We are an independent, apolitical and self-governing association of Polish judges.
Our main mission is to defend freedom and civil rights, which are the democratic foundations of Poland - a member of the the European Union.
We have been operating for more than 25 years, also as part of different international organisations of judges. We associate over 3,500 judges, most of them in Poland.

"Famous" Radzik admits defeat. Discontinues prosecution of judges because he knows he will lose in court.

Original article

"Famous" Radzik admits defeat. Discontinues prosecution of judges because he knows he will lose in court.


Deputy Disciplinary Commissioner Przemyslaw Radzik has issued a whole series of decisions to drop disciplinary actions against judges who are standing up for free courts. However, this is not a gesture of goodwill, but a capitulation. Radzik himself admits that there is no chance of convicting the judges.

Disciplinary commissioners have recently stepped up operations and set up a number of new disciplinary cases against judges. They are going full throttle with the EU as they continue to apply the unlawful muzzle law.

But at the same time disciplinary commissioners Radzik and Schab have dropped prosecution of a sizable group of judges, discontinuing disciplinary cases initiated against them even a few years ago. These include a group of judges from the Presidium of the Forum for Cooperation of Judges, as well as Dorota Zabludowska from Gdansk, Monika Frąckowiak from Poznan, Slawomir Jęksa from Poznan, Adam Synakiewicz from Czestochowa, Pawel Struminski from Gliwice, Bartlomiej Starosta from Sulęcin, Monika Ciemiega from Opole and Katarzyna Kalwak from Olesno.

Judges ask how it is that they pursue some and forgive others. Is this the result of closet cleanup, or a quiet war between Piotr Schab and Przemyslaw Radzik? Or perhaps they know that they have no chance of convicting judges in disciplinary trials and will fall with their accusations in the courts. Such a clue was pointed out by Radzik himself.

In his decisions to discontinue disciplinary cases, Radzik explicitly wrote that he was discontinuing them because "with the notorious alienation of the disciplinary judiciary in Poland from the rules of procedure in accordance with the applicable laws, there are no grounds for submitting a request to a court to hear a disciplinary case, which means that the disciplinary proceedings (...) are subject to discontinuance."

That is to say, Radzik believes that it is not he who is the "bad guy," but the new Chamber of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court. It replaced the illegal Disciplinary Chamber, which granted their requests en masse, even unlawfully. But a year ago, the judges' repression machine jammed. Disciplinary commissioners are losing case after case in the new chamber, showing that judges are being pursued unjustifiably.

Radzik, however, does not back down from the charges. He writes that it is indisputable that these judges have exhausted the elements of a disciplinary tort. Radzik also rejects the CJEU's June 2023 judgment, in which the Court ruled that the muzzle law is contrary to EU law. He believes that it is the CJEU's judgment that contradicts the "Polish constitutional order."

That is, he does not recognize it, for which he exposes himself to disciplinary and criminal liability in the future. So why doesn't he prosecute? Because there has just been an "alienation of the disciplinary judiciary in Poland from the rules of procedure."

Judges disagree with the justifications for the dismissals. And they plan to appeal them to the disciplinary court. They are also considering notifications to the prosecutor's office.

Judge Starosta emphasizes: "In the justification for the discontinuance decision, he continues to insist that my behavior exhausted the elements of disciplinary misconduct. He believes that this is indisputable. This despite the fact that there is a CJEU ruling from June 2023. But he rejects it, for which he should also bear responsibility. Just as for his words about the alienation of the disciplinary judiciary from the rules of procedure."

The judge added: "The fact that Radzik lost a number of cases in which he made obviously baseless allegations against judges is more evidence of the alienation of disciplinary commissioners - who are subordinate to the Minister of Justice - from the rules of the rule of law and judicial independence. And often from the principles of ordinary logic."