Statement of the Disciplinary Officer for the Judges of Common Courts

In reference to the statement of October 25, 2019, I would like to inform, that based on the findings of explanatory actions resulting from justified suspicion of disciplinary offenses committed by several judges, including the conscious ignoring the statutory obligation to appear on summons and to testify as witnesses as well as other disciplinary torts, the Deputy Disciplinary Officer for the Judges of Common Courts, judge Przemysław W. Radzik, by decisions of November 8, 2019, initiated disciplinary proceedings and presented disciplinary charges against:
- Krystian M., judge of the Regional Court in Katowice,

- Monika C., a judge of the District Court in Opole,

- Katarzyna K., judge of the District Court in Oleśno,

- Monika F., judge of the District Court Poznań Nowe - Miasto and Wilda in Poznań.

- Bartłomiej S., judge of the District Court in Sulęcin.

In particular, judge Krystian M. has been presented with the following charges that:

  1. on 12 September 2019, he violated the dignity of the office by publishing "President of the Association of Polish Judges Iustitia statement (...)" available on Iustitia Association’s web site, expressing his opinion on the pending proceedings (explanatory actions) resulting from decision ref. No RDSP 712-69/19 of the Disciplinary Officer of the Judges of the Common Courts (regarding the preparation and publishing the entries in communicators and web portals which violated § 23 of the Code of Rules of the Professional Ethics for Judges and Assessors), where he stated that he would not fulfill the statutory obligation to appear as a witness in these proceedings (explanatory proceedings), and then called all other judges summoned by the Disciplinary Officer of the Judges of Common Courts and his Deputies to disregard the legal order by ignoring the legal obligation to appear on call and to testify, by which he grossly violated Article 82 of the Act on the System of Common Courts: the obligation to act in accordance with the judicial oath, in particular the obligation to guard the law, to faithfully perform judicial duties and to protect the dignity of judicial office during and outside the service and not to create even the appearance of not complying with the legal order, i.e. behaviors that defy the dignity of the judge and undermine confidence in his independence and impartiality and violate the principles of professional ethics, specified in § 5 para. 2, § 10, 13 and 16 of the resolution of the National Council of the Judiciary of February 19, 2003 regarding the adoption of the Code of Professional Ethics for Judges and Assessors - that is disciplinary offense under Art. 107 § 1 of the Act on July 27, 2001 – The law of the system of the common courts;
  2. On September 17, 2019 in Warsaw, being properly summoned to appear in person as a witness in the case ref. nr RDSP 712-69/19 of the Disciplinary Officer of the Judges of the Common Courts, regarding the organization and posting of the entries in communicators and web portals, violated § 23 of the Code of Professional Ethics Rules for Judges and Assessors as being instructed about the consequences of not neglecting the call, he violated the dignity of the office by failing to comply with the content of art. 128 of The law on the System of Common Courts in connection with art. 177 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the obligation to appear and testify) he did not appear at this summons, thus by evading the statutory obligation to testify grossly violated Article 82 of the Act on the System of Common Courts: the obligation to act in accordance with the judicial oath, in particular the obligation to guard the law, to faithfully perform judicial duties and to protect the dignity of judicial office during and outside the service and not to create even the appearance of not complying with the legal order, i.e. behaviors that defy the dignity of the judge and undermine confidence in his independence and impartiality and violate the principles of professional ethics, specified in § 5 para. 2, § 10, 13 and 16 of the resolution of the National Council of the Judiciary of February 19, 2003 regarding the adoption of the Code of Professional Ethics for Judges and Assessors - that is disciplinary offense under Art. 107 § 1 of the Act on July 27, 2001 – The law of the system of the common courts;

The allegations against the other judges were worded in a similar manner with modifications regarding the dates of the disciplinary torts and the determination that by issuing statements on defying the statutory obligation to appear as a witness, each of these judges acted accordingly to the public call of the President of the Polish Judges Association "Iustitia" on September 12, 2019 not to respect the legal order by ignoring the obligation under the Act to appear on call and testify in proceedings conducted by the Disciplinary Officer of the Judges of the Common Courts and his Deputies.

As far as judge Bartłomiej S. is concerned, the issued decision concerns charges of committing three disciplinary torts, because, apart from those indicated, he was charged with disciplinary offense consisting in violating the dignity of the office consciously defying the obligation to appear for summons and testify
in a case other than that mentioned in other case of Disciplinary Officer for Judges of Common Courts, than aforementioned.

Taking into account aforementioned, I inform, that according to art. 82 of the Law on the System of Common Courts, a judge is obliged to act in accordance with the judicial oath, in particular the duty of faithful service to the Republic of Poland, guarding the law, faithful performance of the duties of a judge, as well as the duty to protect the dignity of the judicial office in service and outside the service.

In accordance to the set of Rules of Professional Ethics for Judges and Assessors indicated in aforementioned charges:


- the judge should restrain from behavior that could abuse the dignity of the judge or affect confidence in his independence and impartiality,

- the judge should not express public opinions on pending proceedings.

- the judge may not even appear to disregard the legal order by his behavior.

(-) Regional Court Judge Piotr Schab

Disciplinary Officer

For Judges of the Common Courts


Print   Email