“For a law lecturer, this is a perfect example of a flagrant overreach by the court. I don’t recall another case like this, and there will be plenty to teach students,” wrote Marcin Warchoł (PiS) on Twitter, commenting on today’s verdict regarding Telewizja Republika’s broadcasting license. “The court was not entitled to assess whether the National Broadcasting Council (KRRiT) was right or wrong to grant the licenses; it could only determine whether it did so legally,” emphasized Warchoł, who also teaches law at the University of Warsaw.
The Provincial Administrative Court (WSA) overturned the contested KRRiT decision concerning the broadcasting licenses—among others for TV Republika—and also annulled the resolution from June 21, 2024. The ruling was read out by Judge Barbara Kołodziejczak-Osetek. Warchoł harshly criticized the verdict. He joked that he should even be grateful for it because it is, in his words, a perfect illustration of a court’s overreach—an ideal example to show law students.
“I don’t recall another case like this, and there will be plenty to teach students. In short, administrative courts do not evaluate whether decisions made by authorities are correct, but whether they comply with the law. In other words, the court was not empowered to judge whether KRRiT was right or wrong to grant the licenses; it could only check if it did so legally,” he explained.
“What’s more, the law allows the National Broadcasting Council to make decisions at its own discretion,” Warchoł reminded. “That means the court in this case has overstepped two boundaries: it unlawfully assessed the merits of the decision to grant the license and it undermined the statutory right of the National Broadcasting Council to make discretionary decisions,” he said.
Another issue is the court’s reasoning, which, according to Marcin Warchoł, makes the “verdict a record-breaker for absurdity.”
The judge was unable to point to a single regulation that the National Broadcasting Council violated in the licensing procedure. Instead, she concluded that the Council failed to determine whether—in the context of the war in Ukraine—the two stations could negatively affect national security. She also found that the donations on which these stations rely constitute an overly uncertain source of funding. There is no regulation discriminating against donations, nor any law requiring the Council to examine the war’s impact on a station’s operations. The judge claimed the Council violated the principle of free evaluation of evidence by trusting some forms of evidence and not others. But that is precisely what the free evaluation of evidence entails: the authority may accept certain evidence while rejecting other evidence as unreliable! Warchoł wrote.
Summing up, the lawyer stated that “for obvious reasons, the WSA ruling in Warsaw has little chance of being upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court (NSA), but it will go down in history as one of the most scandalous, politically driven judgments issued by judges.”