The Regional Court in Warsaw, 8th Criminal Division, presided over by Judge Monika Szulkowska, decided to uphold the complaint and revoke the decision of the Prosecutor of the District Prosecutor’s Office Warsaw-Śródmieście in Warsaw, dated 30 December 2024, refusing to initiate an investigation into an incident that occurred on 22 May 2024 in Warsaw, involving suppression of press criticism through the denial of accreditation to journalists from Telewizja Republika S.A. for participation in a meeting of the Council of Ministers and a press conference of the Prime Minister.
The Court demands a response from the prosecution
The Regional Court in Warsaw finds that the decision to refuse to initiate proceedings was, at the very least, premature. Accordingly, the decision must be overturned and the case remanded to the prosecutor for the purpose of conducting proceedings aimed at fully establishing the factual circumstances. This means that the prosecution is obliged to determine the reasons why journalists from Republika are being denied accreditation by the Chancellery of the Prime Minister.
The Court noted that in this context, the body conducting the preparatory proceedings should once again approach the Chancellery of the Prime Minister with an inquiry as to whether journalists from Telewizja Republika submitted an accreditation request, when and in what form the decision was issued, whether such decision was received, and if so, what reasons were given. Furthermore, the prosecutor should determine what rules govern the issuance of media accreditations and whether these rules are being applied fairly and consistently.
Case No. VIII Kp 198/25
(4313-1.Ds.1029.2024.HS)
ORDER
Dated 5 June 2025
The Regional Court in Warsaw, 8th Criminal Division, composed of:
Presiding Judge: Judge Monika Szulkowska
Court Clerk: Dalia Przeplata
in the presence of the Prosecutor
upon reviewing the complaint filed by attorney Artur Wdowczyk, acting on behalf of the injured party, Telewizja Republika S.A., against the decision of the District Prosecutor’s Office Warsaw-Śródmieście in Warsaw, dated 30 December 2024, refusing to initiate preparatory proceedings,
pursuant to Articles 437 § 1 and 465 § 1 of the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure,
hereby orders as follows:
To uphold the complaint and revoke the decision of the Prosecutor of the District Prosecutor’s Office Warsaw-Śródmieście in Warsaw, dated 30 December 2024, refusing to initiate an investigation.
________________________________________
STATEMENT OF REASONS
By decision dated 30 December 2024, the District Prosecutor’s Office for Warsaw-Śródmieście refused to initiate an investigation into an incident that occurred on 22 May 2024 in Warsaw, involving suppression of press criticism through the denial of accreditation to journalists from Telewizja Republika S.A. for participation in a meeting of the Council of Ministers and a press conference of the Prime Minister, which could constitute an offence under Article 44(1) of the Press Law Act of 26 January 1984, but was deemed not to meet the criteria of a prohibited act, pursuant to Article 17 § 1(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The complaint against the aforementioned decision was filed by attorney Artur Wdowczyk, acting on behalf of the injured party, requesting its complete revocation. The complainant alleged the following grounds:
1. Violation of procedural law, in particular:
a) Article 17 § 1(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by incorrectly concluding that the act did not bear the characteristics of a criminal offence, despite the potential fulfilment of the statutory elements of an offence under Article 44 of the Press Law Act;
b) Article 297 § 1(1–4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by failing to undertake any investigative measures and thereby failing to determine whether a prohibited act had been committed; failing to clarify the circumstances of the case; failing to collect and preserve evidence to the extent necessary for judicial review — all of which resulted in the refusal to initiate proceedings.
2. Violation of substantive law, specifically Article 44 of the Press Law Act, by wrongly concluding that the act did not meet the elements of a criminal offence.
The prosecutor, in response to the complaint, motioned for its dismissal, asserting that the factual findings made in the course of the preliminary review were correct and based on the evidence available.
The Regional Court finds as follows:
The complaint is well-founded. Consequently, the contested decision must be overturned, and the case returned to the prosecutor for the initiation and conduct of investigative proceedings.
According to Article 297 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the purpose of preparatory proceedings is to determine whether a prohibited act has been committed, whether it constitutes a criminal offence, to identify and apprehend the perpetrator if necessary, and to collect and preserve evidence for the court.
At this stage of the proceedings, it is sufficient to establish a justified suspicion of the commission of a criminal offence. Such suspicion may arise from a subjective belief formed based on the available objective data, which reasonably suggests the occurrence of a specific act. While certainty is not required, there must be a reasonable likelihood that a criminal offence occurred, with the act and its legal classification described based on existing data.
Article 44 of the Press Law Act protects press freedom, the right to express opinions, and the right to publicly criticise. The legally protected interest includes the freedom of the press, which may be infringed by actions hindering or suppressing critical journalism — for example, by restricting journalists’ access to public events or obstructing the gathering of information, particularly when such criticism is expressed in the public interest (cf. J. Sobczak, Press Law, Commentary, Warsaw 2008, LEX).
The denial of accreditation for journalists from Telewizja Republika S.A. — if it was motivated by the content of their reporting — may potentially constitute an act infringing upon the freedom of the press.
An analysis of the available evidence, especially the report of the alleged offence, the content of the contested decision, and the arguments raised by the complainant, leads the Court to conclude that the refusal to initiate proceedings was, at the very least, premature.
Regarding the actions — or lack thereof — taken by the prosecutor, it must be stated that the failure to conduct basic fact-finding activities to determine whether a criminal offence may have occurred was a procedural deficiency. The only action taken by the Prosecutor’s Office was a letter sent on 8 October and 12 December 2024 to the Chancellery of the Prime Minister, inquiring whether Telewizja Republika journalists had submitted an accreditation request to attend the press conference.
No attempt was made to obtain a response or follow up. The prosecutor concluded the case by issuing a refusal to initiate proceedings. Therefore, this decision must be considered premature. The prosecutor failed to recognise the necessity of conducting preliminary inquiries and refrained from taking any further action despite the lack of a reply.
In this context, the body conducting the preparatory proceedings should once again approach the Chancellery of the Prime Minister with an inquiry as to whether journalists from Telewizja Republika submitted an accreditation request, when and in what form the decision was issued, whether such decision was received, and if so, what reasons were given. Furthermore, the prosecutor should determine what rules govern the issuance of media accreditations and whether these rules are being applied fairly and consistently.
In light of the above, the Court finds that the decision to refuse to initiate proceedings was, at the very least, premature. Accordingly, the decision must be overturned and the case remanded to the prosecutor for the purpose of conducting proceedings aimed at fully establishing the factual circumstances.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered as set out in the operative part.