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.
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.