaint argued that the circumstances surrounding the non-submission of the case I Co 204/23, including the February 17 letter and its attachments, needed external administrative supervision. The document raised concerns about who could have caused the removal of documents and whether such acts might meet the definitions of offenses under relevant penal provisions. It noted that a document cancellation could be interpreted as making materials inaccessible to the authorized person, even if the storage location was undisputed, and suggested that the responsible party might have been the court’s president in the place where the case was pending, not the district court’s president, as the evidence indicated.
Those concerns were echoed in the National Court Register’s public statement.
However, the episode did not end there. Given what some viewed as a broader scandal, Judge Paweł Strumiński filed a report alleging the possibility of a crime. The report suggested that the judge’s action to impose a fine on the National Court Register’s president could be politically motivated and legally unfounded, potentially meeting the criteria for an offense under applicable penal provisions.
Judicial activities and public statements by Judge Strumiński came under scrutiny, with the National Judicial Council noting the judge’s publicly visible behavior and the content of his online remarks. The report highlighted highly politicized commentary that criticized reforms to the justice system, describing rhetoric that was intense and provocative. The council’s summary described the tone as emphatic and sometimes confrontational, extending beyond cautious political commentary into sharper, more personal territory.
The document emphasized that Strumiński had directed particular scrutiny toward the council’s chairperson, accusing her of lacking independence and impartiality because of alleged political alignment. It suggested that personal grievances and political disagreements with the judiciary’s leadership may have influenced the judge’s public posture and statements, reflecting a broader tension around judicial reform and accountability.
In light of these developments, the National Court Register underscored the importance of ensuring accountability and transparency within the judiciary. It stressed that a clear, thorough explanation by the justice ministry and the prosecutor’s office is essential to maintain public trust and assure citizens that cases are handled impartially.
The National Court Register’s position also stressed the potential impact on ordinary people who are subject to judicial decisions. The register argued that reliable explanations are in the interest of the judiciary and the public alike, so that no citizen could fear biased treatment by the courts.
A note at the end of the council’s statement referenced ongoing geopolitical and institutional context in Poland, and the exchange of opinions around judicial independence and reform. The overall message called for clarity, due process, and adherence to legal standards in handling sensitive cases involving senior judges and high-ranking judicial bodies.
Source: wPolityce