The District Court for Warsaw Śródmieście is preparing to file a private indictment against Tomasz Trela, a Member of Parliament from the left, who has urged that Prof. Krystyna Pawłowicz, a judge on the Constitutional Tribunal, be charged with an alleged insult. The issue arises because the Constitutional Tribunal declined to waive her immunity, which means the MP’s charges would have to be dismissed. Initially, this appeared to be the outcome. Then Judge Hubert Zaremba of the Warsaw District Court intervened, identified by the portal wPolityce.pl as a member of the highly politicized association “Iustitia.” The portal reports that this group overturned the decision to drop the case and ordered it to be reconsidered. The content of the provision was learned by wPolityce.pl. This situation is seen by many as an alarming example of bending legal processes for political ends. It is widely noted that “Iustitia” has close ties with Civic Platform.
READ ALSO: Pawłowicz responds to Trela’s request: “Prove first that I took a bribe!”. The deputy submits a notification to the public prosecutor’s office
The lawsuit was initiated by Trela himself, who called for a disclosure from Prof Pawłowicz last year in a highly aggressive and provocative post: “I wonder how much Pawłowicz and Przyłębska took what for,” Trela posted on X (formerly Twitter).
Professor Pawłowicz replied to the left-wing MP’s submission.
Left-leaning MP Tomasz Trela also criticized the tone of the discourse, stating that a Constitutional Tribunal judge faced offensive remarks. The case was initially referred to the prosecutor’s office and then dropped, a move seen by many as reflecting the protection afforded 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 the grounds of immunity.
Justice in action
Trela appealed the lower court’s decision. His critics have argued that the debate around the 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 conclusive. He later decided to revoke the initial dismissal and ordered the case to be reconsidered, while also addressing the submissions surrounding 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 that 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 Artur Wdowczyk, a Warsaw attorney, who offered his perspective on the implications of the case. [Citation: wPolityce]
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, they assert, the courts did not fully justify their decisions. They argue that some rulings have circulated with limited factual or legal grounding. A well-remembered instance 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 that the resulting legal landscape sometimes lacks transparent rules, creating a perception that political influence can shape judicial outcomes. Artur Wdowczyk commented that the current moment could be seen as an episode in 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 surrounding these issues continues to unfold among legal scholars and observers.
The matter remains a point of contention in Poland’s ongoing conversation about the balance between protecting judges and ensuring 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 the tension between democratic oversight and judicial independence, a balance that many observers say requires careful, principled handling. In the end, the case illustrates how a single decision can ripple through the judiciary, influencing 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 that the judiciary remains answerable to the law and to the people it serves.
— quoted by legal observers and included in public commentary. [Citation: wPolityce]
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.
UK
<