“As long as we remain judges, we will continue to uphold the Constitution. We consider this our absolute and primary duty. We will therefore serve the public to prevent, as far as the law allows, the enforcement of decisions that clearly violate the existing legal order. We will not yield to threats, media attacks, or political pressure,” declared Judge Piotr Schab, the Disciplinary Spokesman for Common Court Judges.
Unlawful Removal of Judge Radzik
Minister of Justice Adam Bodnar removed Judge Przemysław Radzik from his position as Deputy Disciplinary Spokesman for Common Court Judges. The decision was made on legally dubious grounds. Although the law clearly does not allow for such a dismissal, the Ministry adopted an alternative interpretation of the applicable regulations.
Today, Judge Piotr Schab, along with Deputy Disciplinary Spokesmen Judges Michał Lasota and Przemysław Radzik, held a press conference on the matter. Judge Schab emphasized that “they know there is no legal basis for such a decision.”
“Moreover, this is evident from the repeated narrative of the Minister of Justice, who openly admitted in the media that no such legal basis exists. A political will and attempt were made to break the law through a decree—issuing a decision without any legal foundation. I state clearly: we consider this decision to be entirely void and legally ineffective,” he said.
He added, “We cannot take any other stance, despite political pressure, because we swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, which enshrines the principles of legality and the separation of powers.”
“Our Choice Is Clear”
“Our choice is simple. As long as we are judges, we will continue to uphold the Constitution. We see this as our absolute and primary duty. We will serve in the public interest to prevent, as far as the law permits, the enforcement of decisions that blatantly violate the current legal order. We will not yield to threats, media attacks, or political pressure. I also want to point out that we, as judges, see that our country is descending into legal chaos,” Judge Schab remarked.
“This Chaos Is Intentional”
In his view, “this chaos is intentional, because it is the easiest way to build a totalitarian system.”
“Totalitarianism is creeping into Poland, slowly but steadily. We are facing a state-sponsored lawlessness. We are faced with a choice, and for us, it is an unequivocal one. We will obey the law. We consider it our sacred duty, and we will continue to do so regardless of any consequences imposed on us by the state apparatus, which, I believe, may be used against us. Nonetheless, our decision and our stance will not change,” he stressed.
Judge Michał Lasota reminded that “Mr. Adam Bodnar himself admitted that the term of the Disciplinary Spokesman for Common Court Judges and his deputies cannot be legally shortened.”
“This view was also expressed by Mr. Bodnar’s deputy, Judge Mazur. It’s hard to disagree with them, as the Constitution of the Republic of Poland clearly states in Article 2 that Poland is a democratic state ruled by law. According to Article 7, public authorities operate on the basis of and within the limits of the law—this includes the Minister of Justice. He too must act within the bounds of the law. According to Article 10, the system of government is based on the separation and balance of powers,” he pointed out.
“The Decree Is Ineffective”
He emphasized, “It must be noted that Judge Przemysław Radzik, as Deputy Disciplinary Spokesman, is a representative of the judiciary, which is clearly defined in the Constitution. Meanwhile, Minister Bodnar represents the executive branch.”
“The role of the Disciplinary Spokesman for Common Court Judges is governed by the law on the organization of common courts of July 27, 2001. Under Article 112 §3 of that act, the Minister may appoint the Disciplinary Spokesman and two deputies for a four-year term. These are statutory roles, just like the roles of court president or vice-president. You won’t find— and the Ministry acknowledged this in a press release—any legal basis for dismissing them mid-term. In contrast, other functions, such as court president, can be dismissed under Article 27 of the same act,” he explained.
In his view, “the Minister of Justice acted without any legal basis, beyond the scope of the law, and this was admitted publicly.”
“The only reasonable conclusion one can draw is that this decree is simply null and void,” he concluded.