Roman Giertych’s confrontational and rather brusque conduct during his visit to the Supreme Court casts a shadow over the reputation of the legal profession — stated First President of the Supreme Court, Professor Małgorzata Manowska, in an official statement. Her remarks refer to the Civic Coalition MP’s so-called “parliamentary intervention” on Wednesday. It appears Giertych stirred a scandal after being denied access to case files — which, legally, he had no right to view.
Giertych, who has been trying to undermine the outcome of the presidential election, took to social media shortly after Karol Nawrocki’s victory was announced, alleging widespread irregularities and urging voters to file election protests. On Wednesday, he personally appeared at the Supreme Court under the guise of a parliamentary inspection.
“At 8 a.m., I arrived at the Supreme Court with a parliamentary inspection and demanded access to publicly available documents from vote recounts carried out by several district courts. The so-called Extraordinary Chamber refused to provide them. I am now awaiting a decision from Ms. Manowska,” he wrote on platform X.
No Legal Grounds
The First President of the Supreme Court had no choice but to uphold the earlier decision by the Extraordinary Chamber. Giertych sought access not only to case files in which he was directly involved, but also to proceedings he was not a party to. Professor Manowska denied the request, as the MP simply had no legal entitlement to access those materials. An official statement on the matter was published on the Supreme Court’s website that evening.
“In response to the confrontational behavior of the MP toward the administrative staff of the Supreme Court, I invited him for a meeting, during which he reiterated his demands to access evidence from a case in which he is not a participant. He claimed this was based on his status as a party in one proceeding, described it as a parliamentary intervention, and also invoked the Public Information Access Act, Manowska explained.
She then informed the MP that:
- Being a party to one proceeding does not entitle him to access files from another;
- Article 19(1) of the Act on the Exercise of the Mandate of a Deputy and Senator does not grant the right to inspect the activities of the judiciary;
- Under Article 1(2) of the Public Information Access Act, it does not apply to public information contained in case files initiated by an election protest — access to those is governed by the Civil Procedure Code.
“Accordingly, I asked Mr. Giertych to submit a formal written request to inspect the case files in question, so it could be assessed under civil procedural law. The MP responded that he had no intention of submitting such a request, at which point I considered the meeting concluded and Mr. Giertych left my office,” she added.
“He Was Not Denied Access to His Own Case”
President Manowska emphasized that Giertych was not denied access to the case he himself initiated. She repeated that his aggressive and improper communication style “casts a shadow” on the professional standards of the bar association.
Mass Protests Treated as One
She also disclosed that Giertych’s public encouragement to file election protests led to tens of thousands of identical submissions — which have disrupted the Court’s administrative functioning.
“Despite political expectations, this will not delay the handling of the protests, although it is particularly burdensome for our administrative staff,” she noted.
All of these copy-pasted protests will be treated as a single case:
“While Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Code allows the court to consolidate protests that raise identical objections, the administrative staff still must open every single envelope — tens of thousands of them — register the protest (even if it’s improperly filed), create a file for each, and take further steps toward handling the matter,” Manowska explained.
She concluded by praising the Supreme Court staff’s commitment in contrast to Giertych’s conduct:
“Faced with the consequences of political litigiousness, the employees of the Supreme Court voluntarily committed to working on public holidays and throughout the long weekend.”