The Supreme Administrative Court (NSA) has overturned personnel decisions challenged by an officer of Poland’s Military Intelligence Service (SWW). This unprecedented case concerns not only the unlawful dismissal of an officer from service. The matter is far more complex and controversial, as the court’s reasoning effectively points to the surveillance of an active-duty SWW officer by his own agency.
The case concerns an officer who served in the SWW for nearly a decade. During the recruitment process, psychological testing intended to assess his suitability for service was waived. This was a fully lawful decision made by the then-head of the agency, who was authorized to do so under the regulations in force at the time.
Retaliation and an “Anonymous Psychologist”
The situation changed dramatically following leadership changes within the SWW after 2023. The officer was ordered to undergo psychological testing.
As a result, a document described as a “psychological opinion” was produced, stating that there were contraindications to further service. Based on this document, an order was issued dismissing the officer. After he appealed, the head of the SWW, acting as the appellate authority, upheld the decision.
The case was then brought before the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw, which found the officer’s complaint justified. The court ruled that although ordering psychological verification could have been reasonable, the document used as the basis for dismissal was entirely unreliable.
In its written justification, the court stated directly:
“The document lacks any elements that could indicate it was authored by a person practicing as a psychologist. Moreover, it contains no information whatsoever allowing the identification of the person who prepared it.”
The court concluded that it had been deprived of the ability to verify the key piece of evidence. It was impossible to determine whether the author of the “opinion” was a qualified professional and, consequently, whether there was any factual basis for the challenged decision. The court found it unacceptable to base an administrative decision on a document prepared by a completely anonymized individual and ruled that this constituted a serious violation of the law.
SWW Admits to Monitoring Its Own Officer
The Military Intelligence Service did not accept the ruling and filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court.
In defending its actions, the SWW argued that the alleged psychologist was not an agency officer but a person providing confidential assistance to the service. According to critics of the decision, this explanation implies that an active-duty officer was subjected to intelligence-related activities conducted by his own agency.
In his cassation complaint, the dismissed officer highlighted what he described as the absurdity of the SWW’s explanations:
“The status of the ‘alleged psychologist’ as a person providing assistance in operational and intelligence activities could certainly be confirmed by accounting records indicating the source of the remuneration paid for the examination—most likely from operational funds.”
Devastating Ruling by the Supreme Administrative Court
After reviewing the case, the Supreme Administrative Court strongly criticized the SWW’s actions and reiterated several fundamental legal principles.
First, psychological aptitude assessments conducted during active service are voluntary and require the officer’s consent—consent that was reportedly absent from the case file.
Second, the SWW is authorized to conduct operational-intelligence activities only outside Poland. Activities within the country are permissible solely with the consent of the Military Counterintelligence Service (SKW) or the Internal Security Agency (ABW). The SWW failed to demonstrate that the alleged examination had any connection whatsoever to tasks carried out abroad.
Furthermore, the NSA highlighted what it viewed as a highly troubling issue: the transfer of identifying information about an intelligence officer to an individual outside the service.
Experts and the Officer Express Outrage
The portal sought comment from Colonel Mariusz Kozłowski, a former officer of the Military Counterintelligence Service.
“At no point in either the SWW or the SKW did anyone question the decision of a service chief to admit someone into service,” the officer emphasized.
He added:
“It is terrible that someone was labeled ‘unfit’ and that attempts were made to prove that alleged unfitness.”
Asked about the anonymous psychologist, Kozłowski also pointed to the disclosure of the officer’s personal data.
“There is no situation in which an intelligence source is allowed to know the identities of officers serving in the agency—and it makes no difference whether that source is involved in operational work or not. Intelligence sources are recruited precisely for operational purposes.”
He stressed that responsibility for the situation rests with the agency’s leadership.
The editorial team also contacted the dismissed officer himself.
“I consider the judgment deeply embarrassing for the authority [the SWW] and for the legal culture prevailing within it. I believe the primary reason for these irrational actions was retaliation against me, motivated by very petty personal reasons. The ruling has far-reaching consequences. There will be more to come,” the former officer said.
According to information obtained by the publication, formal notifications regarding the matter are expected to be submitted to prosecutors in the near future.
The editorial staff of Niezalezna.pl identified the officer involved but decided not to disclose his identity due to other ongoing proceedings.