Today, a hearing of the Disciplinary Chamber, not recognized by the Supreme Court, is to be held in Warsaw in the matter of lifting the immunity of judge Igor Tuleya. The day before, the Disciplinary Chamber did not revoke the immunity of judge Irena Majcher, whose prosecution wanted to charge her with criminal charges.
In the opinion of the Association of Polish Judges “Iustitia”, the proceedings against judge Igor Tuleya “are an example of a gross disregard of the ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU and the actions of the European Commission.”
On Thursday, there will be another hearing of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court on the waiver of the judge’s immunity. Earlier – on June 9 – she had already ruled in the case of Igor Tuleya and then refused to waive the immunity, but due to the prosecution’s complaint, the case will be examined by a panel of three.
“I will not accept the decision of the Disciplinary Chamber and will continue to adjudicate”
“Judge Igor Tuleya is being prosecuted in connection with the ruling in which he ordered the prosecutor’s office to explain the irregularities during the parliamentary vote in December 2016, committed by the deputies of the ruling party in Poland,” informs the Association of Polish Judges “Iustitia”.
– No political court can take me away from ruling. I am a European judge, I will not recognize the ruling of the Disciplinary Chamber and will continue to adjudicate. European law cannot give way to lawlessness – said judge Igor Tuleya, referring to the doubts surrounding the Disciplinary Chamber, which is expressed by a large part of the legal community not only in Poland.
The Court of Justice of the European Union in early April obligated Poland to immediately suspend the application of the provisions relating to the Disciplinary Chamber in disciplinary cases against judges.
At the beginning of October the representatives of Iustitia appealed to the European Commission o “taking immediate and adequate actions” in connection with the non-performance by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 8 April, not recognized by the Supreme Court.
The Disciplinary Chamber does not waive the immunity of judge Irena Majcher
On Wednesday, the Disciplinary Chamber did not waive the immunity of judge Irena Majcher at a closed session, said the spokesman for this Chamber, Piotr Falkowski. In the first instance, the Disciplinary Court at the Court of Appeal in Wrocław did not agree to waive the immunity. The prosecutor’s office filed a complaint against this decision.
The motion for the waiver of judge’s immunity was submitted to the court by the Internal Affairs Department of the National Public Prosecutor’s Office. The prosecutor’s office wanted to charge her under Art. 231 of the Criminal Code related to failure to fulfill obligations. The case concerns the risk of loss of property of one of the companies in the process of re-registration of it from the former Commercial Register B to the National Court Register. The company did not do it in due time, and the judge did not take any action to force it to do so, the prosecutor claims.
Before the commencement of the immunity session at the Supreme Court, several dozen judges gathered to demonstrate their solidarity with Judge Irena Majcher. The following spoke, among others president of the Opole branch of “Iustitia” Katarzyna Kałwak. She argued that Judge Majcher had not committed “a single gram of crime”. – As a representative of Iustitia, I participated in the proceedings in Wrocław, in the first instance. I listened to the judge’s explanations for five hours – she said.
As she emphasized, similar cases concern many judges and referendaries. – 160 thousand entities lost their existence as this company, but the prosecutor’s office sees only one criminal in the person of judge Irena Majcher – she emphasized. The president of the Opole branch of Iustitia also stressed that the justification of the court of first instance was “shocking” for the prosecutor’s office.
“The trial court left no dry thread on this request for waiver of immunity,” the judge said. She also emphasized that the request for the waiver of immunity should be “a finishing touch” when there is evidence that the judge may have committed a crime.
Main photo source: PAP / Radek Pietruszka