“The Court of Appeal in Warsaw has just ‘blown up’ all cases in which Waldemar Żurek, and earlier Adam Bodnar, delegated judges and publicly commented on proceedings they were handling,” wrote attorney Bartosz Lewandowski on platform X. The legal counsel for Zbigniew Ziobro was commenting on the widely discussed reasoning behind one of the Warsaw court’s recent rulings.
The ruling discussed by Lewandowski concerns a specific criminal case, but it was primarily the oral justification that drew the attention of legal experts. In it, the Court of Appeal addressed circumstances related to the delegation of a judge by the Minister of Justice, as well as public statements concerning the proceedings in question.
According to the court – such circumstances may be relevant when assessing standards of impartiality in a trial and the public perception of the justice system.
In its oral reasoning, the majority of the panel concluded that no absolute grounds for appeal had arisen in the case. It emphasized that the mere fact of participation in a flawed procedure before the National Council of the Judiciary after 2017 does not in itself constitute a circumstance raising doubts about a judge’s authority to adjudicate, independence, or impartiality.
In the court’s view, doubts in this case may lead to an assessment of a lack of impartiality through the prism of Article 41 §1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states that a judge shall be excluded if a circumstance could give rise to justified doubts as to their impartiality in a given case. This translates into a violation of procedural rules constituting a relative ground for appeal, consisting in a breach of procedural provisions if it could have affected the content of the ruling.
The court stressed that, to determine that grounds for questioning impartiality exist, it is not necessary to establish actual bias on the part of the judge. It noted that a judge may be objectively impartial, yet there may still be a justified perception that their impartiality is questionable.
“This is no joke”
Ziobro’s legal counsel has no doubt that the consequences of the court’s reasoning may prove particularly inconvenient for the current leadership of the Ministry of Justice.
“The Court of Appeal in Warsaw has just ‘blown up’ all cases in which Waldemar Żurek, and earlier Adam Bodnar, delegated judges and publicly commented on proceedings they were handling. This is no joke,” the attorney wrote.
In his view, the court has created an argument that could be used by participants in many proceedings conducted after the change of government.
Does the argument return to its authors?
Lewandowski’s post is a clear reference to the long-standing dispute over judicial reforms. Circles associated with the current ruling coalition have repeatedly criticized solutions implemented when the Ministry of Justice was headed by Zbigniew Ziobro.
Now – as the attorney suggests – the reasoning adopted by the Court of Appeal may be applied to actions taken by the former minister’s successors. This concerns both decisions on delegating judges and public statements by ministry representatives regarding specific proceedings.
“It is worth recalling that the trial of Father Michał Olszewski, as well as the female officials Karolina and Urszula, is also being conducted by a judge delegated by Minister Adam Bodnar, as well as by Waldemar Żurek, who had previously been in a personal conflict with Zbigniew Ziobro, which ultimately ended up in court. The appeal against Ziobro’s pre-trial detention is also being handled by a judge delegated by Żurek,” Lewandowski noted.
He added – “which means that in all these cases there is an absolute ground for appeal, because we cannot pretend that both Żurek and Bodnar have not repeatedly spoken publicly about the Justice Fund case and even prejudged the guilt of members of the former leadership.”
Possible consequences for high-profile cases
Lewandowski is not pointing to a purely theoretical issue. His post suggests that the reasoning adopted by the court may become a basis for raising objections also in cases currently being handled by prosecutors and courts.
Therefore – in the view of Ziobro’s legal counsel – the significance of the latest reasoning goes far beyond a single case. What is at stake is whether the standard indicated by the Court of Appeal will be applied in the same way to all governing teams.
