Prosecutor Juliusz Rudak, the case officer in the proceedings concerning Prosecutor Ewa Wrzosek, prepared a motion to the Supreme Court to lift her immunity. This meant that he intended to bring charges against her. The motion was, however, blocked by his superior, the Head of the Internal Affairs Department of the National Prosecutor’s Office, Prosecutor Dariusz Makowski. Subsequently, Makowski personally issued the decision to discontinue the proceedings. The reason given was the allegedly negligible degree of social harm.
At the end of December, the National Prosecutor’s Office informed the public of the discontinuation of the investigation into alleged abuse of authority by Prosecutor Ewa Wrzosek. The case concerns a widely publicized action involving the submission of motions to courts across Poland aimed at blocking changes in public media.
The statement acknowledged that although Wrzosek’s actions constituted an abuse of authority, the decision was made to discontinue the case because “the social harmfulness of the act is negligible.”
Moreover, as established by the portal Niezależna.pl, the decision to discontinue the investigation was not signed by the case officer, Prosecutor Juliusz Rudak, who had conducted the proceedings for two years, but by Prosecutor Dariusz Makowski, Head of the Internal Affairs Department of the National Prosecutor’s Office.
The parliamentary caucus of Law and Justice (PiS) filed an appeal with the court against the discontinuation of the case.
The blocked motion
Niezależna.pl obtained new, shocking details of the case. All information was confirmed in responses to the editorial team’s questions provided by Przemysław Nowak, spokesperson for the National Prosecutor’s Office.
It was determined that the case officer, Prosecutor Juliusz Rudak, intended to submit a motion to the Supreme Court to lift Ewa Wrzosek’s immunity. This clearly indicated that he planned to bring charges against her. Moreover, such a motion had already been prepared by Rudak. Importantly, until the decision to discontinue the proceedings was issued, he remained the case officer.
Why, then, did the situation change? Pursuant to § 111 of the Internal Regulations of the common organizational units of the prosecution service, it is the prosecutor superior to the one conducting the investigation who submits a motion to the disciplinary court (the Supreme Court) seeking permission to prosecute. The superior prosecutor with respect to investigators working in the Internal Affairs Department of the National Prosecutor’s Office is its head, currently Dariusz Makowski.
As it turns out, Makowski held a different view from Rudak and did not see grounds for submitting a motion to the Supreme Court to lift Wrzosek’s immunity. He then personally issued the decision to discontinue the proceedings.
Niezależna.pl asked the National Prosecutor’s Office whether it is true that Prosecutor Rudak prepared a motion to the Supreme Court to lift Prosecutor Wrzosek’s immunity. Why was it not sent? Who made this decision and when?
“Yes, Prosecutor Juliusz Rudak prepared a draft motion to lift immunity. However, the Head of the Internal Affairs Department had a different assessment and did not see grounds to sign such a motion, due to the absence of the material element of criminality, namely, social harm exceeding a negligible level. In accordance with the regulations, a motion to lift immunity is signed by the prosecutor superior to the prosecutor conducting the investigation,”
argued the National Prosecutor’s Office.
Can the decision be appealed?
“It is appealable – the appeal may be filed by Prosecutor Ewa Wrzosek,” replied Prosecutor Nowak.
Actions of Clifford Chance
Niezależna.pl was also interested in whether employees of the Clifford Chance law firm were questioned in the proceedings. They were.
“All lawyers and other employees of the firm who had knowledge of the case were questioned, and the firm itself, on its own initiative, provided a number of significant data (evidence),”
emphasized the National Prosecutor’s Office.
The portal also learned that the prosecution continues to examine potential co-responsibility for irregularities on the part of employees of the Clifford Chance firm. The materials were also forwarded to the Polish Bar Council.
“Currently, all materials have been made available to the Bar Council, specifically, to the disciplinary spokesperson appointed by it. The materials concerning the acts of the firm’s employees have been separated into a distinct set of proceedings, which is being conducted by another prosecutorial unit,”
informed the spokesperson for the National Prosecutor’s Office.