Lawsuits for damages
A report from the wPolityce.pl portal claims that Adam Bodnar’s decisions have bred chaos and, in practice, mostly affect criminals. The case in which the Szczecin District Court halted a criminal proceeding tied to a potential multimillion-dollar fraud has broader implications. Prosecutor Barbara Zapaśnik, who led the case, stated that the suspect asked her to pay 2 million PLN because he believed prosecutors acted without proper authority.
Lawsuits for damages
At the end of the matter, the Szczecin court found that Barbara Zapaśnik had been unlawfully reinstated from retirement in 2016; a similar argument was used by Adam Bodnar in the Barski case, where Dariusz Barski held the position of national prosecutor. A minister from the prior government publicly celebrated the court’s ruling on social media.
The consequences of the actions described as lawless by Bodnar and his political allies are serious. It appears prosecutors face lawsuits to compensate for outcomes tied to charges filed by officials deemed unauthorized.
This is not a look into the future. The defendant, against whom a complaint was filed in December, has now requested a 2 million PLN payment on the grounds that the actions against him were carried out without proper authority.
– stated prosecutor Zapaśnik.
She added that, for now, she is being asked to pay, but if a lawsuit proceeds, she will indicate the attorney general and the attorney general’s office as the recipient of the suit.
READ ALSO:
— Deputy Attorney General: “The Acting National Prosecutor institution did not exist and still does not exist.”
— A lawyer challenges Bodnar’s account, saying: “None of the negative conditions exist. Barski remains the national prosecutor.”
— The claim that Bodnar and Tusk have no legal grounds to appoint Bilewicz as Acting National Prosecutor is raised by critics.
The prosecutor assesses the opinions Bodnar references
In an interview with Business Insider, prosecutor Barbara Zapaśnik addressed the legal opinions Bodnar often cites. She noted that she had reviewed the writings of Anna Rakowska, Sławomir Patyra and Grzegorz Kuc—scholars who work in research and practice. Their opinions, she said, formed the basis for the view that Article 47’s applicability was limited to 60 days.
She pointed out that the opinions were meant to extend the validity period of Article 47 in a situation where the legislature did not specify a time frame. Each of them asserted a time limit, even though the legislature did not specify one.
Thus, a large portion of their arguments centers on general principles for lawmaking. They conclude that article 47 does not comply because it fails to state when the provision is in force, and if a date exists, it must be appointed.
– Prosecutor Zapaśnik noted, emphasizing that the situation is troubling because the content of the law would be shaped by opinions rather than by the statute itself.
Proc. Zapaśnik added that Bodnar’s opinions “are high-level abstractions that miss the core facts.” There was no close look at the provision, even in the legal context, and the analysis focused only on the first paragraph, omitting the other three.
The evidentiary value of this opinion lies in presenting the author’s view, which is not a basis for far-reaching procedural effects. It does not reflect the view of experts trained in criminal liability. A judge must be well-versed in legal provisions
– emphasized prosecutor Barbara Zapaśnik.
She explained that the provision was designed so that retired prosecutors could be reinstated if needed, and it would be odd if the Attorney General only had that option for two months while new units were created. In cases involving retired prosecutors, the Office of the Attorney General did not have to make an immediate decision, unlike active prosecutors.
A retired prosecutor can be useful at any time, not only when new structures are created
– said Barbara Zapaśnik, adding that “the situation of active prosecutors differs from that of retired ones, like me, who receive a pension, a fact also reflected in the subsequent parts of Article 47.”
Are there plans to compensate criminals?
Adam Bodnar’s decisions are said to push prosecutors into being sued by those they investigate. Similar reports surface daily
– stated Sebastian Kaleta, former Deputy Minister of Justice, in a post. He added: “All this to gain control of the prosecutor’s office, against rules. Matters important to Tusk and Grodzki are sidelined.”
As observers watch, criminals celebrate while lawyers prepare for substantial payouts, since prosecutors now fear legal action. This is presented as the outcome of the rule of law being bent
– emphasized the MP.
Former head of the Foreign Affairs Ministry Paweł Jabłoński highlighted that these are the “effects of Bodnar’s actions.”
Criminals will not only be released; there may be payments to them
– Jabłoński added.
Oskar Szafarowicz commented on the case, calling it a moment of disruption and a misstep in the rule of law by political forces.
Who supports the group pushing for changes in the democratic state’s constitutional framework? Who can celebrate the erosion of the Constitution and the onset of a state of lawlessness?
– Szafarowicz wrote.