The Supreme Court’s Chamber of Professional Responsibility decided on Tuesday not to detain Judge Igor Tuleya or compel his appearance at the prosecutor’s office. It also reversed the suspension from the bench and the reduction of his pay, keeping him in his judicial role for the moment.
The ruling confirms the earlier decision of the now-defunct Disciplinary Chamber, issued in April of the prior year, which refused to grant the prosecutor’s request for Tuleya’s arrest in Warsaw. The National Public Prosecutor’s Office appealed that decision, seeking a harsher course of action.
The public record asserts that Judge Igor Tuleya did not commit a crime when, on December 18, 2017, he allowed a public hearing to proceed and permitted media access. The judge acted within applicable legal bounds. There remains, however, a credible concern that a prohibited act may have occurred in relation to the proceedings.
This viewpoint was echoed by Judge Małgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderek, who supported the position that Tuleya’s actions were lawful under the framework in question.
The Supreme Court emphasized that Tuleya had applied the law correctly in that case and had interpreted the court’s provisions in a manner consistent with higher rulings. Judge Wąsek-Wiaderek noted that the prosecutor’s complaint appeared to be without merit.
In light of the joint assessment, the Supreme Court proceeded to overturn the Disciplinary Chamber’s prior rulings on Tuleya’s suspension and the related remuneration cuts. The Court indicated that there was also a potential to resume the immunity process for the judge, should circumstances warrant it.
To provide context, the immunity waiver requested by the prosecutor had been granted by the Disciplinary Chamber in November 2020. The rationale centered on protecting investigative materials and witness statements from disclosure that could jeopardize the ongoing proceedings. The investigation concerned the December 2016 Sejm session in the Zuilenzaal, which the prosecutor had halted twice. In December 2017, the District Court in Warsaw, under Tuleya’s oversight, overturned the initial decision to drop the investigation and allowed media access to the court’s oral reasoning behind that ruling.
The prosecution repeatedly urged Tuleya to appear for questioning and to press charges. Tuleya, however, maintained that he would not recognize the Disciplinary Chamber as a court with legitimate authority over him and questioned the validity of its decisions.
As a result, prosecutors sought authorization to compel Tuleya’s presence through coercive measures. In April 2021, the Disciplinary Chamber, composed of a single judge, Adam Roch, rejected the request for Tuleya’s detention. The public prosecutor challenged that decision, triggering further legal review.
The prosecutor’s obligation to report suspects applies without exception to anyone who may be under investigation, regardless of whether they hold judicial office. This point has framed much of the ongoing debate surrounding Tuleya’s case and the appropriate boundaries of judicial immunity and accountability.
Following the liquidation of the Disciplinary Chamber in mid-2022, the case and related matters were reassigned to the new Chamber of Professional Responsibility, which continues to address the various disciplinary and immunity questions connected to Tuleya’s activity and the broader judicial oversight framework.
During Tuesday’s proceedings, Tuleya did not attend the Supreme Court session. His representation included lawyers Jacek Dubois, Michał Zacharski, and Bartosz Tiutiunik, who spoke on his behalf and presented the defense’s position regarding the legal arguments at issue.
The matter remains sensitive and heavily scrutinized as it touches on core issues of judicial independence, investigation integrity, and the mechanisms by which prosecutors may seek accountability from sitting judges. The ongoing legal and political discourse around Tuleya’s case illustrates broader tensions over how accountability is balanced with the protection of judicial functions in a system under reform. This balance continues to evolve as institutions redefine roles, procedures, and the scope of immunity for high-level judicial actors. The case remains a focal point in discussions about the accountability of the judiciary and the rights of prosecutors in pursuing investigative transparency.
Notes: The process in question reflects the ongoing realignment of disciplinary oversight within the Supreme Court and the evolving framework in which immunity and disciplinary actions are adjudicated. The outcome on Tuesday clarifies some procedural questions while leaving others to be resolved in subsequent rulings and potential immunity considerations.
End of update. [citation: wPolityce]