“It is unprecedented, even by the standards of a PRL-era judge, that Judge Skoczkowska allowed herself in a Supreme Court ruling to douse us with a bucket of slander. Without any proceedings, without giving us the chance to defend ourselves, without presenting any charges, she turned us into criminals as they did in the 1950s, which allowed her to conclude that the minister could dismiss us” – said the legal deputy of the disciplinary spokesman, Judge Przemysław Radzik, in an interview with Niezalezna.pl, assessing the ruling issued by Judge Barbara Skoczkowska. “It has no legal significance. Judge Skoczkowska might just as well have written about the Bergamut Islands.”
“Judge of the Chamber of Professional Responsibility Barbara Skoczkowska ruled that the Minister of Justice was authorized to dismiss Judge Piotr Schab from the position of disciplinary spokesman for judges of common courts, as well as his deputies Przemysław Radzik and Michał Lasota” – reported prawo.pl.
In her reasoning, she stated that “the lack of explicit statutory regulation in this regard was the result of intentional legislative action, and that in a democratic state it cannot be the case that a disciplinary spokesman cannot be dismissed under any circumstances.”
Judge Skoczkowska’s ruling contradicts previous Supreme Court decisions, including those involving Judge Wiesław Kozielewicz, former president of the Chamber of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court. “(…) A public authority is obliged to comply with all provisions defining its powers or duties, regardless of their position in the legal system. Competency norms in public law are always strictly interpreted, and authorities cannot act unless explicitly authorized by statute. Therefore, even for this reason alone, one cannot accept the Minister of Justice’s view that he possesses the competence to dismiss the Disciplinary Spokesman for Judges of Common Courts and their deputies, citing a pro-constitutional interpretation or filling a legal gap contrary to the principle of legality. The Minister of Justice’s argument that his statutory competence to appoint the Disciplinary Spokesman and deputies automatically implies the competence to dismiss them is also incorrect.” This reasoning was recalled by the Lawyers for Poland Association.
Meanwhile, Supreme Court judge in retirement Konrad Wytrykowski pointed out that the ruling was issued by a panel that was not legally constituted. “Will there be a reaction from the First President and the Supreme Court disciplinary spokesman?” – he asked on X.
“Judge Skoczkowska might just as well have written about the Bergamut Islands.”
When asked how he assesses Judge Skoczkowska’s ruling, legal deputy disciplinary spokesman Judge Przemysław Radzik said, “It is an expression of Judge Skoczkowska’s frustration. She issued the ruling incidentally in an entirely different case, because the Supreme Court resolution of December 8, 2025, began circulating publicly, clearly stating that the legal disciplinary spokesmen are Judges Schab, Lasota, and Radzik. The Supreme Court allows us to participate in cases, and so it did. Three days ago, in an immunity case, it also allowed us to participate as legal disciplinary spokesmen.”
He also pointed out that the ruling issued by Judge Skoczkowska “was made by a panel unknown to the law. According to the law, the Supreme Court adjudicates in a panel of two judges and a lay judge. Moreover, the ruling issued by this judge concerned procedural matters related to the assignment of the court to hear a disciplinary case. It did not concern the disciplinary spokesmen in any way. Judge Skoczkowska might just as well have written about the Bergamut Islands, or shared memories from the PRL era when receiving a nomination from the Communist State Council.”
According to Judge Radzik, the ruling was issued “so that the other side would have arguments and could appeal to the authority of the Supreme Court. It was about giving Mr. Mazur or Mr. Czeszkiewicz something to write about on social media. As for the disciplinary spokesmen – the ruling is worth only the paper it is written on. It has no legal significance.”
He continued, “It is unprecedented, even by the standards of a PRL-era judge, that Judge Skoczkowska allowed herself in a Supreme Court ruling to douse us with a bucket of slander. She wrote things that have no basis in fact. She claimed we broke the law. Without any proceedings, without giving us the chance to defend ourselves, without presenting any charges, she turned us into criminals as they did in the 1950s, which allowed her to conclude that the minister could dismiss us. This is a case for a lawsuit or a private indictment, or even for criminal proceedings for insulting public officials. I personally do not intend to dignify Judge Skoczkowska with such a lawsuit. Her unprecedented, personalized attack on the legal disciplinary spokesmen is enough to compromise her as a lawyer and judge.”