Anna Gąsior - Majchrowska

  • Anna Gąsior – Majchrowska decides to make allegation against Tomasz Marczyński

    Case ref. SD 16/2020
    Decision of the 12th of August 2020
    Anna Gąsior – Majchrowska – the Deputy Disciplinary Commissioner at the Regional Court in Piotrków Trybunalski
    on the basis of Article 114, Section 3 of the Act on the Common Courts Organisationdecides to make allegation against Tomasz Marczyński, judge in the District Court of Bełchatów, that in a letter dated on the 28th of April 2020 addressed to Ambassador Ingibjorg Solrun Gisladottir – Director of the Bureau of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the OSCE, from unknown location, has started to perform a public activity by having taken a stance in a political debate considering legislative actions undertaken in the light of upcoming presidential elections of the 10th of May 2020 and COVID – 19 epidemic by clearly opposing to solutions proposed by one of the political parties and has expressed his own opinions on that matter, despite the ban on such actions provided in the Article 178, Section 3 of the Constitution of Poland, which states, that judges shall not perform any public activities incompatible with the principles of the independence of the courts and judges and a violation of the dignity of the judge’s office, by public questioning the legitimacy of the appointment of judges of the Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamber, that results in the lack of independence of this Chamber of the Supreme Court of Poland and has publicly questioned the process of appointing of these judges; viz taking actions that violate judge’s dignity and undermine his independence and impartiality;
    that is disciplinary offences provided in Article 107, Section 1, Subsections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act on the Common Courts Organisation in conjunction with Article 11, Section 2 of the Penal Code of Poland and Article 128 of the Act on the Common Courts Organisation.

    Legal justification
    In the pending proceedings case ref. OKD. 1181 – 15/2020, after it has been found out that the ex officio explanatory activities have indicated that judge Tomasz Marczyński could have committed alleged disciplinary offense, it has been decided as in the conclusion of the decision.

  • Case ref. SD 16/2020 Anna Gąsior – Majchrowska and procedings against Tomasz Marczyński

    Case ref. SD 16/2020

    Decision of the 12th of August 2020

    Anna Gąsior – Majchrowska – the Deputy Disciplinary Commissioner at the Regional Court in Piotrków Trybunalski

    on the basis of Article 114, Section 3 of the Act on the Common Courts Organisation 

    decides:

    to initiate proceedings concerning the filing of a letter dated on the 28th of April 2020 by Tomasz Marczyński, Judge in the District Court to Ambassador Ingibjorg Solrun Gisladottir – Director of the Bureau of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the OSCE despite the ban on such actions expressed in the Article 178, Section 3 of the Constitution of Poland, which states, that judges shall not perform any public activities incompatible with the principles of independence of the courts and judges and a violation of the dignity of the judge’s office, by public questioning the legitimacy of the appointment of judges of the Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamber in abovementioned motion;

    that is disciplinary offences provided in Article 107, Section 1, Subsections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act on the Common Courts Organisation in conjunction with Article 11, Section 2 of the Penal Code of Poland and Article 128 of the Act on the Common Courts Organisation.

    Legal justification 

    The Deputy Disciplinary Commissioner, during ongoing proceedings case ref. OKD. 1181 – 15/2020, after having carried out explanatory measures, aimed at establishing circumstances necessary to identify hallmarks of the disciplinary offence of the filing of a letter to the President of the Bureau of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights  of the OSCE dated on the 28th of April 2020 by judges of district courts operating within the jurisdiction of the Regional Court in Piotrków Trybunalski has established, that judges of the Regional Court of Bełchatów:....................,........................,............................, Tomasz Marczyński,............................,............................, the judges of Regional Court of Piotrków Trybunalski.....................,.............................,............................,............................, the judges of Regional Court of Tomaszów Mazowiecki......................,................... and the retired judges of Regional Court in Opoczno...................... and......................... have signed abovementioned letter despite the ban on such actions expressed in the Article 178, Section 3 of the Constitution of Poland.

    The analysis of the abovementioned letter and the testimonies of judges of the Regional Court of Bełchatów...................................................., judges of Regional Court of Piotrków Trybunalski..............................................., judges of the Regional Court of Tomaszów Mazowiecki........................................... and retired judges of the Regional Court of Opoczno............................................... (judge Tomasz Marczyński had not testified by the date of this decision) indicate that these judges have taken a stance in a political debate considering legislative actions undertaken in the light of upcoming presidential elections of the 10th of May 2020 and COVID – 19 epidemic by clearly opposing to solutions proposed by one of the political parties and expressing their own opinions on that matter. Additionally the judges have suggested that recognition of election protests and adjudication of the validity of the elections would be void as the members of the Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamber had been appointed in an invalid procedure.

    It should be pointed out that the concept of ‘public activity’ introduced by Constitution of Poland allows the judges to enjoy political rights and freedoms, but under a condition that they shall not violate judicial independence and maintain impartiality. Judicial independence and impartiality may be violated if the judge takes part  in current political dispute by clearly expressing his opinions and siding with one of political parties. The judge does not need to give an interview, but it is enough for him or her to sign a protest letter, take part in a voting on a political matter or publicly speak against or in favour of the way a certain political institution executes its power (cf. B. Banaszak, Constitution of Republic of Poland. Commentary 2012 ed. 2).

    In all of those instances a judge is making his views known, whereas  Constitutional Tribunal of Poland has stated, that ‘obligation of impartiality obliges a judge to oppose any evaluations that stem from his experience, stereotypes or biases. (cf. B. Banaszek, Constitution of Poland. Commentary 2012. Ed.2; Constitutional Tribunal of Poland’s sentence of 9th of November 1993, K 11/93, published OTK 1993, no. 2/37)

    Considering the above one should share an opinion that a judge should not reveal his political views, take part in political dispute, engage in political campaign of a political party, publicly state opinions on about the execution of political institution’s activities or publicly declare his affiliation to a religion or a church. All of this aims at ensure a judicial independence and prevents judges from taking any kind of public activity that would bring harm to his or her independence (cf. B. Banaszak, Constitution of Republic of Poland. Commentary 2012 ed. 2 and M. Safjan, L. Bosek, Constitution of Republic of Poland. Commentary 2016, ed. 1).

    Therefore, abovementioned provision of the Constitution of Poland constitutes (in case of violating it) a sufficient legal base for suspension of a judge and initiation of disciplinary proceedings even when any of the provisions of any statue has not been violated (cf. B. Banaszak, Constitution of Republic of Poland. Commentary 2012 ed. 2 and M. Safjan, L. Bosek, Constitution of Republic of Poland. Commentary 2016, ed. 1).

    It should be emphasized that dignity of the office of the judge is an attribute constituting the authority of the court and of the judge himself. This term cannot be defined, but it holds connection with judge’s behaviour while exercising his office that results from provisions of law and professional ethics. The dignity of an office of a judge and impeccability of his or her character is connected with a certain standard of conduct that in effect ought to be an instance for  others. This standard binds a judge not only during his time in the court, but also when he or she does not work there. Therefore, judges are constantly observated and they are required to oblige to much higher standard of behaviour than a common citizen (cf. the Supreme Court of Poland's ruling of the 22nd June 2015 SNO 34/11).

    Additionally it should be pointed out that it is a common notion in jurisprudence that ‘dignity of a retired judge should be perceived respectively to his or her changed status thus a retired judge should avoid any activity that would bring harm to his dignity as if he was a judge in service’.

    Thus, conclusions above refer not only to active judges, but also to retired ones. After all retired judges are obliged to preserve the dignity of their office since they may be appointed to certain public offices because of their status (e. g. such positions as as members of electoral commissions or judges in arbitral tribunal).

    Thereupon, the evidence collected in the case so far  provides grounds for reasonable suspicion of a disciplinary offence by aforementioned judges enlisted in Article 107, Section 1, Subsection 3, 4 and 5 of the Act on the Common Courts Organisation in conjunction with Article 11, Section 2 of the Penal Code of Poland and Article 128 of the Act on the Common Courts Organisation.

    In conclusion, on the basis of Article 114, Section 3 of the Act on the Common Courts Organisation, it has been decided as in the conclusion of the decision.

  • Piotrków Trybunalski. Zarzuty dyscyplinarne dla sędziego Tomasza Marczyńskiego, wiceprezesa Stowarzyszenia Sędziów Polskich "Iustitia"

    Sędzia Anna Gąsior-Majchrowska Zastępca Rzecznika Dyscyplinarnego przy Sądzie Okręgowym w Piotrkowie Trybunalskim wykonała polecenie rzecznika dyscyplinarnego Przemysława Radzika, który 03.08.2020 na piśmie zwrócił się do lokalnych rzeczników dyscyplinarnych o ściganie ponad 1200 sędziów podpisanych pod listem otwartym do OBWE w kwietniu 2020 w sprawie organizacji wyborów w terminie majowym.


    Postawiła zarzuty sędziemu Tomaszowi Marczyńskiemu z Sądu Rejonowego w Bełchatowie, członkowi naszego Zarządu.
    Zarzuca sędziemu m.in;podpisanie listu otwartego to „podjęcie aktywności w sferze publicznej poprzez zajęcie czynnej postawy w bieżącym sporze politycznym formułując własny pogląd i opowiadając się przeciw konkretnym rozwiązaniom proponowanym przez jedną z partii politycznych w związku z procesem legislacyjnym” i epidemią. Tym samym sędzia prowadził działalność uchybiającą godności urzędu i podważył status Izby Kontroli Nadzwyczajnej i Spraw Publicznych przy SN.

    Pozostali rzecznicy dyscyplinarni nie podejmują czynności wobec 1200 sędziów.

    Kim jest sędzia Anna Gąsior - Majchrowska?
    Zastępczyni rzecznika dyscyplinarnego Anna Gąsior-Majchrowska była asystentką obecnego „przyfaksowanego” Prezesa Sądu Okręgowego Stanisława Tomasika, a od 2010 r. sędzią Sądu Rejonowego.  Stanisław Tomasik został prezesem sądu w wyniku czystek urządzonych przez ministra Zbigniewa Ziobrę, zajął fotel Prezesa Sądu na fax z ministerstwa, na miejsce przerwanej kadencji prawidłowo wybranego prezesa.

    Wtedy kariera Anny Gąsior-Majchrowskiej gwałtownie przyspieszyła.
    W lipcu 2019 roku prezydent Duda powołał ją na sędziego sądu okręgowego. Awans ten dostała od upolitycznionej neoKRS. W konkursie na to stanowisko startowało w sumie ośmiu sędziów (z doświadczeniem), wszyscy kandydaci mieli lepszą opinię wizytatora, niż Anna Gąsior-Majchrowska. Jej kandydatura nie była też głosowana przez Zgromadzenie Ogólne Sędziów SA w Łodzi, decyzja o awansie należała wyłącznie w upolitycznionej neoKRS.

    Zastępcą Rzecznika Dyscyplinarnego została krótko po powołaniu do sądu okręgowego. O to drugie stanowisko starało się w sumie pięciu sędziów. I choć jej konkurenci dostali więcej głosów, znowu nominacja trafiła do sędzi Gąsior-Majchrowskiej, ktora dostała najmniej głosów. Anna Gąsior-Majchrowska jako zastępca rzecznika dyscyplinarnego wykazała się gorliwością i aktywnością już w maju 2020, gdy zwróciła się do kilkunastu sędziów sądu w Piotrkowie Trybunalskim z żądaniem wyjaśnień w sprawie listu do OBWE.
    Więcej tu:
    https://oko.press/scigaja-sedziow-za-podpisanie-listu-do-obwe-w-sprawie-wyborow-prezydenckich/

    Osławiony już zastępca rzecznika dyscyplinarnego, ministerialny nominat Zbigniewa Ziobry, Przemysław Radzik 03.08.2020 zwrócił się na piśmie do rzeczników lokalnych o podjęcie czynności przeciwko ponad 1200 sędziom: 
    https://oko.press/represje-sedziow-za-list-do-obwe-zarzuty-dyscyplinarne-groza-blisko-1200-sedziom/

    Przypominamy list sędziów do OBWE:
    https://forumfws.eu/glos-w-sprawie/sedziowie-obwe

    118652291 3313828271996874 2701568044403830077 n

    118465683 3313828318663536 2064511398742371112 n